SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS!
And people thinking Bernie will get more done with the current Senate/House are absolutely insane!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS!
And people thinking Bernie will get more done with the current Senate/House are absolutely insane!
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yeah, I was trying to make this point earlier in the thread, and this does it much better.
A fair amount of the anti-Clinton rhetoric seems to start on a foundation that's flawed as hell, because it suggests the status-quo is anti-progressive, when the last 8 years of political reality very clearly states otherwise.
To argue that Clinton is going to maintain the status-quo is to argue that there will be another 8 years of leftward progression politically and socially, but people making that "status-quo" argument don't seem to realize this.
The argument between Clinton & Sanders shouldn't be an argument between standing still and moving forward. It should be more like "Do I stay in the left on this highway, or do I get in the carpool lane."
That's actually a good point xxxracerxxx.
Considering their political ideals and ideas are so similar, how exactly would Sanders get more done in support of the progressive movement than Clinton?
This is so true. The only time I remember Democrats mobilizing in a mid-term election year was 2006. That was partially Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, but it was also partly a reaction to the disaster that the Bush administration turned into. The last time Democrats seemed to me like they had a coherent national strategy was 2008.
Democrats have to stop relying on presidential candidates to generate "coattails" for other candidates - that has never worked for either party - and they sure as hell need to stop relying on Republicans either screwing up or nominating racists to scare people into voting for them.
Edit: And can we please stop talking like Presidents are dictators? Congress makes the laws, not the President. Further, because we have a federal system in this country, a substantial amount of power rests in state governments. That is really fucking important.
To add to this idea, and disagree a bit, I think one thing we as Americans take into consideration too much is the thought that we HAVE to make a choice and it HAS to be one or the other-- Rep or Dem. Your protesting and voting for a 3rd party is fine, that's your choice, but if say for instance someone decides they like none of the options, it's OK to not choose anything too and abstain. I think abstaining is a perfectly viable option in politics, and too often we get this idea that we HAVE to go vote, just go do it, make your opinion heard. It's this idea that if we get more people in the polling booth, they'll select OUR candidate-- be it Rep or Dem-- and it'll be one more vote for whatever you want to happen.
In reality, I would expect that if we had an option to abstain on the ballot in protest of the candidate options, and forced people to vote (or even opened it up so that it was easier to vote) that we'd wind up with a decent percentage abstaining openly rather than just simply saying "I had work and don't care to vote".
Amibguous Cad
Member
Well, you've accurately identified why I'm going to be voting Hillary.
But I think people are underestimating the importance of having dealbreakers in voting. I'm guessing that there's absolutely no way at least some of the people in this thread voting for Trump, even in a lesser of two evils kind of way. You just never vote for a racist, you can't bring yourself to pull the lever for the guy. So imagine bizzaro world where Bernie takes the populist rhetoric up a significant amount of notches and is enthusiastically agreeing with Trump about the border wall, abut immigration being a Koch-backed plot, relying on vile racial stereotypes to push his message, and is also in favor of a moratorium on Muslim immigration into the US. Basically, a Sanders that's as bad on race as Trump is. But he's still in favor of socialized medicine and all that jazz. Do you hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil, or do you just refuse to participate altogether? I think either is a morally defensible choice.
So what you have to understand is that the pacifist left is basically in the same position. Obama was every bit as hawkish as Bush, and Clinton looks like she'll be even more hawkish than Obama was. If she's the nominee, she's going to be killing a lot of people.
And sure - I can play that rhetorical game all day long. You privileged first worlders never think about the vulnerable people you kill in other countries. Your anti-racism is a hoax, if you do not give two flying fucks about the brown corpses the US military is producing on a daily basis. If yall were as woke as you claimed to be, you would never even consider voting for someone who literally believes that she ought to have the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere in the world, US citizen or not, without judicial oversight solely on her whim.
But I won't, because that's incredibly unfair and people can have different priorities than me. I just wish yall would appreciate the symmetry.
jakonovski
Member
Now this might be my ignorance, but how is SCOTUS relevant considering that it's all dependent on dumb luck of when a judge retires or kicks the bucket?
As far as Sanders getting nothing done, that's a function of the country's political climate. In a Sanders wins all climate I believe he would get shit done. But what you have is America not wanting those changes, out of whatever reason, so you get the not quite so radical Democrat candidate.
As far as Sanders getting nothing done, that's a function of the country's political climate. In a Sanders wins all climate I believe he would get shit done. But what you have is America not wanting those changes, out of whatever reason, so you get the not quite so radical Democrat candidate.
Smart AND fine!
The "fuck the status quo" argument would have been a fine one to make in '08, when we were following the Bush years. But not following Obama. Supporting the status quo isn't exactly a bad thing when the current status quo, for quite a few people, represents real progress
...this has to be some sort of sarcasm that I'm missing.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Justices tend to 'strategically' retire as, unfortunately, it's still quite polarized on many issues.
The liberal leaning justices would need to stay seated through a Cruz or Trump presidency, and hope they can survive it. Also, the conservative judges would likely retire so someone younger could take the spot, or so they can get off the bench.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I completely agree with this. While both sides are absolutely not equal, the moral brinksmanship that is marking politics IS a bipartisan problem that cuts across party lines.
Nah, the latter choice in your example is not morally defensive when looking at the big picture. No one issue CAN be a deal breaker, because one of these 2 are becoming president without a damn thing you can do about. All you can do is specify who you would rather NOT have, and for someone that holds bernie ideals and standards there is all but one choice. Anyone saying otherwise is getting too emotional and seeing things with a very closed view
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
Did you miss Scalia's death? The Supreme Court is absolutely relevant to this election cycle as there is a vacancy on the bench. We'll probably have to wait until after the presidential election due to the obstructionists in the Senate preventing our current President from fulfilling his constitutional duties.
I'd vote Trump in over Cruz in a heartbeat if those were my choices. He wants to get his sister on the SCOTUS and that's probably a better outcome for, at the very least, abortion rights than anyone Cruz would choose.
America has a written constitution. The Supreme Court interprets that constitution, and it has the power to nullify a law if it finds that law violates the U.S. constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court is enormously powerful, and enormously political, even though in theory it is supposed to be a non-partisan body.
Conservatives in this country generally want to find laws that limit the power of business interests, such as regulations and campaign finance laws, unconstitutional. Meanwhile, they generally want to uphold laws that restrict the rights of woman to have abortions or gay people to get married, among other things. Liberals/Progressives/leftists generally want the opposite. Conservatives on the Supreme Court also recently limited laws protecting the rights of minorities to vote in this country from attempts to suppress their votes at the state and local level. Such attempts have long histories in this country in this country.
Presidents generally have the opportunity to nominate 1-3 justices during the terms. As a result, whether a president nominates a conservative of liberal judge is life or death issue for many people. Obviously, Democrats would nominate liberal judges, and Republicans would nominate conservative justices.
StopMakingSense
Member
Do realize though that the gerrymandering situation got even worse as 2010 flipped a lot of state houses red just in time for census-based redrawing of congressional districts, making the problem even worse. 2010 was particularly disasterous due to this. People staying home for the midterm elections that year had a severe impact on politics in this country.
jakonovski
Member
Well that makes sense, as a party duality thing. It would be far less important which Democrat is president, as long as it is one.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
It's pretty much a meme at this point (the SCOTUS issue in particular). I mean, there is objectively no rational argument for it, so it makes sense that we aren't seeing one.
Amibguous Cad
Member
Well, he's certainly got a better record than Obama or Clinton on foreign policy and the surveillance state. He voted against the Patriot Act (and was the only senator to do so), voted against the Iraq war, and had some very strong rhetoric about the Libyan intervention (which he never got a chance to vote on, because there are no checks on the executive's power to wage war anymore). On the other hand, he has said that he'll continue the drone program, albeit at a significantly reduced level, and voted to intervene in Kosovo, so he's not perfect.
Still, while his domestic agenda is dead on arrival, he can do some real good in making our foreign policy less moustache-twirlingly evil.
LowEndTorque
Member
If you can't vote for something you believe in then the next best thing you can do is vote against an utter disaster.
Mercury Fred
Banned
All Bernie supporters who refuse to vote for Hillary in the general pls respond.
Prior to Scalia's passing the worry was that if one of the liberal justices were to leave under a Republican POTUS, the court would get stacked conservative.
There are a range of issues that can affect like women's rights, legal weed, healthcare, marriage equality, etc.. The restrictions Texas has placed on access to abortions is being challenged right now so these issues are important.
The only way to fight SOCTUS rulings is if the House, Senate, and POTUS decide to change a law. So unless the Legislative and Executive branches choose to override something, the Judicial branch can interpret the existing laws however they want. This wouldn't be a problem if the Legislative branch weren't a giant clusterfuck. Even if the dems controlled the House and Senate, it'll still be a massive headache to get anything passed, especially controversial issues like abortion.
If progressive/liberal issues are important to you, it really doesn't matter whether Sanders or Clinton are president. A Republican will make SOCTUS conservative and make it so future Democratic presidents won't be able to have a progressive agenda.
1. "moustache-twirlingly evil" is a pretty unfair depiction of U.S. foreign policy. It has major, major flaws but I really don't think Obama's foreign policy is borne from a place of malice or, in fact, is even a net negative on the world. Could it be better? Of course. Dramatically so. But consider how long it took from Clinton's presidency until OEF/OIF were in full swing. Clinton and Obama might look like interventionists compared to Sanders but we're talking about a comparatively microscopic difference when compared relative to literally every GOP candidate.
Their most moderate foreign policy candidate with any viability was John "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain.
2. Kosovo is, to me, a massive black stain on Sanders' voting record. Milosevic was an expansionist power-hungry dictator committed to ethnic cleansing not just in Serbia but in all territories he could occupy and execute his plan on. He was indicted on a list of war crimes as long as the day is long and the only reason he didn't get convicted was because he died during the trial. If that isn't a call for righteous action I don't know what the hell is.
There is a quote about Margaret Thatcher that got some play after her death: "She was a friend to Pinochet and an Enemy to Nelson Mandela, that is all you need to know about the woman"
I think that is a valid lens with which to view all foreign policy actions. Who are you choosing to align yourself with. The fear of destabilization and the turmoil that results cannot freeze us into inaction as it pertains to active dictators. Doing so begets additional dictatorial regimes. It is the responsibility of elected officials to understand that obligation and to have the courage to act on it.
veloxStrix
Banned
Isn't Sanders basically an Independent on the Democratic side? I'm not sure how voting against the "establishment" is any less of a real reason to vote than voting over education as a right or racial equality. People have different priorities. At the end of the day, belittling them for that probably isn't going to do much to change their minds.
He is and I don't think anyone should have a problem with people voting for Sanders in the DNC Primary.
But he's going to lose the primary in the imminent future. Then you have a choice. You can:
1. Not vote, willingly disenfranchising yourself.
2. Vote for Trump - you're actively encouraging a racist political platform.
3. Vote for 3rd party - you and a few thousand other people do this, no one ever cares.
4. Vote for Clinton - you help make sure Trump loses and hopefully send a strong message across the nation that politics of (overt) hate will not be tolerated.
That's about the gist of it. Choose the option that best suits what you want form your government, even #1 if you want. But don't act like picking #1 is a "protest" of some kind. The message you send with #1 is "I'm easily discarded".
#3 is at least defensible, though it does indicate an inability to step outside your own worldview, make the best choice for humanity at large, and act upon it.
I oscillate between the NDP and Liberals, and Mulcair tried to more the party to the center while Trudeau moved to the left. And our parties are at a different standard, we already have the things Sanders has wants. I mean, just look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOf6hXGx6M
Our Conservative party was upholding something the US Democrats have yet to achieve. "Evil socialism, its must be stopped!"
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
If you were to believe that Trump is actually anti-establishment, maybe. But if you believe that, please PM me for some exciting investment opportunities.
Trump says it himself all the time: "I know [politicians] better than anyone." Of course he does, because he socializes with them and fucking donates to them. Like the Clintons, for example.
This notion that Trump wouldn't immediately fall in with the GOP establishment after election is hilarious. I see both Bernie supporters and Freepers talking about how money and power have corrupted their parties and how mad they are at the politicians. And then some of those people turn around and claim we should elect Donald Trump, the guy who constantly talks (and exaggerates) about how rich he is, who once tried to trademark the phrase, "You're fired", and who parties with and donates to the corrupt politicians? That's not serious.
After election, Trump would quickly settle in with the GOP. Many of their political and legislative goals are the same, and Trump loves money and power. He'd be right at home and they'd quickly forget the sparring during the campaign.
Even if he was anti-establishment, he has promised to do things like grow the military, expand libel laws to sue the press, use torture and commit war crimes, cut taxes for the rich, repeal Obamacare, ban Muslims, deport all illegals, who openly encourages violence against protesters, etc. For a Bernie supporter to vote for that can in no way be done in good conscience. No way. Or it means you care more about whether a candidate is (seemingly) anti-establishment than who the fuck they actually are, and what they think about stuff and what they plan on doing when they're in what is probably the most powerful political position in the world.
Trump isn't anti-establishment. If you believe that, you have fallen for the Trumpster's antics just like the conservatives who think he is a humble Christian whose favorite book is the bible.
lastflowers
Banned
I'm voting green, I would have voted Blue for Bernie. K?
Will continue to vote during midterms to help the cause as well.
Melkezadek
Member
So you don't care about SCOTUS, got it.
This is such a great post. Politics is a game of inches and compromise, you'll rarely ever get everything you want and progress will be slow. It's not fair, but that's how the world works.
If your candidate didn't win you have the right to be disappointed, but if you don't vote for the next best thing you're hurting the cause you're fighting for.
Progress is slow, depressingly, but it's always constant. If you fight for a mile but fail, you should take an inch instead. The sort of widespread changes across the board Sanders is proposing are never gonna happen all at once.
The ACA is just a first step towards Universal Health Care, but you have to break these things up into bite sized pieces the opposition can swallow one at a time.
lastflowers
Banned
I do, I just don't think that my vote will matter in washington. If i was still in Pittsburgh or Texas, I might vote blue still.
I also write handwritten letters to the mayor on occasion, though that's only happened in Texas and Washington.
The biggest problem I have with this thread is how useless your rhetorical strategies seem to be. It's humorous to read through.
Melkezadek
Member
I get the point that you're trying to highlight your efforts, but it doesn't really answer the question at all. I don't get why you wouldn't vote for Hilary, who actually has a shot at choosing the SCOTUS you claim to care about.
Writing letters to the mayor, while highly admirable, doesn't have anything to do with the importance of deciding who will appoint SCOTUS.
Nice edit though. But your pettiness is pretty transparent. How you think to pat yourself on the back as you throw change at the homeless person on the street and go "See, I helped."
Done with thread though. All arguments have already been argued. I can't be refreshing my phone every 5 minutes for this shit.
If people in California thought that it would never have flipped from red to blue
jakonovski
Member
This thread is really not interested in Hillary victory either, because none of this salt is going to change anyone's mind. Pots and kettles.
Not 100% accurate, as a sanders supporter I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for hillary, even convinced my republican mother to do the same - after reading this thread, I was informed I was a misogynist, held white privilege for being apprehensive about hillary. At this point I'm saying fuck it, the clintonites are just as insufferable as trump supporters, and I will just stay home and sleep through election night.
Some real assholes in this thread - a prime example on how not to convince others to see your point of view. I more than quadrupled my ignore list
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I haven't been watching the thread, but most of GAF is assholes. And this sort of antagonistic topic is just going to draw them in.
That said, you should still vote, I think you'll regret it if you don't.
Best to just stay out tbh
Maybe it's simple proximity but this election cycle has seemed especially toxic. I voted Sanders but have been prepared to vote Clinton since day one. It's crazy the amount of vitriol thrown everywhere in threads like these.
At least write-in for Bernie. Ron Paul got 0.02% of the vote via write-ins, I would like to see how much Bernie gets. Would be an interesting statistic.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Wait, so you're going to act against your own interests solely to spite people you've never met because someone, somewhere, could be talking shit about a strawman that happens to fit your general description in only the loosest of ways?
That's all it takes to shake you from your decision to do the right thing?
Why? What are you getting out of that?
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Yes, the "I value my ideologies more than the health of the nation" statistic.
America doesn't do third parties at the presidential level and anyone who votes for one is actively working against the ideals they hold closest. So infuriating.
Dash_Riprock
Member
He gets to act all high and mighty with his "haha I told ya so!"s if Trump wins?
I'm sorry you feel this way, I completely understand how it feels from the other side, people calling me an asshole for voting against my interests as a gay individual/helping corporate America and all that jazz. But tensions are high and I understand where that is coming from. I don't think anyone from either side is purposefully trying to be an asshole - it's just raw passion. I hope you'll be able to look at this a bit differently when we get closer to the GE but I wouldn't ever want to force that onto someone else either (though I'm sure I have at some point in the past). Best wishes.
not psycho
Member
What voting system would you put in place?
In theory, a 2-round playoff voting system isn't that bad (we'd need to get rid of things like superdelegates and brokered conventions to make it fair).
The problem is America is infected (with well placed prods from the government) with extreme fatalism when it comes to voting. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920! And since then we have had efforts to prevent women and minorities from voting.
Why are we so convinced voting can't do anything, when (1) it hasn't been that long since people could vote, (2) there are still efforts to stop people from voting, and (3) people don't vote. Trump proves that when a group goes out to vote it can mess up the plans of a party.
But only 36.4% of eligible voters turned out in 2014. 40.9% voted in 2010. We aren't voting and, oddly enough, the group that did vote got their people in... even though those people were crazy.
I guess we're all staying home to protest the voting system (despite not proposing a new one, and not being able to explain why the current one is impossible to work with). If we wait long enough it will fix itself. That's why 2/3 of the country doesn't vote.
If you can't vote for Hillary even after reading things like this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=198535810&postcount=5306... at least vote for the other stuff.
And at least vote for a third party. The demographics alone can cause a shift. If young people don't vote then what young people believe is less important. Incidentally, 80% of young eligible voters didn't show up in 2010.
Well I mean he's not going to vote anyways. In that position, I would at least do a write-in, as I place high value on the right to vote.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I will just say that the ability to abstain in the first place is a privileged thing. Even if I thought that Hillary was a horrid candidate, I wouldn't choose to abstain because of the risk it poses to me to allow the chance of an even worse candidate to beat her. I'm not going to claim that a person is bad for abstaining or whatever, just that they should reflect upon what abstaining can ultimately cause to happen.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Throw away your voice because message board posters hurt your feelings brehs
Voting for Trump at least means someone is willing to take action to back up their hate and ignorance; not voting at all especially out of spite is just sucker moves
Voting for Trump at least means someone is willing to take action to back up their hate and ignorance; not voting at all especially out of spite is just sucker moves
GuessMyUserName
Member
I mean I generally don't like the influx of people shoving privilege talk into everything these days, but it's hard to counter it by just demonstrating your privilege further. <_<
Dash_Riprock
Member
Its this kind of "I'm not getting my way/people criticizing my decision so I'm rage quitting!" mentality that makes no one take young voters seriously.
Grow up, people.
Grow up, people.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
- Status