Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

You shouldn't be riled up over people not voting. You should be riled up over the Bernie supporters who say they will vote Trump if he(Bernie) does not get the nom due to spite. That's what concerns me.

It's the same thing. In a two party system, not voting is giving half a vote to the other side.

 

[Glendemonium]

The two types I know:

1. Old misogynists

2. Young Bernie-ites who seriously don't understand what 8 years of Bush did to this country.

Um, I live in a backwoodish city and I hardly hear people utter "A woman president? Surely you jest, Auch-yuk!" Not voting for Hillary hardly makes you a misogynist, it means you don't want to vote for her.

I thought she was pro big banks and establishment? I mean those are her biggest campaign funders right? So anyone expecting any type of loan reform or crackdown on wrongful bank activity (For Profit Schools using government loans to fund their businesses and leaving students with the bill) are SOL.

Sadly, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination I'd have to reluctantly vote for her over Trump because honestly I can see Trump incite another civil war... or at least his racist followers will have no problem starting on their own.

 

[Anoregon]

It's probably the same reason why you feel you shouldn't vote for Bernie.

You can't seriously be saying there is anywhere near as vocal a "if Bernie gets the nom I'm not voting/voting for trump" camp among Hillary supporters.

 

[esms]

You and people like you continually conflate disaffection with Clinton as a vote in support of Trump and that shitpost was directed at just that: the disaffected. It simultaneously beat on a straw-man and the disaffected alike. Disparaging people who are not interested in Clinton as "traitors" and then berating them with every heinous accusation that you can think of is what I would expect from a Republican, not a Democrat.

There is a right way and a wrong way to address people on your side that are not necessarily interested in your candidate.

As someone with no skin in the game either way, I've appreciated your posts here.

 

[Sorcerer]

People who don't vote are FUCKS.

Seriously, FUCK YOU NON-VOTERS. I HATE YOU.




Complaining about the government is a privilege reserved for those who take the minimum amount of effort it takes to vote in the general and mid-term elections. If you don't vote, YOU DON'T GET TO SAY SHIT. YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER! That's the message you send when you don't vote.



Ugh. This is the one thing that ticks me off more than any other.

The right to not vote because you don't like any one is valid in my opinion. Voting just to say you voted with no thought behind your decision is worse in my opinion.

Hey I am hipster who went to the polls to cast a vote, don't know what I was voting for but I voted.

I don't particularly like anyone in this particular election.

 

[Averon]

Won't vote for Hilary in November. I will vote for Tammy Duckworth, but that's it.

 

[EdibleKnife]

Replies like these don't help. If you want me to vote, then explain to me why my statement is so frustrating to you.

Because it doesn't take many who think the same way as you to turn your "sure to be blue" state to a red one.

 

[boiled goose]

As much as I would love to also say that white Bernie Sanders supporters can clock in their white privilege when everything doesn't go as planned....I can't solely blame them if they don't want to vote for Hillary either. As spiteful and selfish as that is,there are quite a few minorities even that are also anti Hillary and say the same "I won't vote for neither and or I'll vote for Trump" that I feel is not being said here. Lots of huge POC figures has jumped behind Bernie because they believe in what he's saying but they are also being ignored as also being wilfully ignorant in their approach too.

Im a minority and I am not excited to vote for Hillary. Doesn't mean i will vote for trump.

The whole white privilege argument to me is bs. You know who has privilege from my perspective? Those who can afford to maintain the status quo.

When folks realize what it's like to be living month to month on a minimum wage job, with Huge copays and premiums for sick loved ones, all while saddled with student dept then they will understand Why they can't tolerate that further.

Would Sanders be able to change all that by himself? Probably not everything. But Hillary has already promised that it wont.

Trump would probably make things worse. Yes. To me personally i can afford the status quo for a bit. That said, i dont blame others for rolling the dice rather than accept to continue to be fucked.

Again to those of you who say privilege is not voting for Hillary, please rethink that. A larger Privilege is being able to afford the status quo.

 

[dave is ok]

2. Sanders is running on a campaign of false promises. He can't deliver the healthcare plan he has put forth and it is not a matter of a GOP congress. He couldn't pass it with a Democratically controlled congress. Obama couldn't get a single payer option through on the ACA specifically because of Blue Dogs threatening to sink the whole thing if it stayed in. You know who could actually get some form of single payer into place? Clinton, because she cracks a much sharper whip than Sanders could ever dream of.

Honestly, what the fuck are you even talking about?

The Hillary Reality Distortion field is too strong. Hillary couldn't even get an insurance industry friendly healthcare plan passed in the 90's, but now she'll put forth single payer because she 'cracks a smart whip'?

 

[Subpar Spatula]

You can't seriously be saying there is anywhere near as vocal a "if Bernie gets the nom I'm not voting/voting for trump" camp among Hillary supporters.

They don't exist? I get it, keyword is vocal, they do exist whether or not you want to frame your argument this way.

Stubborn isn't a trait that only exists in the Bernie camp.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Replies like these don't help. If you want me to vote, then explain to me why my statement is so frustrating to you.

The mindset of "my vote won't influence the election" is just an excuse for political apathy.
Congress has a 10% approval rate yet they all get re-elected. This is because people don't think their vote will do anything. Yet the fact that millions of people around the country routinely apply this thinking and it rubs off on others, it's no surprise that voter turnout is so poor.

I still voted for Bernie in Florida knowing that he was down 20 points in the polls. I knew going in that he was going to lose. But I also knew that if everyone who liked Bernie actually applied get out and voted, it would be a much closer race.

 

[Abstrusity]

I'm not a person who takes issue with how people vote in the Primary. If they feel Sanders represents them, then by all means vote for him in the Primary. In the end Sanders represents me about .05 less than Hillary, so I will happily vote for either in the general. I'm just tired of some (albeit few here anyway) people talking as if Hillary is some proxy for Bill. Of course she's going to have a lot of similarities to her husband, that makes sense given they are married, but I take umbrage with those who attribute those views to him rather than her own personhood.

Right. My reasoning here is that ...well, anyone who does that is more than likely uneducated on what, exactly, Hillary stands for. The vague remembrances of what she's said harkens back to Bill Clinton, so it's reasonable, from a point of ignorance, to assume that she is an extension of her husband's policies and not much else.

Though, to be fair, I wouldn't have much of an issue if she WAS just a proxy for Bill. The things the Sanders echochambers come up with conveniently ignore that, even with his neoliberal policies, he was forced to make some tough decisions when Republicans had supermajorities in both House and Senate.

 

[Anoregon]

They don't exist? I get it, keyword is vocal, they do exist whether or not you want to frame your argument this way.

Stubborn isn't a trait that only exists in the Bernie camp.

Of course they exist, because crazy idiots exist in all walks of life. But your post was nothing more than "well the other side does it too" which is just never a worthwhile point to be making, and if anything just plays into the stereotype that the OP is railing against.

 

[illusionspark]

Because it doesn't take many who think the same way as you to turn your "sure to be blue" state to a red one.

Well, Hillary has many months to try to excite me and convince me to vote for her. Let's see if she succeeds.

 

[captainnapalm]

What I don't get about the pragmatic Clinton supporters choosing the lesser of two evils - I could maybe understand it after you put your best progressive foot forward with Sanders and lost the battle and then had to go into 'operation stop trump' mode - but you guys have been against Sanders and for Clinton from the start. You're part of the problem, in other words. You never gave true change a chance, and now you want to chastise the only people who actually tried to make a positive change in the world? While writing them off as hipsters who are just into fads. Not a good look, to put it mildly.

 

[BiggNife]

I'm still convinced the "I won't vote if Hillary gets the nom" crowd is a vocal minority that gets a lot of attention because they get a rise out of people, but I can't wrap my head around people who don't realize how much worse Trump would be than Hillary. I'm not the world's biggest Hillary fan, but I'd gladly take what would basically amount to a third Obama term over whatever the fuck Trump does. I'd much rather have the devil I know than the one I don't.

Also! HylianTom has brought this up in just about every thread where this subject has been discussed...

You will never get anyone here to successfully explain how turning-over SCOTUS to the GOP for a generation would help further progressive goals.

If you're willing to stick a judicial ice pick into Bernie's vision for a generation, you weren't all that serious about his issues to begin with. You're more about the man than his stated ideals. It'd be the honorable and honest thing to just come out and admit that you're voting personality over policy.

And now that I've said this, let's wait for the crickets, shall we?

...and I've never seen a real counter to it. That's because there isn't one. SCOTUS is a Big Fucking Deal and the next Justice will literally shape the laws of this country for the next 20+ years. Do you really want to find out who Trump would put in that position? I didn't think so.

 

[Cagey]

Well, Hillary has many months to try to excite me and convince me to vote for her. Let's see if she succeeds.

Again, for the majority of Americans in uncontested Presidential election states who say "I'm not voting", this isn't about the Presidency.

Write-in someone for President, brush up on any local or state elections that are competitive, and cast votes for candidates you believe in for those races.

Not wanting to vote in any one election is fine, but using not wanting to vote in the most important election as a reason to stay home and not vote for any of the elections on the ballot is not fine.

You conflate "not voting" with "not voting for Hillary or Trump for President" and thus don't participate in many elections and referendums that have more immediate impact on your day-to-day life.

Stop doing that.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

You know what I really don't want to see?

When the next black kid gets shot and a town erupts in anger and the police officer(s) are exonerated of all charges and the President comments on National TV and shrugs his shoulders and says, "eh the process worked. What do you want from me? These people need to get over it, stop rioting, and get back to work. Our tax money pays for their welfare." Because that's pretty much exactly what you can expect from Trump or Cruz.

And that's why we can't have a party that's only sympathetic to the white man in office.

 

[gutter_trash]

the guy is turning 75 for crying out loud LOL

 

[boiled goose]

What I don't get about the pragmatic Clinton supporters choosing the lesser of two evils - I could maybe understand it after you put your best progressive foot forward with Sanders and lost the battle and then had to go into 'operation stop trump' mode - but you guys have been against Sanders and for Clinton from the start. You're part of the problem, in other words. You never gave true change a chance, and now you want to chastise the only people who actually tried to make a positive change in the world? While writing them off as hipsters who are just into fads. Not a good look, to put it mildly.

Yup. In my opinion and this might come as offensive to some and feel free to disagree: many Hillary supporters are people who like the label of liberal and progressive but have in reality become centrists themselves.

They are the new "conservatives" with the gop being right wing extremists.

They dont see the current political system as fundamentally broken. They are comfortable enough with the status quo. They want modest social progressive victories but not if it comes at the expense of upsetting the current power structure.

 

[BiggNife]

If Hillary doesn't win then the only people to blame are the Hillary voters who propped up an un-electable candidate.

Do people really think Hillary is more unelectable in the general than Trump

Hillary is way more liked among Democrats than Trump is among Republicans. Hillary's likability among Dems is 76%, which is in line with most winning candidates in election years. Meanwhile, Trump is at 49% among Republicans.

I think a lot of people don't realize that the dislike towards Trump pretty much eclipses the dislike towards Hillary.

e: Of course there's the "Silent majority" theory with Trump but the fact that the republican primary/caucus results were pretty much in line with polls basically disproves this.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Or maybe hillary supporters are just reasonable people who realize that the supreme court can finally shift to the left for a generation or longer and that will have a HUGE impact on all of our lives and, thus, we vote for the candidate who is most likely to get us there.

If you even care one iota for progress, you vote for the candidate who can put progressives in the supreme court and help undo the damage we've see the conservative SC do over the last 15-20 years and also help keep progressive legislation from constantly being at risk of being overturned

or you can choose to not vote for the dem candidate and just let things play out.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You conflate "not voting" with "not voting for Hillary or Trump for President" and thus don't participate in many elections and referendums that have more immediate impact on your day-to-day life.

Stop doing that.

Did you mistakenly quote yourself or were you iterating a previous point?

 

[Renji_11]

The reasons i am not excited for Hillary.

She is a war hawk.
She is "tough on crime"
She is not for Wall Street regulation that goes far enough.
She is pro death penalty.
She is not against war on drugs.
She is for trade policies that largely benefit multinational corporations

And most importantly by far. She works within an extremely corrupt political system where bribes are legal. You can even argue that her stances on the issues above are hugely influenced by these donations. She is in power BECAUSE of these relationships and donations. Pragmatism? Sure... Corruption? You betcha.

In conclusion , she is a moderate for preserving the status quo, where power remains in the hands of a few.

Do I think Trump is better? Uh nope.

Can you name me a Democrat that wasn't tough on crime in the 80's and 90's? You literally couldn't get elected back then if you were seen as soft on crime then. Also I think the party position is moving toward getting rid of the war on drugs. Heck even for Republicans (for money reasons) so I don't think this should be held against her either.

 

[captainnapalm]

Yup. In my opinion and this might come as offensive to some and feel free to disagree: many Hillary supporters are people who like the label of liberal and progressive but have in reality become centrists themselves.

They are the new "conservatives" with the gop being right wing extremists.

They dont see the current political system as fundamentally broken. They are comfortable enough with the status quo. They want modest social progressive victories but not if it comes at the expense of upsetting the current power structure.

I mean, that's not even a controversial statement, from what I can see. Seems pretty accurate.

 

[Drek]

Honestly, what the fuck are you even talking about?

The Hillary Reality Distortion field is too strong. Hillary couldn't even get an insurance industry friendly healthcare plan passed in the 90's, but now she'll put forth single payer because she 'cracks a smart whip'?

Wow, way to conflate an honest criticism for Sanders' plan as a refutation of something she has supported literally her entire goddamn life.

Did you actually read the article and the context of what she said, or did you just knee jerk before thinking? That is a rhetorical question, FYI, I know exactly what you did.

1. She's defending the ACA because there is still strong momentum to repeal the ACA. Mostly from the far right who want all the newly covered to twist in the wind, but also from the extreme left who feel like getting rid of the ACA would pave the way for single payer. It won't in a morally justifiable time frame and that is exactly her point. You tear down ACA and you pave the way for depriving tens of millions of people of their healthcare and the various other benefits of the ACA.

2. Describing Sanders' plan as something that would "never, ever come to pass" is as accurate a critique as you can get. His plan calls for substantial increases in corporate income tax but also carries a substantial increase in the taxes on the middle class, a group that can't afford those cuts. Now his campaign and supporters have argued that this would be off-set by companies no longer having a contribution to the employee's healthcare they'll then pay directly to the employee. That is, simply put, delusional.

Don't blame Clinton for calling out a failed concept on how to achieve single payer. That's on Sanders and Clinton's opposition to it and defense of ACA does not make her an opponent of single payer. More importantly, as POTUS she would enforce party unity more than Sanders ever could so if a D controlled senate leadership was looking to push through single payer she would likely be more capable of getting the blue dogs in line than even Obama was with the ACA.

 

[Drek]

Well, Hillary has many months to try to excite me and convince me to vote for her. Let's see if she succeeds.

It isn't her job to convince you to be an active participant in your own representation. We reserve the right to vote until you're a legal adult under the presumption that by then you're mature enough to know just how important your vote actually is and intelligent enough to decide between shades of gray who best represents the direction you want to see the presented political offices move in.

Obviously that is an overly generous assessment of the average citizen's maturity and intelligence, but that's the best we got.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

What I don't get about the pragmatic Clinton supporters choosing the lesser of two evils - I could maybe understand it after you put your best progressive foot forward with Sanders and lost the battle and then had to go into 'operation stop trump' mode - but you guys have been against Sanders and for Clinton from the start. You're part of the problem, in other words. You never gave true change a chance, and now you want to chastise the only people who actually tried to make a positive change in the world? While writing them off as hipsters who are just into fads. Not a good look, to put it mildly.

There are reasons for that whether you want to acknowledge them as valid or not.
I still voted for Sanders.

But Bernie had trouble with minority voters. Clinton largely doesn't. Bernie preached a message of arguably unrealistic policies. Bernie also has valid age concerns.
Bernie also fueled this anti-establishment fervor that is going to make it hard for Hillary to become elected.

I don't really blame the people who have been Hillary supporters from day 1.

 

[boiled goose]

Can you name me a Democrat that wasn't tough on crime in the 80's and 90's? You literally couldn't get elected back then if you were seen as soft on crime then. Also I think the party position is moving toward getting rid of the war on drugs. Heck even for Republicans (for money reasons) so I don't think this should be held against her either.

Ok so we agree that these are her stances.

To be fair, on tough on crime i do think this is one issue where she has come around a bit.

Comparing to other Democrats isn't really doing it for me. I would like a progressive leader.

Has Hillary supported decriminalizing marijuana for recreational use at the federal level?

When it comes to these issues, i want someone transformative. Not someone who compared to other politicians looks fine. From my perspective, they are all working within a corrupt system flooded with donations from the prison industrial complex.

 

[AlphaDump]

You conflate "not voting" with "not voting for Hillary or Trump for President" and thus don't participate in many elections and referendums that have more immediate impact on your day-to-day life.

Stop doing that.

you just quoted and argued with yourself. whoops

 

[dave is ok]

.She's defending the ACA because there is still strong momentum to repeal the ACA. Mostly from the far right who want all the newly covered to twist in the wind, but also from the extreme left who feel like getting rid of the ACA would pave the way for single payer.

No one on the far left is calling for repeal of the ACA. That is a narrative she created. The idea you need to "start from scratch" and erase all of Obama's progress to try and improve our nation's deplorable healthcare system.

Describing Sanders' plan as something that would "never, ever come to pass" is as accurate a critique as you can get.

Don't blame Clinton for calling out a failed concept on how to achieve single payer. That's on Sanders and Clinton's opposition to it and defense of ACA does not make her an opponent of single payer.

Pretty sure calling single payer something that will NEVER, EVER happen makes her an opponent of single payer.

If you think that she can work within the framework that Obama couldn't and get bi-partisan support, you are delusional. She's even more hated by them than he is.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

you just quoted amd argued with yourself. whoops

hahahahahah, he really did.

but maybe he was quoting himself to reiterate a point

but i like to believe he's just arguing with himself because that's a lot more funnier

 

[NoblesseOblige]

What I don't get about the pragmatic Clinton supporters choosing the lesser of two evils - I could maybe understand it after you put your best progressive foot forward with Sanders and lost the battle and then had to go into 'operation stop trump' mode - but you guys have been against Sanders and for Clinton from the start. You're part of the problem, in other words. You never gave true change a chance, and now you want to chastise the only people who actually tried to make a positive change in the world? While writing them off as hipsters who are just into fads. Not a good look, to put it mildly.

Maybe your idea of 'true change' doesn't align with everyone. I for one put heavy investment into stricter gun control. Change that Hillary has seemed to be in more in favor of than Bernie. The change you want is to disrupt the system, a change I'm indifferent towards if it means maintaining the status quo in gun control.

 

[Cagey]

you just quoted and argued with yourself. whoops

hahahahahah, he really did

No. The poster ignored my response and continued on with his silly diatribe about how he's not voting until a Presidential candidate convinces him.

I requoted my response to him so he could understand the problem in his argument and provided further context to it.

How is that not obvious?

 

[Tesseract]

Punished trump will make enemies of Sanders and Clinton supporters, the real game has finally begin

 

[ApharmdX]

I just wish people were more open to dialogue and actual debate. Some of the most thoughtfully explained opinions here have come from folks explaining why OPs point is legitimate and I have yet to hear any real thoughtful debate from the other viewpoint. Lots of rhetoric though.

Maybe you missed this post, I want to quote it because it is excellent and sums up how I feel precisely:

Every single election you establishment Democrat supporters try to sell the Left the same bill of goods, vote for our candidate or the devil will win. Every single election. What have the socialists, laborists, Marxists, Greens, and similar leftists gotten out of this deal from the last two Democratic presidents? Fuck all, that's what.

You sabotage and villify any legitimate Left voice that comes close to getting the Democratic nom, and you make their supporters out to be naive idealists or Communists or whatever red-baiting bullshit you can come up with. You call us anti-feminists or racists and actively work against our efforts to have our voices represented in the party. You do all of this while at the same time insisting that we fall in line with whatever pro-Capitalist, anti-labor aristocrat you've put up to the microphone to promise us little more than business as usual, and this cycle repeats every time.

I'm a citizen of Texas and will be submitting an absentee ballot, so my vote is doubly useless, but you can bet whoever I vote for will be someone whose ideals match mine, not the one who simply gives me less fear.

Hear, hear! Many of us are fatigued with the narrative- "Vote for the lesser of two evils or DOOM!" Ok, but we've still been voting for evil. The last presidential election I missed was in 2000, and since 2004 I've voted in both presidential and midterm elections. I've seen my social causes advanced, but on fiscal issues, on foreign policy, on domestic surveillance, on the social safety net, we have made very little progress. And these issues matter.

I am a huge fan of voting. I vote in every election, local, state, and federal, and have since I turned 18. The idea of skipping a vote to me is bizarre. This is pretty uncommon behavior, even in my age bracket.

In the age bracket of most of the people posting in this thread, it's even more unheard of. And frankly, if you're not voting in every election, I'm not really interested in hearing you shit on people who sit out a vote. The least important votes you're every going to make, mathematically, are your federal votes. And yet, it's the federal votes that make people write shitty OPs like this one, where they treat other human beings like garbage for little effect.

And it is producing little effect. It's actively driving people in the opposite direction you want them to go. Tactically, it's just a dumb thing to do. If you'd rather rage at people than reach out to them, frankly, I have to question your seriousness.

It's easy to yell at people who aren't doing what you want. It's much more complicated to try and understand and persuade them. And if you really care about the issues, rather than scoring points on other posters and rooting for your team, you'd be spending less time shouting at people and more time listening. The only certain thing is that you aren't going to change minds by telling people they're idiots.

If what you want is to make things better, this isn't the way to do it. If what you want is to focus attention on yourself and your righteous anger, then you're doing a great job.

Absolutely this. There's a positive case to be made for Hillary. This topic doesn't make that case. It's just alienating.

What is going on here is trying to get people to understand the implications of a Trump presidency. You are are Sanders supporter, like me (hug!). I will swallow a Clinton pill if required because I fully understand what would happen to this country if Cruz or Trump were put into the WH.

Does Clinton fully represent my views; not even close, no. But compare her to Trump/Cruz, lol, its a joke.

I'll swallow that pill too, but I fully understand why other Bernie supporters will not. She lacks personal credibility as much as Trump. Hillary's positions are less damaging, absolutely, but she's a mediocre candidate for me nonetheless.

 

[Princess Carl]

Yup. In my opinion and this might come as offensive to some and feel free to disagree: many Hillary supporters are people who like the label of liberal and progressive but have in reality become centrists themselves.

They are the new "conservatives" with the gop being right wing extremists.

They dont see the current political system as fundamentally broken. They are comfortable enough with the status quo. They want modest social progressive victories but not if it comes at the expense of upsetting the current power structure.

What a convenient excuse for all the closet misogynists and racists perfectly fine with what Trump has been stirring up.

And I'll even be this guy for the first time: That kind of answer is just like the entitled apathetic generation that people talk about. You expect the first guy who comes along with a unpolished and incomplete vision of social democracy to sweep the nations hearts and minds the first time? In this country? How naive are you? Honestly?

I can absolutely see a future where someone younger and more prepared than Bernie comes along and actually generates the groundswell and moves the Democratic party in the US towards a more progressive platform. In fact I pray for this future. But what you are presenting is intellectual garbage under the guise of a moral high ground.

Its pathetic.

 

[HylianTom]

...and I've never seen a real counter to it. That's because there isn't one. SCOTUS is a Big Fucking Deal and the next Justice will literally shape the laws of this country for the next 20+ years. Do you really want to find out who Trump would put in that position? I didn't think so.

Still waiting for them counter.

How does sticking a judicial shiv into Bernie's agenda further progressivism?

Please, proceed. You folks love to share about your feelings, but you're curiously quiet when confronted with the mechanics of how government works.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

The right to not vote because you don't like any one is valid in my opinion. Voting just to say you voted with no thought behind your decision is worse in my opinion.

Hey I am hipster who went to the polls to cast a vote, don't know what I was voting for but I voted.

I support this vote. I, and many other well educated voters, simply have a different ethic than other people. We view the reason why we engage in civil discourse differently. I'm not going to vote for policies that I disagree with personally, especially where such policies are actively not in my best interest. I'd rather write in O'Malley than vote for Clinton (Who is whom I supported). Clinton has actively supported policies that I simply cannot agree with. (I also disagree with Sanders on almost 90% of what he proposes.)

 

[Drek]

Yup. In my opinion and this might come as offensive to some and feel free to disagree: many Hillary supporters are people who like the label of liberal and progressive but have in reality become centrists themselves.

They are the new "conservatives" with the gop being right wing extremists.

They dont see the current political system as fundamentally broken. They are comfortable enough with the status quo. They want modest social progressive victories but not if it comes at the expense of upsetting the current power structure.

1. you don't get to draw the lines for conservative and progressive as you see fit. Hillary, in a progressive party primary, is beating Sanders by literally millions of votes. Progressives clearly prefer her.

2. Many of those people are old enough to remember what left leaning ideological purity begat for the country - 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of H.W. Bush, a dramatic push of the entire nation (including Dems) to the right so even a two term Dem POTUS was a centrist, and then another 8 years of W. Bush. We aren't false progressives, we just understand that it's better to take the modest social progress and continue to re-draw the lines of conversation bit by bit instead of pushing for radical change and getting slammed with a massive rebound.

It has nothing to do with the existing power structure and everything to do with understanding that human lives are at stake here and gambling for dramatic change and losing is a debt you pay with the suffering of the least fortunate.

 

[Mael]

so...did I miss the great argument for allowing Donald "I'm gonna shred the 1rst amendment and now people who lie about me will give hyuuge amount of money" Trump to pick SCOTUS judges?

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Still waiting for them counter.

How does sticking a judicial shiv into Bernie's agenda further progressivism?

Please, proceed. You folks love to share about your feewings, but you're curiously quiet when confronted with the mechanics of how government works.

yeah, if they truly care about progress then they vote someone into office that will stack the Supreme Court with progressives.

But that would entirely TOO reasonable and we can't have reasonable discourse during the election season because then what would we talk about?

 

[Tesseract]

There's def an air of privilege coming from the Hillary coalition, strange regressive neoliberal authoritarianism

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Ok so we agree that these are her stances.

To be fair, on tough on crime i do think this is one issue where she has come around a bit.

Comparing to other Democrats isn't really doing it for me. I would like a progressive leader.

Has Hillary supported decriminalizing marijuana for recreational use at the federal level?

When it comes to these issues, i want someone transformative. Not someone who compared to other politicians looks fine. From my perspective, they are all working within a corrupt system flooded with donations from the prison industrial complex.

Voters have been wanting radical change to the status quo since forever.

It is arguable that Obama was supposed to be a transformative candidate. It's clear he couldn't get it done. If you believe that he was just another status quo politician, that's fine, too. My point still works. At the end of the day, we have been so much better off under Obama compared to a McCain Presidency.

Under McCain, we would have:
-No ACA
-Tougher crime laws
-Higher military spending
-Engaged in more conflicts around the world
-No Marriage Equality
-Slower progress on fighting climate change and embracing green energy
-lower tax rates for the wealthy
-arguably higher deficits or even further neutered regulatory agencies
-Defunded PP

We can either have something similar to an Obama 3rd term, or we can let the ideological racist wingnut base have representation in the oval office.

The choice is so damn easy.

 

[Anoregon]

What a convenient excuse for all the closet misogynists and racists perfectly fine with what Trump has been stirring up.

And I'll even be this guy for the first time: That kind of answer is just like the entitled apathetic generation that people talk about. You expect the first guy who comes along with a unpolished and incomplete vision of social democracy to sweep the nations hearts and minds the first time? In this country? How naive are you? Honestly?

I can absolutely see a future where someone younger and more prepared than Bernie comes along and actually generates the groundswell and moves the Democratic party in the US towards a more progressive platform. In fact I pray for this future. But what you are presenting is intellectual garbage under the guise of a moral high ground.

Its pathetic.

I'm real glad someone managed to rationally reply to that fucking garbage. Thank you.

There are many valid reasons to prefer Bernie to Hillary, but this "you aren't a real progressive/you are part of the problem if you vote Hillary" nonsense is just beyond the pale awful.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

There's def an air of privilege coming from the Hillary coalition, strange regressive neoliberal authoritarianism

And you think you're helping with posts like this how exactly?

 

[Mael]

And you think you're helping that with posts like this how exactly?

That's apparently the argument for allowing Donald Trump to shred the 1rst amendment and stack SCOTUS with hardline pro corporation conservatives.

 

[shoplifter]

What a convenient excuse for all the closet misogynists and racists perfectly fine with what Trump has been stirring up.

Fuck right off with this nonsense. Many of us have been voting for Jill Stein for two election cycles now.

 

[lednerg]

Is there a thread for all the foreigners who'd rather we had Hillary than Bernie as president?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Yunno that the "status quo" that would be maintained here would be, at its least, "things slowly progressing left despite obstructionist republican interference."

What is particularly negative/undesirable about progress (slow and frustrating as it can be, but progress nonetheless) being maintained in comparison to the alternative, which is very, very speedy regression?

Besides which, how much of said status quo comes from not turning out but once every four years and hoping to enact trickle-down political revolution via a single election? How much of this status quo is due to people shrugging off their civic duties at city/state levels?