shadowsdarknes
Member
Many?
-
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
Many?
You're going to have to elaborate on this. I've heard this sentiment before but I've never seen the explanation go deeper than that.
So let's say you get Jill in 2020, and a friendly Congress. But everything she does is thwarted by the newly-conservative judiciary.
How do we navigate this reality? It's a simple question.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Probably the best way to put it.
The status quo with mild progress vs. rapid regression. It doesn't take much to gut the public sector and get in the way of social progress.
RustyNails
Member
But that already happened. In 2008. Barack Obama was that guy, and Obama/Biden 2008 is what a true revolution really looks like. Despite gaining so much support and goodwill, he was only able to pass a modest insurance reform package, not because he wanted to but because he got fucked by members of his own party. That is what governing actually looks like and honestly, thats what progress looks like. The reform Obama passed was something that eluded every President since FDR.
Changes in America happen incrementally. We are a Titanic and turning this big boat on a dime is impossible. What we can do is course-correction over a long period of time and eventually we'll get there.
shoplifter
Member
Not relevant to the 'people that won't vote for Hillary are closet misogynists' argument. I'm sick of seeing it.
I keep reading your posts and I'm noticing one thing. You keep name calling and belittling anyone who doesn't support Clinton. Sorry, but I'm not voting for Hillary because she is a pathological liar and the whole scandal with her email and Benghazi makes her untrustworthy to me. I'm guessing you're choosing to believe that everything in the media is fake and that she is a saint. Also, she was a terrible sos, so I am not comfortable placing her as the POTUS. If you choose to ignore that and call me a misogynist that's fine.
Now you're calling people "losers" for voting differently than you. Anyone's vote and voice matters just as much as yours. No reason to call them losers for choosing something they believed to be the best for their country. You're acting no better than a Trump supporter.
God Dayumm
Banned
Look at how they treat BLM and other social justice activists.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Honestly my view is if you end up not voting for Hillary you are just letting Trump get one step closer to the White House.
dantevsninjas
Member
3. Those of us who remember her abhorrent campaign in 2008.
I'll vote for Hillary when the time comes, but I don't have to be happy about it.
After two cycles of actually being able to vote for a candidate as opposed to against the other candidate, I knew it wouldn't last forever. I'd just hoped it'd last a little longer.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
so i suppose you'll at least vote for congressional candidates and local initiatives, right?
Because you can't vote for trump under that criteria.
So i imagine you'll either pass on voting or vote for a candidate who has zero chance in hell of stopping a war given they won't be elected.
No politician is but voting is not just a privilege, it's a duty. Doing nothing, means you can't say shit when the shittier of the two candidates wins and it affects your livelihood in some manner.
OK, I'm done with you after this post because you just regurgitated the same vacuous accusations with no logical backing you initially replied with.
So before I ignore your shitposting, I'll swat it down one more time for you:
1. Sanders has actively demonized ACA as a flawed interim step. Par for the course with him since he's an ideological purist. Great, he can afford to be as a senator from a dominantly white state with a stable and strong economy, so one that provides it's own safety net to it's poorest citizens. But the POTUS needs to be more than that and needs to understand that the ACA has lives. A lot of lives. Attacking it because it isn't perfect is, to me, morally repugnant. He's described it as a "good republican program" and derided it enough on the campaign trail to have assisted in propping up the poisonous narrative seeking to dismantle it. He doesn't need to call for it's removal himself to assist in it's destruction, just like how Trump doesn't need to punch a protester himself to foment violent at his events.
2. She said that she wasn't going to wait around for something better that will never ever pass. Your continued attempt to paint this as a condemnation of the concept of single payer when it is clearly a direct attack on Sanders' plan is dishonest and toxic to real discourse.
3. Obama was a coalition builder with limited D.C. experience when he won. Clinton has been directly involved in whipping the party in-line on a wide variety of legislation. This isn't even a point of debate, she is leaps and bounds more prepared for this than Obama was or Sanders ever will be.
Try debating from a basis in fact and merit instead of ad hominem and twisted quotations. What you've been posting is childish and unbecoming of anyone who believes in true democracy because it's built upon misrepresentation of the facts. With that I'm done, have a nice life in that bubble.
Care to answer the question? You've been dodging it like a champ for pages.
You say coercion, I say it's referring to the structure of our government. One side of this debate is clearly dodging answering questions about how our government works.
Care to take a crack at it?
I read it as semi-desperate neoliberal coercion, but I can't fault really fault them, given how odious the alternative is. Can't support it either.
Not really how Tesseract works.
Generally it's best to assume that guy is always trolling because the alternative is worse.
boiled goose
good with gravy
My post was not pro sanders.
Your criticisms Against his candidacy are fair, but you are notarguing against what i posted.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Probably because it is. It's modeled heavily after Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform.
Delusion. They will refuse to work with her. You are in for a rude awakening if you think Hillary Clinton of all people will be extended some olive branch by the GOP in the House and Senate.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I dont personally disagree with anything here.
Obama better than mcain? Of course!
More obama better than trump? Of course!
Prove that she is a warmonger please. Show me the receipts.
What you posted is not an argument. It's more of a generalized air of self-satisfaction. I'm not really sure what kind of responses you were expecting to get.
It's dishonest to deny that the Clinton campaign has a major entitlement complex
Nothing more than the sanders campaign has.
You really think that a campaign who previously lost to an out of nowhere black senator named "Barack Obama" and now in a modestly competitive primary against a mid-70's non-Democrat from Vermont has a major entitlement complex?
Based on what exactly?
boiled goose
good with gravy
What a silly substance devoid post.
You define progressiveness based on party affiliation.
I define progressivness based on policy.
Which method is less arbitrary?
It has nothing to do with "ideological purity^ but rather a fundamental understanding that the system is inherently broken. You just said the current power structure is fine! The current system is currently working ok for you.
There are no people more progressive than you. Hence you are a centrist. Im not saying it's an invalid stance, it's just a fact.
all of them do. they're gunning to be the most important person in the world. i'd hope they feel they're entitled to it.
shadowsdarknes
Member
I think the case that us in the pro-Hillary camp need to make is:
How do we pull the DNC to the left and hold Hillary accountable?
How do we pull the DNC to the left and hold Hillary accountable?
The thing is many of us accept that label. I know that I am a social liberal with some fiscal conservative/centrist views. I would love to see sweeping changes towards increased social equality and improved opportunities and security for the poor. My taxes would have gone up during a Sanders presidency and I would have still voted for him even when I didn't necessarily like some of his policies. I have family members that have incredible dislike for what Sanders is preaching (free college for example and increased taxes) and one of them even said they'd have voted Kasich over Sanders. But he and I aren't unreasonable, we know a Trump presidency would destroy all the foundations put in place by the Obama presidency to fix the Bush shit show and prepared to vote for Sanders when it came down it (well he can, I can't still a permanent resident for now). The political process is all about compromise, there will never be a perfect candidate for me, Obama has been the closest and I still don't share some of his views particularly when it comes to the encryption debate.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Cool. I appreciate the honesty!
The answer above was fair.
I just want an honest debate. I explain some of the problems with Hillary and the responses attack Sanders or defend Obama.
Not voting for policy you don't understand or know about? Makes sense
Not voting when you have a candidate like trump who you think absolutely should not get anywhere near the presidency, but are butt hurt because sanders was your perfect candidate and are annoyed by Clinton....... Nonsense. Someone WILL get elected. Be a part of preventing the greater evil
Omegasquash
Member
I see the "if Hillary then no vote at all" people as incapable of compromise.
Which is kind of like the Tea Party. It's just extremism within your rights. But please, if you want to increase the chances of a president that gets into the office campaigning on inexperience and fascist rhetoric, then by all means please, exercise your rights.
Just don't bitch when sticking to your principles contributes pretty directly to Muslim ID bracelets and Geneva convention violations.
Which is kind of like the Tea Party. It's just extremism within your rights. But please, if you want to increase the chances of a president that gets into the office campaigning on inexperience and fascist rhetoric, then by all means please, exercise your rights.
Just don't bitch when sticking to your principles contributes pretty directly to Muslim ID bracelets and Geneva convention violations.
shoplifter
Member
I've only made two posts in the thread so I've dodged nothing, thank you.
Quite honestly, I'm not entirely positive that Secretary Clinton will select actual leftist justices or whether she will select more centrist justices like Pres. Obama has done with this most recent appointment. I have serious concerns about Garland's record on privacy.
I'll grant the president that he is trying to call the GOPs bluff here, but what will a President HRC do?
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Then you didn't understand my post. There's good reasons why you should vote for Bernie or Hilary but people are too stubborn to care. If you want to know why they're stubborn then you have to ask, "why not vote for the other person IE Bernie?" I'm answering the OP's question.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
So you're basically helping an even bigger warmonger in trump, potentially. Thought I wonder I about his foreign policy...he's all over the place.
Yep that makes sense.
Go to antiwar.com. You'll find all the receipts you want.
What does that even mean?
theignoramus
Member
Madeleine Albrite, Gloria Steinem. The former saying "there's a special place in hell" for women who dont vote for Hillary, the latter claiming young women only like Sanders because thats where the boys are.
When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism
boiled goose
good with gravy
Agreed. Voting for trump over Hillary because warhawkishness is a tough logical leap to make.
The ideal path now is that we pull Hillary to the left, she stays to the left in the general election, downticket races are affected by running a deeply-divisive GOP candidate, we take back the Senate, and she appoints a very liberal judge to the Supreme Court. As a Sanders supporter, this is the dream. Will we get that? I don't know. I'd love for you to convince me that this will happen.
When we are months out from the general, and Hillary is so eager to pivot to the center that she praises the Reagan presidency's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis, that appears unlikely.
This is a good post that I agree with. I really do think that the United States ought to pivot to a multi-party system as soon as possible, because this would weaken the far-right by preventing them from accessing the resources of the GOP, while also empowering the left by freeing them from the constraints of the Democrats.
How so? A lot of Sanders supporters have been very crass in their belief that black voters were ignorant for preferring Clinton, but the campaign has worked pretty hard for every vote they've received. By contrast, Hillary Clinton and her staff really haven't made a serious effort to connect to most of their voters. She's relied primarily on name recognition and her ties to Washington and provincial party leaders, riding on the assumption that this is "her turn" or that she should be president only because she's currently more popular any opposition on the left.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's so sad how easy it is to spot libertarian websites. They all have the same 1990s look to them.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Meh. She's been a party leader for quite some time now and easily has some of the strongest credentials for the job.
Several other politicians have had entitlement complexes without any reason to have them.
I like the "I won't vote for Hillary she's a pathological liar".
It's like they've never ever seen a politician. They are pathological liars by definition, that's how they get elected.
Even Sanders, especially now he has no path to the nomination his campaign is lying to raise funds for the election.
It's like they've never ever seen a politician. They are pathological liars by definition, that's how they get elected.
Even Sanders, especially now he has no path to the nomination his campaign is lying to raise funds for the election.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
Select more progressive nominees than any conservative would?
shoplifter
Member
^^^ so centrists/center-left. great.
Thank you. What I want to see from her are bold plans. I realize that incremental change may be required, but what we constantly see from the DNC is starting negotiations from a point at which we already give up too much. I have no confidence that she has a long term plan to get to where the left actually wants to go.
Thank you. What I want to see from her are bold plans. I realize that incremental change may be required, but what we constantly see from the DNC is starting negotiations from a point at which we already give up too much. I have no confidence that she has a long term plan to get to where the left actually wants to go.
shadowsdarknes
Member
I do hope that was just her memory being fuzzy and clouded by misinformation.
No I think those were her stances she like most have changed some what over the years. I think she supports medical marijuana but not for straight legalization yet (which sucks). I voted for Bernie in Virginia but she is going to be the nominee so it's no reason to not support her even if she is flawed. Since she's apparently the cold calculating person like so many think she is why wouldn't she push for half the stuff that Bernie has been talking about if that's clearly the path that most young people what to go in? Similar to Nixon you basically governed like almost a liberal.
- Status