shadowsdarknes
Member
Fuck right off with this nonsense. Many of us have been voting for Jill Stein for two election cycles now.
Many?
Fuck right off with this nonsense. Many of us have been voting for Jill Stein for two election cycles now.
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.There's def an air of privilege coming from the Hillary coalition, strange regressive neoliberal authoritarianism
So let's say you get Jill in 2020, and a friendly Congress. But everything she does is thwarted by the newly-conservative judiciary.Fuck right off with this nonsense. Many of us have been voting for Jill Stein for two election cycles now.
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?
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.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.
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.
These are absolutely the same losers who voted for Ralph Nader and got us Bush. Think about the 100s of thousands dead in Iraq and think your piddly 3-5% doesn't matter.
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.
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.
I can't tolerate war hawks anymore. The amount of killing and instigating the US does overseas is unimaginable.
I will never vote for warmongers like Hilary Clinton.
Hillary is not entitled to anyone's vote.
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.
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.
Care to answer the question? You've been dodging it like a champ for pages.Not relevant to the 'people that won't vote for Hillary are closet misogynists' argument. I'm sick of seeing it.
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.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.
There's def an air of privilege coming from the Hillary coalition, strange regressive neoliberal authoritarianism
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.
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.
Probably because it is. It's modeled heavily after Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform.He's described it as a "good republican program"
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.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.
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.
I can't tolerate war hawks anymore. The amount of killing and instigating the US does overseas is unimaginable.
I will never vote for warmongers like Hilary Clinton.
My post was not pro sanders.
Your criticisms Against his candidacy are fair, but you are notarguing against what i posted.
Not really how Tesseract works.
Generally it's best to assume that guy is always trolling because the alternative is worse.
Nothing more than the sanders campaign has.It's dishonest to deny that the Clinton campaign has a major entitlement complex
It's dishonest to deny that the Clinton campaign has a major entitlement complex
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.
It's dishonest to deny that the Clinton campaign has a major entitlement complex
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.
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.
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.
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.
Care to answer the question? You've been dodging it like a champ for pages.
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.
I can't tolerate war hawks anymore. The amount of killing and instigating the US does overseas is unimaginable.
I will never vote for warmongers like Hilary Clinton.
Go to antiwar.com. You'll find all the receipts you want.Prove that she is a warmonger please. Show me the receipts.
It's dishonest to deny that the Clinton campaign has a major entitlement complex
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.
When Hillary Clinton Killed FeminismHillary believed that there was an implicit understanding with the sisters of the world that now was the time to come back home and vote for a woman. (The Clintons seem to have conveniently forgotten how outraged they were by identity politics when black leaders deserted them in 2008 to support Obama.).....
This attitude intensified the unappetizing solipsistic subtext of her campaign, which is What is Hillary owed? It turned out that female voters seem to be looking at Hillary as a candidate rather than as a historical imperative. And shes coming up drastically short on trustworthiness.
The interesting thing about the spectacle of older women trying to shame younger ones on behalf of Hillary is that Hillary and Bill killed the integrity of institutional feminism back in the 90s with the help of Albright and Steinem.
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.
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?
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.
Nothing more than the sanders campaign has.
Go to antiwar.com. You'll find all the receipts you want.
It's dishonest to deny that the Clinton campaign has a major entitlement complex
I'll grant the president that he is trying to call the GOPs bluff here, but what will a President HRC do?
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?
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.
Oh yes, an opinion piece from Maureen Dowd.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
Nice source you got there.New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggested that Hillary Clinton "should have run as a man this time" and likened Clinton to a dog in in her latest negative assessment of the Democratic presidential candidate.
Dowd has a decades-long history of attacking Clinton, often invoking bizarre comparisons in her criticism. According to a recent Media Matters analysis of Dowd's columns on Clinton dating back to 1993, 75 percent of 212 columns that made significant mention of Clinton were negative. Since June 2014, all 17 of Dowd's columns that mention Clinton significantly were negative. Dowd's first 2016 column on Clinton compared her to Leonardo DiCaprio's character from the movie The Revenant, which is about a revenge-minded trapper making his way through the wilderness.
In a January 16 column for The New York Times, Dowd claimed that Clinton ran "as a man" in 2008 but "is now running as a woman."
Based on her apparent belief that Clinton's 2016 campaign is overly feminized, Dowd wrote, "she should have run as a man this time, when Americans feel beleaguered and scared and yearn for something 'big and masculine and strong.'"
Instead Dowd claimed that Clinton "has cast herself as Groundbreaking Granny."
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.