Support NeoGAF

[Mgoblue201]

The legality of gay marriage may no longer be in doubt, but the same cannot be said for gay rights. And in the very unlikely event of a Trump victory, it would be a huge setback for gay rights, because it likely portends Republican victories everywhere (also, Trump's past record is no indication of how he would actually govern; he obviously feels no compunction to be ideologically consistent). Clinton may have been slow to embrace gay marriage, but there is little doubt that a Clinton presidency, when coupled with big Democrat victories everywhere, would be the vastly preferable alternative.

Furthermore, too many critics ignore Clinton's record as a progressive. I actually think she's more credible than Sanders on certain issues, like financial sector reform. I don't care how much Sanders castigates the financial system if he can't even correctly diagnose the problem. Maybe Sanders would make inequality and financial reform the centerpiece of his presidency, whereas Clinton may not, but Clinton, in my opinion, has a much better grasp of the issues. Even if her message is carefully tuned to appeal to liberal audiences (I don't believe her views are actually that calculated, despite the common criticism of her), presidential candidates generally try to enact the platform they run on. You would have to believe that Clinton is uniquely mendacious to say things like this. I think she clearly isn't.

 

[Drek]

The best thing about this election cycle is that it showed at least on one side that "the good old boy" mentality won't fly anymore.

Whereas the DEMs seem to still have their candidate pre picked, and HRC dodged another "Change" candidate.

1. She got her ass rolled in '08 by a "change" candidate. Quite the pre-picked selection process then, huh?

2. Hillary Clinton is crushing Sanders in actual people who showed up to vote in the Democratic primary. How was that "pre-picked"?

 

[benjipwns]

The one thing Bernie is 100% right is that it's all about the money. Corporate America is quite willing to let social and rights issues go whichever way, but the flow of money needs to stay as it is. The capitalist ideology of accelerating growth can at this point be only supported by cannibalizing the lower and middle classes.

And yet Bernie is as much a 100% supporter of the capitalist system as Hillary is.

 

[jakonovski]

And yet Bernie is as much a 100% supporter of the capitalist system as Hillary is.

America cannot be anything but capitalist, but Bernie is the only one who seems willing to give up on what I can only describe as exceptionalism. He's straight up referencing nordic style social democracy.

 

[Drek]

Quite, and as reflected by this very thread the one establishment candidate is afraid of a mutiny in the ranks. It's not a big chance, but it exists.

The one thing Bernie is 100% right is that it's all about the money. Corporate America is quite willing to let social and rights issues go whichever way, but the flow of money needs to stay as it is. The capitalist ideology of accelerating growth can at this point be only supported by cannibalizing the lower and middle classes.

Except he's not and "Corporate America" doesn't actually work that way. HERE is an article where Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, says he'd be willing to pay 10% more in personal income tax, no qualifiers. He goes on to say that his problem with government taxation is misappropriation of funds AWAY form things like roads and education (implicitly calling out defense spending).

He has previously made a similar argument in stating that the nation's highest earners would gladly exchange a higher personal tax rate for a lower corporate tax rate. Seeings how he manages a good chunk of the money held by the wealthiest people in the U.S. this is something he likely has a good understanding of.

This is the core failing of Sanders' economic policies. He demonizes corporations because they're the source of economic inequality and are used as mouthpieces for personal political views. That isn't a problem with the corporations, it is a problem with how we as a nation allow corporations to be run.

If instead you remove Citizens United (something both he and Clinton support), taking away the political platform from corporations, lower corporate taxes, and off-set the difference (and then some) with top earner income tax increases and estate tax increases you could make legitimate economic change in this county that benefits everyone.

Anyone with a 401K or investment portfolio has a stake in corporate success in America.

 

[jakonovski]

I'm not looking at what corporations and their leaders say, I'm looking at what they do. They have power and as a whole have used it for what can at this point only be described as evil.

 

[benjipwns]

He's straight up referencing nordic style social democracy.

Exactly, he's of the same social fascist flavor as Hillary. Someone who wants to halt any true liberation of the working class by making soothing but empty promises of trickle down riches instead of a realistic solution to establishing a modern democratic state.

 

[jakonovski]

Exactly, he's of the same social fascist flavor as Hillary. Someone who wants to halt any true liberation of the working class by making soothing but empty promises of trickle down riches instead of a realistic solution to establishing a modern democratic state.

Welp, I guess this is where our paths diverge, seeing as how I'm a fairly traditional nordic moderate leftist, who has on multiple occasions voted for social democrats.

 

[Drek]

I'm not looking at what corporations and their leaders say, I'm looking at what they do. They have power and as a whole have used it for what can at this point only be described as evil.

Then you fundamentally fail to understand the concept of a capitalist representative republic.

Also, what evil? Goddamn the use of that word in this thread is some illogical bullshit.

 

[benjipwns]

Welp, I guess this is where our paths diverge, seeing as how I'm a fairly traditional nordic moderate leftist, who has on multiple occasions voted for social democrats.

The nordic model birthed by social "democracy" fascism is a hard-right effort to prop up the failed capitalist mode of production and prevent the formation of the class consciousness necessary to permanently destroy the authoritarian bourgeois society and establish a permanent people's democratic dictatorship.

The fact that someone who is as anti-democracy as Bernie Sanders is considered to be center to center-left shows just how much Western neoliberal social fascism has distorted the First World's view of reality.

 

[jakonovski]

Ok I'm about to go cycling so no time to say anything smart, but I'm being simultanously lambasted by a capitalist and a radical leftist. Must be doing something right.

 

[dramatis]

.

Benji stahp

That guy's simple black/white good/evil thinking can't deal with you

 

[benjipwns]

Benji stahp

Come see the bourgeois violence inherent in the system!

 

[TyrantII]

I have zero worries about her in a debate against Trump. He might walk off stage 4 minutes in after the first salvo from her.

Yup. The optics are going to be terrible.

He can't little Hillary her. He's going to have to actually debate instead of attack.

 

[Azzanadra]

1. People said that Obama was going to get assassinated.

2. That's a rather simplistic perspective - sure, Trump getting nominated could hasten "real change and revolution", but at at what cost, and to whom?

Well I mean the idea is that its going to happen anyways- so why not get it over with than prolong this shitshow and spare your children and grandchildren the trouble?

 

[El Odio]

The far end of the prosanders, anti-clinton group are really going all out now: https://www.change.org/p/fec-open-an-investigation-into-hillary-clinton-for-electronic-voter-fraud

 

[benjipwns]

The far end of the prosanders, anti-clinton group are really going all out now: https://www.change.org/p/fec-open-an-investigation-into-hillary-clinton-for-electronic-voter-fraud

These people don't realize Pauline Kael was making a joke, not debunking statistical analysis.

 

[Abounder]

I'll vote for whoever wins the race between Hillary releasing her Wall Street transcripts vs Trump showing off his tax returns

I'm not asking for much, really.

 

[sphagnum]

Ok I'm about to go cycling so no time to say anything smart, but I'm being simultanously lambasted by a capitalist and a radical leftist. Must be doing something right.

Benji's not a leftist, he's just using Stalin era rhetoric for fun.

(Though there's truth to what he's jokingly saying)

 

[jakonovski]

Benji's not a leftist, he's just using Stalin era rhetoric for fun.

(Though there's truth to what he's jokingly saying)

Well ok then, I must admit his point eludes me. It has become hard to figure out which poster is for real and which one is just...funning around.

 

[The Adder]

Well I mean the idea is that its going to happen anyways- so why not get it over with than prolong this shitshow and spare your children and grandchildren the trouble?

What is "some dummb shit only white people can afford to say"

 

[benjipwns]

Benji's not a leftist, he's just using Stalin era rhetoric for fun.

(Though there's truth to what he's jokingly saying)

Exactly what I would expect from a Revisionist Trotskyite First Worldist. Trying to suppress the voice of the Real Left.

What's next, an attack on North Korea's unprecedented success against ceaseless Western imperialism?

 

[CenturionKei]

What is "some dummb shit only white people can afford to say"

Apparantley to people like them, White people are the eternel problem and a scourge upon America. I wouldnt go far into it.

 

[sphagnum]

Exactly what I would expect from a Revisionist Trotskyite First Worldist. Trying to suppress the voice of the Real Left.

What's next, an attack on North Korea's unprecedented success against ceaseless Western imperialism?

Nice try, Dengist scum, masquerading as an Anti-Revisionist while slyly reverting to bourgeois oppression! I however adhere to the glorious and scientifically infallible path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Hoxhaism, and welcome also any comrades that uphold Maoism-Third Worldism in their struggle to create the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed/Exploited Nations.

 

[shintoki]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Well ok then, I must admit his point eludes me. It has become hard to figure out which poster is for real and which one is just...funning around.

Benji is a libertarian who mostly seems to see every political party as a morass of contradictions, hypocrisies, and arbitrary rhetorical boundaries, so he takes the piss out of them. He's the secret cream of PoliGAF.

 

[breakYODAy]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

Excellent articulation here.

 

[Link]

The far end of the prosanders, anti-clinton group are really going all out now: https://www.change.org/p/fec-open-an-investigation-into-hillary-clinton-for-electronic-voter-fraud

I guess the political spectrum really does come full circle.

 

[T'Zariah]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

The moment he signed up to be a member of the Democrats, yes, yes he did have an obligation. It's an unwritten, but universally followed rule/custom after a hard fought primary.

 

[benjipwns]

Nice try, Dengist scum, masquerading as an Anti-Revisionist while slyly reverting to bourgeois oppression! I however adhere to the glorious and scientifically infallible path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Hoxhaism, and welcome also any comrades that uphold Maoism-Third Worldism in their struggle to create the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed/Exploited Nations.

Another typical response from someone who denies that the findings of Bob Avakian's scientific synthesis has solved all contradictions and restored communism as a vital and viable force winning victories against global imperialism, racism and sexism.

Benji is a libertarian

Those kooks support the legitimacy of the state.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

He should and he will help. Bernie has done a great job inspiring millennials to get engaged in the political process. They have established a cult following around him. He needs to steer them to do the right thing. Bernie has said he will support Clinton if he's not the nominee. Bernie has also said he and Hillary are infinitely better than any Republican. Therefore, he will and should make sure his voting base supports Hillary in the general.

Those kooks support the legitimacy of the state.

That's a Libertarian, not a libertarian.

 

[Future]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

"At least it's not trump" should matter. That is if sanders voters don't want set backs to everything sanders and they stand for. Assuming those voters truly stand for anything.

This "I didn't get my perfect candidate and don't want to compromise and everyone needs to do work to convince me" attitude is exactly what the OP is talking about. That screams inability to see the big picture, and in all honesty those votes will barely matter because that base is so fickle they could just stop voting at any time, cuz truly they never gave a shit in the first place

 

[A Link to the Past]

Well I mean the idea is that its going to happen anyways- so why not get it over with than prolong this shitshow and spare your children and grandchildren the trouble?

And imagine what could happen to people right now if Trump becomes president. Like, this actively could put people's lives at risk. I have no idea how to better express that to you than that that there are consequences to trying to rush things.

 

[googleplex]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

If these voters can only be convinced by pie in the sky promises, about free College, breaking up banks and "fuck the establishment" . Then these voters were a lost cause to begin with.

Yes it's Clinton job to state her case and try to persuade them that she'd make a good president. But it's the Voters responsibility to be reasonable.

 

[Wall]

If these voters can only be convinced by pie in the sky promises, about free College, breaking up banks and "fuck the establishment" . Then these voters were a lost cause to begin with.

Yes it's Clinton job to state her case and try to persuade them that she'd make a good president. But it's the Voters responsibility to be reasonable.

The Democrats have to start to appeal to these voters if they want to actually win elections in the future. After all, the one certainty is that people age. Democrats are supposed to win elections in the future because they are the party that appeals more to younger voters. If they can't in fact appeal to those voters, then they are fucked. Holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to vote isn't an option. Maybe start by not dismissing the policies these voters vote for as "pie in the sky"?

On that note, people in this thread who argue that only incremental change is possible in our political system really to need to think about the implication of what they are saying. If only incremental change were possible, then electing Trump or another Republican to the Presidency would not be a big deal. In fact, that is not the case.

What really happens, when you look back over the history of this country, is that is appears that we go through periods of stasis punctuated by shorter periods of rapid change. These change periods occur when one party is able to control all three branches of our government, or different factions within the parties are able to create a coalition to get enough votes to push through changes in the House and Senate. These periods are rare, but they do occur.

Right now, our political system is perched on a knife's edge. The Republicans control both the House and the Senate, as well as the houses of most state governments. If the Republicans were able to assume control of the executive branch, they would indeed enact substantial changes. Even the brief period when Bush II had a Republican house and Senate coincided with radical or attempts at radical changes. Both the Republican party and the Republican presidential candidates are much more radical than even Republicans during Bush II's time.

Right now pretty much every politician or political group on the national stage, including the presumptive nominees of both parties, has negative approval ratings. That indicates the majority of voters aren't happy with how things are going and that substantial change is desired. Right now, it appears that the best Democrats can hope for is to hold on to the Presidency and maybe capture the Senate for two years until Republicans retake it again in 2008. That basically means preserving a status quo of constant political crises and general political dysfunction at both the federal and state level. That is not normal or sustainable.

 

[Big Baybee]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

Sanders and Clinton both basically have the same goals, just different ways of getting to it. If you are a sanders fan and can't see that, then I guess Bernie is literally the only candidate you have or will ever vote for in your life.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The Democrats have to start to appeal to these voters if they want to actually win elections in the future. After all, the one certainty is that people age. Democrats are supposed to win elections in the future because they are the party that appeals more to younger voters. If they can't in fact appeal to those voters, then they are fucked. Holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to vote isn't an option. Maybe start by not dismissing the policies these voters vote for as "pie in the sky"?

On that note, people in this thread who argue that only incremental change is possible in our political system really to need to think about the implication of what they are saying. If only incremental change were possible, then electing Trump or another Republican to the Presidency would not be a big deal. In fact, that is not the case.

What really happens, when you look back over the history of this country, is that is appears that we go through periods of stasis punctuated by shorter periods of rapid change. These change periods occur when one party is able to control all three branches of our government, or different factions within the parties are able to create a coalition to get enough votes to push through changes in the House and Senate. These periods are rare, but they do occur.

Right now, our political system is perched on a knife's edge. The Republicans control both the House and the Senate, as well as the houses of most state governments. If the Republicans were able to assume control of the executive branch, they would indeed enact substantial changes. Even the brief period when Bush II had a Republican house and Senate coincided with radical or attempts at radical changes. Both the Republican party and the Republican presidential candidates are much more radical than even Republicans during Bush II's time.

Right now pretty much every politician or political group on the national stage, including the presumptive nominees of both parties, has negative approval ratings. That indicates the majority of voters aren't happy with how things are going and that substantial change is desired. Right now, it appears that the best Democrats can hope for is to hold on to the Presidency and maybe capture the Senate for two years until Republicans retake it again in 2008. That basically means preserving a status quo of constant political crises and general political dysfunction at both the federal and state level. That is not normal or sustainable.

People aren't arguing that huge, quick change can't happen. People are pointing out what can happen as a result of a huge, quick change.

 

[lednerg]

So basically this thread's got no logical conclusion until November. Just non-stop strawmanning of Bernie supporters. Don't we already have a PoliGAF OT?

 

[Trouble]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

Yes, it is. He is now a member of the Democratic party running for the nomination. He is expected, as a member of the party, to endorse the nominee if it's not him. The same expectation is on Clinton if Bernie gets the nom. That's how this works.

If he doesn't, he shows that he only joined the party for personal gain and doesn't give a shit about the platform. Thankfully, he won't light that match because Bernie is not a huge asshole.

 

[A Link to the Past]

So basically this thread's got no logical conclusion until November. Just non-stop strawmanning of Bernie supporters. Don't we already have a PoliGAF OT?

If you think that the people who are expressing to Sanders supporters that harm that abstention can cause is strawmanning, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[lednerg]

If you think that the people who are expressing to Sanders supporters that harm that abstention can cause is strawmanning, then I don't know what to tell you.

Why are you only expressing that to Sanders supporters? Also, it's March.

Also, there's more strawmanning going on that just the topic itself. Apparently I'm a naive ideologue following pie in the sky schemes that are impossible to achieve, while Hillary voters have a monopoly on practicality.

 

[jakonovski]

Why are you only expressing that to Sanders supporters? Also, it's March.

That's a thing right there: the message of go vote also means more votes for Trump. Which is precisely as it should be.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Let's say that Hillary does harm to LGBT people. Let's quantify it. Hillary causes a net harm of 1 to LGBT people. Trump, meanwhile, does a net 10. Remember how I talked about LGBT people having to settle? Well, Hillary's an example of that, at least in the scenario where we assume that she will ultimately harm LGBT people. She may not be the best candidate for the advancement of LGBT rights, but she's preferable to a candidate who panders to a base that hates LGBT people and who may set back LGBT rights by decades. Again, people are just asking you to be honest and acknowledge what can happen if choose not to vote - it can mean that Trump wins, and the people with the most to lose, lose. You speak of wanting this to be what causes politics to change, but you need to consider how changing it through destruction and chaos can hurt, even kill, people. No one can force you to vote for Hillary, but we can make the point that abstention is a privilege, not a right, that many do not have access to.

People respond to incentives. Politicians are people. They do not support policies out Of the Goodness of their own hearts. They do it because it will get them elected (and if they were not the kind of person to do this, they would not have risen as high as having a shot at a presidential nomination)

So here's my question: if supporting the Iraq war doesn't cost Hillary any votes, why should she oppose the next Iraq war? If jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon long after it was clear where the wind was blowing doesn't cost Hillary any votes, why should she try to get out in front on trans issues? If the anti-globalization left just keeps voting democrat because they're the only game in town, what incentive does Hillary have not to support NAFTA and CAFTA and the TPP? (note I'm actually pretty pro trade, but yeah, this is another place where I can totally see someone of a certain moral bent deciding abstaining is the best way to advance leftist goals in the long run)

this is tea party talk, dewd

Eh, they stole it from the left in the first place. " Heighten the contradictions" was Marx, after all. Lots of People on both sides who are hoping things get bad enough to start a violent revolution. Old-style communists opposed welfare state expansion and stuff like the 40-hour workweek because they were worried it was going to leave the working classes oppressed but at just below the pain threshold to agitate for violent revolution.

I don't think it will matter. Some things are just too hard to roll back when they're culturally accepted.

Besides, Romer, Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell all happened under a "conservative"/Republican dominated Court. Which helps my optimism.

Basically. I think the legal side of gay rights is pretty close to sewn up - stare decisis means all of that is going to be safe for decades to come, and it's hard to see how the right will be able to do the abortion death by a million cuts thing with gay rights, or if they've got the stomach to do it as bad as they got beat on the issue. I'm disappointed that there doesn't seem to be a push for a nationwide antidiscrimination law, which if anything is more important than marriage, but for whatever reason that doesn't look like to happen whether under a democratic or republican congress. People saying that you're throwing your gay friends under a bus If you don't like Hillary are... frankly, you're using my sexuality to push a partisan political agenda, and I'd prefer that you stopped.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Why are you only expressing that to Sanders supporters? Also, it's March.

Who else should I express that to? I can only assume that Hillary supporters will support Hillary, so logically I'm targeting Sanders supporters because they are the ones that are talking about being dissatisfied with the candidate who appears to be beating Sanders. Further, I'm not talking about voting in the midterms (though that in and of itself is very important), I'm talking about active abstention in the general election that could wind up providing Trump an advantage in the election, which could cause harm to people who themselves cannot afford to abstain due to the risk of direct harm to themselves that may be caused by a Republican candidate winning office.

People respond to incentives. Politicians are people. They do not support policies out Of the Goodness of their own hearts. They do it because it will get them elected (and if they were not the kind of person to do this, they would not have risen as high as having a shot at a presidential nomination)

So here's my question: if supporting the Iraq war doesn't cost Hillary any votes, why should she oppose the next Iraq war? If jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon long after it was clear where the wind was blowing doesn't cost Hillary any votes, why should she try to get out in front on trans issues? If the anti-globalization left just keeps voting democrat because they're the only game in town, what incentive does Hillary have not to support NAFTA and CAFTA and the TPP? (note I'm actually pretty pro trade, but yeah, this is another place where I can totally see someone of a certain moral bent deciding abstaining is the best way to advance leftist goals in the long run).

You seem to miss the point entirely. From what you're describing, Hillary could, in theory, be a non-candidate for trans people. And you know what? This is exactly the best-case scenario that trans people have had for every election in American history. The first president to actively support trans rights was Obama, and he didn't use it as a platform in either of his elections. So yes, Hillary is magnitudes better for trans people than Trump, who could actually cost the lives of trans people. Do you understand this? Settling is a pastime for marginalized people. Hillary may not be a good candidate for them, but Trump is a horrible one.

 

[lednerg]

Who else should I express that to? I can only assume that Hillary supporters will support Hillary, so logically I'm targeting Sanders supporters because they are the ones that are talking about being dissatisfied with the candidate who appears to be beating Sanders. Further, I'm not talking about voting in the midterms (though that in and of itself is very important), I'm talking about active abstention in the general election that could wind up providing Trump an advantage in the election, which could cause harm to people who themselves cannot afford to abstain due to the risk of direct harm to themselves that may be caused by a Republican candidate winning office.

I see no polling that indicates this is an issue. There were Hillary supporters in 2008 that didn't want to elect a black man, so they went with McCain. Did it matter? No. Neither does this.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I see no polling that indicates this is an issue. There were Hillary supporters in 2008 that didn't want to elect a black man, so they went with McCain. Did it matter? No. Neither does this.

Lower turnout has mattered in the past, why could it not matter now?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So here's my question: if supporting the Iraq war doesn't cost Hillary any votes, why should she oppose the next Iraq war? If jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon long after it was clear where the wind was blowing doesn't cost Hillary any votes, why should she try to get out in front on trans issues? If the anti-globalization left just keeps voting democrat because they're the only game in town, what incentive does Hillary have not to support NAFTA and CAFTA and the TPP? (note I'm actually pretty pro trade, but yeah, this is another place where I can totally see someone of a certain moral bent deciding abstaining is the best way to advance leftist goals in the long run)

You completely dodged the point which is that while Hillary may not be out in front of trans issues, Trump would actively work to regress the progress that's already been made on trans issues. You might be concerned about Hillary's record on trans issues, but Trump's is demonstrably worse across the board. So if you have an opportunity to cast a vote against Trump, it's in your best interest to do so, even if it's not for the perfect candidate. Letting perfect be the enemy of good is an extremely illogical position to take, as you're basically saying "if I can't have things perfect, then I am fine with things getting much, much worse." I've seen this my entire life being the son of lesbian mothers; my mothers had to cast votes for Democrats who were dismissive of gay rights because they were a better choice than the Republicans who were actively trying to take me out of their home.

 

[lednerg]

Lower turnout has mattered in the past, why could it not matter now?

Because you're talking about such a miniscule amount of people. Also, talking down to people is never a good tactic, which is all this is.

 

[Azerare]

The moment he signed up to be a member of the Democrats, yes, yes he did have an obligation. It's an unwritten, but universally followed rule/custom after a hard fought primary.

Unspoken doesn't equal written. This entitled line of thinking just gets stronger.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because you're talking about such a miniscule amount of people. Also, talking down to people is never a good tactic, which is all this is.

Yes, I think a lot of people who abstain do not understand or otherwise appreciate the potential harm of abstention. At no point have I talked down to anyone, however - educating people, giving them perspectives that they may not have considered, is not remotely talking down to people.