Support NeoGAF

[M-PG71C]

I like Sanders and he is my preferred choice, but there is a reason he is losing the primaries and no amount of funky math is going to change the fact that Clinton took the majority votes/delegates/super-delegates. The people, the Democratic base, has already spoken. I'll be voting blue across the board come this fall, regardless of candidate. And I live in a deep red, southern, state.

Anyone who wants to see the vision and planning laid out by Sanders needs to rally behind Clinton. The two are much closer than you think. And frankly, if you are willing to not vote or vote for Trump/Cruz, then you never cared for his policies or vision to begin with. Those two will be doing everything they can to strip away the progress of the last eight years.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

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.

I think you're dodging my point. The idea isn't that Trump would be better on trans issues than Hillary. The idea is that you make the Democrats actually do what advances your interests when they're in power, because not fighting for your rights costs them elections. If they see that they can throw you under the bus without any political consequences, they'll drop you once the heat gets on - which is why trans people get tossed out of half of the anti- GLBT* discrimination laws in the country. You take your lumps in the short term to build a more viable long-term movement.

(on the object level, I actually have no clue what Trump will do for trans people - he seems pretty secular, and while he's a racist asshole I actually can't recall anything I've heard about him and the GLBT* community. The guy has no scruples and is a political chameleon - remember he supported socialized medicine and the largest tax hike in world history before seeking the republican nomination - so it wouldn't surprise me if he did a very public about face on gay and particularly trans issues as he tries to pivot to the center)

 

[Mael]

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.

Well at least now Sanders supporters know how minorities feel

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think you're dodging my point. The idea isn't that Trump would be better on trans issues than Hillary. The idea is that you make the Democrats actually do what advances your interests when they're in power, because not fighting for your rights costs them elections. If they see that they can throw you under the bus without any political consequences, they'll drop you once the heat gets on - which is why trans people get tossed out of half of the anti- GLBT* discrimination laws in the country. You take your lumps in the short term to build a more viable long-term movement.

No one's dodging your point, because we barely are aware of it in the first place. What are you even talking about? What would indicate to Hillary that she can throw trans people under the bus? What are trans people doing with Hillary that they didn't do with the first pro-trans President in US history? Obama certainly wasn't running on a pro-trans platform in either election, but we voted for him anyway. He also wasn't in favour of same-sex marriage openly - I do believe that he was personally in favour of it, but for political reasons, he did not support it. It took Biden's support to kick him into gear. Again, you miss the point of settling. Trans people settle, all the time, and often, they settle for the candidate that may do nothing for them because the alternative is a candidate that has a lot that they want to do TO them. A bad president can cost lives, and while you might be willing to gamble that hey, maybe Trump will do right by trans people, you're not gambling with your life

 

[jakonovski]

Here's a topical article, on so called socialism and written by a Finnish expat in the US: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

 

[lednerg]

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.

Likewise, Hillary fans ought to recognize how she's got significant weaknesses in terms of the general election. She's consistently underperforming in the head to heads against Trump compared to Sanders. One major factor is that she represents the increasingly unpopular political/economic establishment, one people have grown disenchanted with. It's not all about the 'pie in the sky' promises, 'wanting free stuff', or what have you.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Likewise, Hillary fans ought to recognize how she's got significant weaknesses in terms of the general election. She's consistently underperforming in the head to heads against Trump. One major factor is that she represents the increasingly unpopular DNC establishment, one people have grown disenchanted with. I'm not talking down, btw.

I've no idea why you think that this is an appropriate counter-criticism. A lot of people understand Hillary's weaknesses and the weaknesses of establishment, and frankly, I don't think a lot of people who abstain appreciate the cost of abstention.

 

[Wall]

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.

Some are arguing that. That's actually been an argument since about 2009 for why people shouldn't be unhappy with the Democrats.

Also, what happens as a result of a change depends on what the change is. Right now, considering Republicans control the legislative branch of the federal government and most state governments, change is much more likely to occur in a right-wing rather than a left wing direction.

Further, there is a fundamental asymmetry in U.S. politics. The Republicans are much more radical, much further to the right, than the Democrats are to the left. They are also much more organized ideologically, Trump included. He's basically a doctrinaire movement conservative Republican at this point on everything except trade and cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I imagine he would evolve on those positions as well if he thought he could get away with it.

I just think its important to acknowledge the overall context in which this discussion is occurring. Right now, the Democrats are back to arguing that people should support them because the Republican candidate is horrible. Luckily, Trump is much more polarizing than Bush II, so hopefully that will work better this time around.

Edit: Everyone should read that article jakonovski just posted. It not only makes good points about why people like the policies Bernie proposes, but you could extend the point to the role of self-interest in politics in general. Most people in the U.S. disapprove of the current U.S. political establishment because they don't feel it is addressing issues important to their own lives. Understanding that is key, because just being anti-establishment is appealing to people.

 

[lednerg]

I've no idea why you think that this is an appropriate counter-criticism. A lot of people understand Hillary's weaknesses and the weaknesses of establishment, and frankly, I don't think a lot of people who abstain appreciate the cost of abstention.

Because it's actually relevant, unlike this.

I think these people are merely voicing their frustrations, but won't actually vote for Trump. I say this because I've seen this stuff time and time again, for decades. Same goes for all those people who promised they'd move to Canada because their candidate lost.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

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

But Bernie would have to be a complete moron not to.

Unlike some of his supporters, Bernie actually does care about who becomes president and calls the shots for the next 4-8 years, and if you think he'd actually let that be Trump you're insane.

What the hell is wrong with this segment of his supporters that completely forget about his entire platform?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

One major factor is that she represents the increasingly unpopular political establishment, one people have grown disenchanted with.

I find the disenchantment lies mostly in congress' inability to work together at all, thanks to unprecedented levels of obstructionism via the Republican party. Which makes sense. That shit is extremely disillusioning.

But Congress looking like that has a lot to do with people not showing up for their midterms. This is one of the lessons that Bernie's campaign will hopefully drive home with voters, where it didn't when Nader was branded a spoiler in 2000: You can't grow the sort of congressional change needed to allow Presidents to get their jobs done if you only show up to vote for longshot Presidential nominees.

But what she represents isn't congressional makeup, or Republican obstructionism. She represents basically 85-90% of the same things Sanders represents, just with variations in theme on some key points.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think they're voicing their frustrations but won't actually vote for Trump. I say this because I've seen this stuff time and time again, for decades. Same goes for all those people who promised they'd move to Canada because their candidate lost.

Ultimately even if they are just voicing their disappointment, it's still valuable perspective for them to understand.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

No one's dodging your point, because we barely are aware of it in the first place. What are you even talking about? What would indicate to Hillary that she can throw trans people under the bus? What are trans people doing with Hillary that they didn't do with the first pro-trans President in US history? Obama certainly wasn't running on a pro-trans platform in either election, but we voted for him anyway. He also wasn't in favour of same-sex marriage openly - I do believe that he was personally in favour of it, but for political reasons, he did not support it. It took Biden's support to kick him into gear. Again, you miss the point of settling. Trans people settle, all the time, and often, they settle for the candidate that may do nothing for them because the alternative is a candidate that has a lot that they want to do TO them. A bad president can cost lives, and while you might be willing to gamble that hey, maybe Trump will do right by trans people, you're not gambling with your life

I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in Hillary's record on trans issues, so that may not be the best example - but what I do know is that both the national security state and free trade are pretty bipartisan issues. Clinton did NAFTA, Bush had CAFTA, Obama has the TPP, which Hillary supports. There's really not an appreciable difference between what the democrats and republicans do on free trade when they're in office. So if you're the kind of person that thinks globalization is imperialism 2.0, keeps developing nations in poverty while sticking it to the working class at home, who do you vote for? If you don't take a stand and let the democrats know that they can't take you for granted, why shouldn't they just keep kowtowing to the rich? I think something similar is happening with foreign policy - Obama didn't invade anyone,but he's routinely sending robots to murder people, including US citizens, into countries that we're not even at war with. All of those Snowden revelations were happening under Obama's watch. So again, if you're anti-war - do you tell the democrats that it's fine to keep nominating Obamas and Clintons and they can count on your vote anyway?

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in Hillary's record on trans issues, so that may not be the best example - but what I do know is that both the national security state and free trade are pretty bipartisan issues. Clinton did NAFTA, Bush had CAFTA, Obama has the TPP, which Hillary supports. There's really not an appreciable difference between what the democrats and republicans do on free trade when they're in office. So if you're the kind of person that thinks globalization is imperialism 2.0, keeps developing nations in poverty while sticking it to the working class at home, who do you vote for? If you don't take a stand and let the democrats know that they can't take you for granted, why shouldn't they just keep kowtowing to the rich? I think something similar is happening with foreign policy - Obama didn't invade anyone,but he's routinely sending robots to murder people, including US citizens, into countries that we're not even at war with. All of those Snowden revelations were happening under Obama's watch. So again, if you're anti-war - do you tell the democrats that it's fine to keep nominating Obamas and Clintons and they can count on your vote anyway?

Again, you are entirely missing the point, to extreme degrees. If Hillary is the second shittiest candidate a trans person could possibly vote for, they vote for her because they're afraid of what happens if the shittiest candidate wins instead. Do you think that Trump isn't going to get us into wars? That Trump isn't going to anger our allies and anger our enemies even further? The issue ultimately is how frustrating it is to watch people choose to not settle when so many others don't have that choice, and to watch people disregard the potential harms that come from abstention.

 

[Juice]

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?

They would be strawmen, but what keeps these threads going is a handful of #BernieOrBust advocates pop in to speak up and keep the cycle alive

 

[Boombloxer]

"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

Pretty much.

I like Sanders and he is my preferred choice, but there is a reason he is losing the primaries and no amount of funky math is going to change the fact that Clinton took the majority votes/delegates/super-delegates. The people, the Democratic base, has already spoken. I'll be voting blue across the board come this fall, regardless of candidate. And I live in a deep red, southern, state.

Anyone who wants to see the vision and planning laid out by Sanders needs to rally behind Clinton. The two are much closer than you think. And frankly, if you are willing to not vote or vote for Trump/Cruz, then you never cared for his policies or vision to begin with. Those two will be doing everything they can to strip away the progress of the last eight years.

Don't really understand how people don't see this.

Likewise, Hillary fans ought to recognize how she's got significant weaknesses in terms of the general election. She's consistently underperforming in the head to heads against Trump compared to Sanders. One major factor is that she represents the increasingly unpopular political/economic establishment, one people have grown disenchanted with. It's not all about the 'pie in the sky' promises, 'wanting free stuff', or what have you.

Those measurements are largely meaningless until after the nominations; and "underperform" is relative, largely because they both have gigantic leads.

Growing disenchanted is fine, but I'd argue that stripping away the gains the of the past 8 years and filling the SCOTUS with a particular viewpoint that would further nullify them is a bigger deal than any pie in the sky promise. That actually moves the conversation back and seeing a legit candidate with Bernie's beliefs have a better shot as becoming president.

Most of this has quieted on my FB, outside of 1-2 people, because the base has spoken. She has more delegates and more popularity. No conspiracy.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Again, you are entirely missing the point, to extreme degrees. If Hillary is the second shittiest candidate a trans person could possibly vote for, they vote for her because they're afraid of what happens if the shittiest candidate wins instead. Do you think that Trump isn't going to get us into wars? That Trump isn't going to anger our allies and anger our enemies even further? The issue ultimately is how frustrating it is to watch people choose to not settle when so many others don't have that choice, and to watch people disregard the potential harms that come from abstention.

Also, a President doesn't have the power to unilaterally pass laws on their own, but they can act as a barrier to the legislature. We're going to have a Republican House, and very possibly a Republican Senate, for the next few years. If they decide to start passing anti-trans laws, who do you think is more likely to veto them, Hillary or Trump? Who is more likely to put forward Supreme Court and other judicial nominees who will support trans rights, Hillary or Trump? There is too much at stake to say "I'm sitting this election out because fuck Hillary."

 

[Morrigan Stark]

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.

W-whaaaaat?

Oh, is this some subtle satire?

 

[excelsiorlef]

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.

I hate that I actually understand what you're saying lol.

 

[Mael]

I love how Clinton is supposed to be more of a warmonger than Trump.
The guy said he would go in Syria, steal the oil and kill them (and their families).
Is Clinton's plan going to be full nuclear war with Iran or something?

 

[Link]

I love how Clinton is supposed to be more of a warmonger than Trump.
The guy said he would go in Syria, steal the oil and kill them (and their families).
Is Clinton's plan going to be full nuclear war with Iran or something?

Well, she's a lying liar who lies, so probably. Might as well vote Trump just to be safe.

 

[sphagnum]

W-whaaaaat?

Oh, is this some subtle satire?

Yes, benji's trolling, he's a libertarian. Social fascism was a term used against social democracy by Stalin because it relies on class cooperation for the benefit of the (usually ethnic) nation rather than (international) class struggle*, which is an element of fascist economics. And social democracies have a tendency not to actually turn socialist but to stem radicalism by giving the workers a better life without giving them control of the means of production. The critique actually does have merit and it's a pretty standard view among communists (the "social democracy is a half measure" part, not the social fascist part), even though he's joking with it.

He's basically making fun of the poster because Bernie is not really revolutionary.

*Not coincidentally, we're now seeing social democracy straining in Europe due to continued liberal pressure to privatize as well as the influx of refugees causing nascent racism to flare up since native whites don't want to share with the brown people and are afraid of the cultural differences. Social democracy can slip into fascism. But hopefully we don't get there.

 

[Calamari41]

I love how Clinton is supposed to be more of a warmonger than Trump.
The guy said he would go in Syria, steal the oil and kill them (and their families).
Is Clinton's plan going to be full nuclear war with Iran or something?

Trump is a complete wildcard. Maybe he declares war on the rest of the world, or maybe he goes full isolationist. All I know is that swaths of the defense/aerospace industry, of which I am a part, are at least secretly pulling for Hillary over both Trump and Sanders because she is the one most expected to drive up our sales numbers. We're talking a hardcore overwhelmingly Republican industry, too. Maybe others in the military industrial complex have a different perspective. I'd love to hear what people in other parts of the country are hearing from their peers.

One huge thing holding people back from supporting her is the fact that her State Department went way overboard with ITAR. That was a massive roadblock for everyone.

 

[jakonovski]

Libertarians using stalinist rhetoric as a point against social democracy. Perhaps it would be good for some of you to return to earth and read that article I linked.

Edit for your convenience: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

 

[lednerg]

They would be strawmen, but what keeps these threads going is a handful of #BernieOrBust advocates pop in to speak up and keep the cycle alive

Yup, and it all plays into the narrative that's been going on for months about Bernie supporters. They're naive about politics, they just want free stuff, they're racists/sexists, yada yada yada. It's more than a little bit similar to Democratic Party's apathy towards Occupy Wall Street, who were supposedly misguided because they didn't endorse a candidate. Except now they have: Bernie Sanders. There's no polling to back me up, but I'm sure there's a lot of overlap between people who are dismissive of OWS and Hillary voters.

 

[Andrin]

I think you're dodging my point. The idea isn't that Trump would be better on trans issues than Hillary. The idea is that you make the Democrats actually do what advances your interests when they're in power, because not fighting for your rights costs them elections. If they see that they can throw you under the bus without any political consequences, they'll drop you once the heat gets on - which is why trans people get tossed out of half of the anti- GLBT* discrimination laws in the country. You take your lumps in the short term to build a more viable long-term movement.

(on the object level, I actually have no clue what Trump will do for trans people - he seems pretty secular, and while he's a racist asshole I actually can't recall anything I've heard about him and the GLBT* community. The guy has no scruples and is a political chameleon - remember he supported socialized medicine and the largest tax hike in world history before seeking the republican nomination - so it wouldn't surprise me if he did a very public about face on gay and particularly trans issues as he tries to pivot to the center)

I can see the point you're making in your last few posts, and it's not a bad one. When elections are the only times when you can have direct power over politicians they also become the only times when you can show them that they aren't good enough. That they need to change and do better. However, the way the system in the US works currently, the parties only listen to people who actually vote. If you don't vote you don't count to them. And since the system as is is a bipartisan one, if you vote for a third party that vote will instead help the party that you were otherwise least likely to vote for. Which means that getting your point across by protest voting is a lot harder than it should be.

As for the reason why so many Hillary supporters are being so urgent and forceful about 'settling', this particular election is not the time to protest. With so many potential seats on the SCOTUS up for grabs the next 4-8 years and with both the House and the Senate stacked in the Republicans' favour the longterm costs of a potential Republican president could be catastrophic for minorities. Because while someone like Trump might not personally push for laws that would ruin the lives of LGBT-people for example, any such laws passing through the House and/or Senate would have a much easier time passing through his office than they would Hillary's. And if he stacked the SCOTUS with Scalia 2.0's or worse there would be no stopping them there either. That is why so many minorities are so afraid right now. To them, this particular election could almost literally mean the difference between life or death.

 

[Ryaaan14]

 

[Odrion]

As for the reason why so many Hillary supporters are being so urgent and forceful about 'settling', this particular election is not the time to protest. With so many potential seats on the SCOTUS up for grabs the next 4-8 years and with both the House and the Senate stacked in the Republicans' favour the longterm costs of a potential Republican president could be catastrophic for minorities. Because while someone like Trump might not personally push for laws that would ruin the lives of LGBT-people for example, any such laws passing through the House and/or Senate would have a much easier time passing through his office than they would Hillary's. And if he stacked the SCOTUS with Scalia 2.0's or worse there would be no stopping them there either. That is why so many minorities are so afraid right now. To them, this particular election could almost literally mean the difference between life or death.

Pretty much.

How does 2020 look?

 

[Steel]

Libertarians using stalinist rhetoric as a point against social democracy. Perhaps it would be good for some of you to return to earth and read that article I linked.

Edit for your convenience: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

You're missing the point. Badly. The posts you're responding to were using stanlist rhetoric ironically.

But, let's get something out of the way, European social-democracy is not without its massive glaring faults, without even looking at that Stalinist rhetoric.

Let's make it simple: European social-democracies generally have almost double our tax rate. On top of that, they have national sales taxes and value added taxes we don't. On top of that they spend a pittance of the amount of money that we do on their military. And, keep in mind, the reason they feel safe to spend barely anything on their defense spending is because they know they can rely on the U.S. to spend shitloads to make up for it.

And, even with all that additional per capita income and minuscule military spending, they're still running massive deficits. And they still have trouble integrating immigrant populations(more than the U.S. does, in fact). And, because of the immigrants, they're still electing right-wingers that run against immigrants(even in places like Sweden). And they're still having economic problems in the same time period that the U.S. has been having an economic boom.

That's not to say that there's no benefit to democratic socialism at all. There's a very real quality of life benefit to those policies and it certainly helps that more of the money that's still being made is distributed to more people rather than just the rich. But it's not some magic bullet that solves all problems.

 

[TumblingHippo]

Every single election however feels like people say "this isn't the time for protest" and to wait another time. Over and over and over so of course at some point people are going to stop listening and push back or stop caring and the dem candidate will lose.

Dems haven't won much and the way the pendulum swings I can't imagine they'll have any luck this year. The worst part is that yeah, maybe this year is the worst time for a protest vote.

I guess I'll vote dem this year anyways and do my part as a good little D.

 

[T'Zariah]

Pretty much.

How does 2020 look?

THAT is the REAL wild card. 2016 is almost a lock for Dems, at this point, but 2020 is where we are truly in the Bermuda Triangle of Politics.

 

[jakonovski]

You're missing the point. Badly. The posts you're responding to were using stanlist rhetoric ironically.

But, let's get something out of the way, European social-democracy is not without its massive glaring faults, without even looking at that Stalinist rhetoric.

Let's make it simple: European social-democracies generally have almost double our tax rate. On top of that, they have national sales taxes and value added taxes we don't. On top of that they spend a pittance of the amount of money that we do on their military. And, keep in mind, the reason they feel safe to spend barely anything on their defense spending is because they know they can rely on the U.S. to spend shitloads to make up for it.

And, even with all that additional per capita income and minuscule military spending, they're still running massive deficits. And they still have trouble integrating immigrant populations(more than the U.S. does, in fact). And, because of the immigrants, they're still electing right-wingers that run against immigrants(even in places like Sweden). And they're still having economic problems in the same time period that the U.S. has been having an economic boom.

That's not to say that there's no benefit to democratic socialism at all. There's a very real quality of life benefit to those policies and it certainly helps that more of the money that's still being made is distributed to more people rather than just the rich. But it's not some magic bullet that solves all problems.

It seems to me that stalinist quip can go from ironic to unironic as suits the person speaking, and it serves no purpose except to insult. And it's in fact dumb that we even continue talking about it as benji seems content to just watch, he's done his job.

Tax rate is answered in that article: you get something in return for those taxes and the aggregate is a net gain for citizens. As far as deficits go, that's not exactly a unique problem. Defense spending I can't understand at all, who is this shadowy enemy that requires almost a trillion a year to defend from? Maybe instead if the US used some of its military money to help its own people.

(Lack of) well organized immigration has been a European problem for over a decade now, and has resulted in stagnation and xenophobia both. But I don't think it's anything endemic to social democracy, but humanity as a whole. Also I might add that it's arguably US wars that created this current refugee crisis. I'm glad to do my part to help, but feels kinda bad getting taunted by people from the country that set it all in motion but refuses to carry any of the burden.

Social democracy is obviously not a silver bullet, as evident by the myriad problems facing my country, the poster boy of consensus politics, Finland. But at the same time, due to past events, I and my family would be begging for scraps in the gutter in the US. Instead of being productive members of society.

 

[TyrantII]

Yup, and it all plays into the narrative that's been going on for months about Bernie supporters. They're naive about politics, they just want free stuff, they're racists/sexists, yada yada yada. It's more than a little bit similar to Democratic Party's apathy towards Occupy Wall Street, who were supposedly misguided because they didn't endorse a candidate. Except now they have: Bernie Sanders. There's no polling to back me up, but I'm sure there's a lot of overlap between people who are dismissive of OWS and Hillary voters.

But endorsing a candidate isn't winning an election, let alone creating a political movement from a social one.

The real question is what do Bernie supporters do after he's out and especially after Nov.

Do they soften their message, find candidates that are better suited to win and run them, and work to build a coalition with progressive Democrats.

Or do they take their ball and go home pouting about the man. Or worse, burn the Dem house down on the way out ensuring exactly opposite of what they claim to support happens.

 

[Steel]

It seems to me that stalinist quip can go from ironic to unironic as suits the person speaking, and it serves no purpose except to insult. And it's in fact dumb that we even continue talking about it as benji seems content to just watch, he's done his job.

Tax rate is answered in that article: you get something in return for those taxes and the aggregate is a net gain for citizens. As far as deficits go, that's not exactly a unique problem. Defense spending I can't understand at all, who is this shadowy enemy that requires almost a trillion a year to defend from? Maybe instead if the US used some of its military money to help its own people.

(Lack of) well organized immigration has been a European problem for over a decade now, and has resulted in stagnation and xenophobia both. But I don't think it's anything endemic to social democracy, but humanity as a whole. Also I might add that it's arguably US wars that created this current refugee crisis. I'm glad to do my part to help, but feels kinda bad getting taunted by people from the country that set it all in motion but refuses to carry any of the burden.

Social democracy is obviously not a silver bullet, as evident by the myriad problems facing my country, the poster boy of consensus politics, Finland. But at the same time, due to past events, I and my family would be begging for scraps in the gutter in the US. Instead of being productive members of society.

To be clear, I read the article. I know there are benefits. In the U.S. we should want these benefits as well.

For tax rate: The author pretty much cites New York City tax rates when it's the place with the highest tax burden in the entire U.S. And, again, we don't have national sales taxes or value added taxes.

For deficits: No, it's not a unique problem(although it's a severe problem in the EU right now), but note that the U.S. currently has massive deficits without taking on democratic-socialism.

For immigration: Liberalism in the U.S. seeks to better incorporate immigrant populations and increase immigration. Democratic Socialism in Europe does little to address this problem. This accounts for the difference. But, to Sanders' credit, he definitely wants to better the immigrant situation.

For military: Do you really think that the spectre of the U.S. millitary serves no purpose other than to start wars in the Middle East? It's a deterent against Russia and China. Imagine how eastern-Europe would feel if the U.S. cut its military spending in half right now. You could bet they and their European allies would ramp their military spending back up.

And, to be clear, I know the U.S. has massive problems with income inequality that absolutely need to be solved. Democratic-Socialism isn't the only answer to these problems, it's simply an answer, and one that doesn't quite work with how people in the U.S. view taxes and our defense spending.


Let me also say one more thing: I'm heavily in favor of tax increases on everyone for the medium term and even the long term if we get some social programs to match those tax increases.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Every single election however feels like people say "this isn't the time for protest" and to wait another time. Over and over and over so of course at some point people are going to stop listening and push back or stop caring and the dem candidate will lose.

Dems haven't won much and the way the pendulum swings I can't imagine they'll have any luck this year. The worst part is that yeah, maybe this year is the worst time for a protest vote.

I guess I'll vote dem this year anyways and do my part as a good little D.

Perhaps abstention isn't the best form of protest in the first place? I would be highly curious to see how many people who plan to abstain participate in the midterms.

 

[jakonovski]

To be clear, I read the article. I know there are benefits. In the U.S. we should want these benefits as well.

For tax rate: The author pretty much cites New York City tax rates when it's the place with the highest tax burden in the entire U.S. And, again, we don't have national sales taxes or value added taxes.

For deficits: No, it's not a unique problem(although it's a severe problem in the EU right now), but note that the U.S. currently has massive deficits without taking on democratic-socialism.

For immigration: Liberalism in the U.S. seeks to better incorporate immigrant populations and increase immigration. Democratic Socialism in Europe does little to address this problem. This accounts for the difference. But, to Sanders' credit, he definitely wants to better the immigrant situation.

For military: Do you really think that the spectre of the U.S. millitary serves no purpose other than to start wars in the Middle East? It's a deterent against Russia and China. Imagine how eastern-Europe would feel if the U.S. cut its military spending in half right now. You could bet they and their European allies would ramp their military spending back up.

And, to be clear, I know the U.S. has massive problems with income inequality that absolutely need to be solved. Democratic-Socialism isn't the only answer to these problems, it's simply an answer, and one that doesn't quite work with how people in the U.S. view taxes and our defense spending.


Let me also say one more thing: I'm heavily in favor of tax increases on everyone for the medium term and even the long term if we get some social programs to match those tax increases.

Looks like we don't disagree that much, so that is good.

On the immigration issue, the popular opinion is that social democrats are among the main culprits for immigration problems, exactly for favoring it instead of closing borders further. Governments are thus shifting rightwards.

 

[Steel]

Looks like we don't disagree that much, so that is good.

On the immigration issue, the popular opinion is that social democrats are among the main culprits for immigration problems, exactly for favoring it instead of closing borders further. Governments are thus shifting rightwards.

I mean, that's right, but it's hard to actually see policies that european social-democracts have enacted to better integrate immigrant populations. They don't demonize them, but they don't really go out of their way to get their votes.

 

[jakonovski]

I mean, that's right, but it's hard to actually see policies that european social-democracts have enacted to better integrate immigrant populations. They don't demonize them, but they don't really go out of their way to get their votes.

The common wisdom is that having achieved their grand goal of worker emancipation, they failed to find new groups to focus on, instead just kept on consolidating. Not having done research on pre-2008 crisis immigration policies in Europe, I'm not sure how it specifically went down.

 

[not psycho]

Every single election however feels like people say "this isn't the time for protest" and to wait another time. Over and over and over so of course at some point people are going to stop listening and push back or stop caring and the dem candidate will lose.

Which are the elections you're talking about where everyone voted?

Because the numbers don't back you up. It never happened. The numbers are pretty consistent over the years, eligible voters age 18-34 don't vote. Eligible voters age 65+ vote. Politicians cater to the political beliefs of the group that votes.

There are a lot more 18-34 year olds than there are 65+ year olds. But in 2014 a lot more 65+ year olds voted, because they maintain a 30-40% greater turnout. And that pattern holds in congressional elections over the years. There was no period in which younger voters attempted voting; never happened.


Put simply, abstention has been tried. A lot. And it hasn't worked. Voting has never been tried.

A large group can even take over a party from the inside, if they vote. A large enough group could sweep Republicans out of office, with Hillary as president, Warren in the senate, a supreme court stacked against hardline Republicans, and then mount an even bigger effort in the next presidential primary (with a better candidate than Bernie).

It wouldn't be easy, but as a pure strategic question, it seems more likely to succeed than a continuation of abstention in perpetuity.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Again, you are entirely missing the point, to extreme degrees. If Hillary is the second shittiest candidate a trans person could possibly vote for, they vote for her because they're afraid of what happens if the shittiest candidate wins instead. Do you think that Trump isn't going to get us into wars? That Trump isn't going to anger our allies and anger our enemies even further? The issue ultimately is how frustrating it is to watch people choose to not settle when so many others don't have that choice, and to watch people disregard the potential harms that come from abstention.

Again, I really feel like we're talking past each other here. My read on Trump is that he will continue the drone program and various NSA abuses, use a terrorist attack as an excuse to start a more public war (probably against Iran) if such a thing occurs, and "lead from behind" in supporting any military intervention that gets a sufficient amount of support elsewhere. I think basically the same about Hillary. Style is occasionally important, though, and it's true that Trump will be more antagonizing to our allies, to say the least.

It's not my objection, but I do think the anti-trade people are on better grounds than the anti-war people - given Trump's populist rhetoric and his constituency so far, he will absolutely be more protectionist than Clinton will.

But that's all missing the meta point. I'm fine with compromising. I plan on voting Hillary myself, should she win the nomination, and I'll probably even volunteer for her campaign. I'm just saying that there's more than one election to worry about and that the constituencies that aren't willing to tell their party to take a hike when they're completely ignored get taken advantage of. The passivity of the anti-war left and the fact that there weren't people calling for impeachment hearings when Obama started assassinating American citizens and the family members of suspected terrorists (a war crime and violation of the Geneva Convention, as John Oliver will remind you) is why our military can be so reckless across the world. So I'd turn it back on you.

"The issue ultimately is how frustrating it is to watch people choose to settle when so many others don't have that choice, and to watch people disregard the potential harms that come from acquiescence."

You keep trying to paint this as a consequentialist vs. principle-based analysis, I guess because you're pattern matching me to other debates you've had on the subject. But this is consequentialist on consequentialist - this is about the best way to keep the military from indiscriminately murdering brown people, or to prevent capitalism from exploiting workers world wide and sticking it to the working classes here at home. I do think that it's still best to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, but I think there's at least a plausible case that sending the message that any candidate that supports the drone program is unacceptable to large parts of the party is a good enough one to justify abstention. And again, that's not a principle-based analysis - you're not sending a message because it feels good, you're doing it because it makes it easier to get a Sanders nominated in the future.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Perhaps if we were seeing that on both sides of the political spectrum it'd be one thing, but we're only seeing it on the left - and, as such, this only results in empowering a political party that is more keen on doing the things that abstainers find untenable for a candidate to support. As someone pointed out, a lack of involvement in the elections by young leftists has not worked in the past, so it begs the question of what it will contribute now or the future. They can certainly tout abstention as a moral victory, that they do not have to say that they sullied their values by supporting a candidate who does not support them, but it's not by itself going to change things, not even close. Such a tactic will either result in the Democrat candidate having a close win, or straight-up losing. Either way, they will get undesirable values into power - except one choice will push them harder, and more consistently. The drone program is most certainly fucked, but during previous wars, we saw similar fucked up things. If people want Bernies in power, they need to change the system from the down up, and much of the people who want Bernie types just aren't concerned enough about that. They may not like to imagine it, but long-term change is ultimately most effective and the least harmful option for a lot of people.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Perhaps if we were seeing that on both sides of the political spectrum it'd be one thing, but we're only seeing it on the left - and, as such, this only results in empowering a political party that is more keen on doing the things that abstainers find untenable for a candidate to support. As someone pointed out, a lack of involvement in the elections by young leftists has not worked in the past, so it begs the question of what it will contribute now or the future. They can certainly tout abstention as a moral victory, that they do not have to say that they sullied their values by supporting a candidate who does not support them, but it's not by itself going to change things, not even close. Such a tactic will either result in the Democrat candidate having a close win, or straight-up losing. Either way, they will get undesirable values into power - except one choice will push them harder, and more consistently. The drone program is most certainly fucked, but during previous wars, we saw similar fucked up things. If people want Bernies in power, they need to change the system from the down up, and much of the people who want Bernie types just aren't concerned enough about that. They may not like to imagine it, but long-term change is ultimately most effective and the least harmful option for a lot of people.

We're only seeing this on the left? Are you kidding me? Establishment Republicans are routinely calling for abstaining or even voting for Hillary because Trump is not an acceptable nominee to them. Check this article by David Brooks - or really, get a National Review subscription, they're amazing right now. The pro-business side of the Republican party isn't going to stand for Trump and they will absolutely defect to the democrats en masse if Trump is the future of the party. That's one reason why they're a powerful constituency - because they've proven that not following their interests cost Republicans elections. If a leftist printed something like the Brooks column about Hillary's record on war and trade, they'd be dismissed - pretty much like they are in this thread, as pie in the sky dreamers that don't understand what real politics are about. You've probably noticed that far rightists have more influence over the Republicans than far leftists do over the Democrats, that tea partiers were more successful than Occupiers, and that the Kochs have think tanks in every state in the country while the closest thing to a communist think tank in America is... I dunno, let's say the Brookings Institute. This is why. Republican constitutiences aren't willing to let themselves be browbeaten into accepting the status quo, so they all get a seat at the table.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You're looking at it in too one-dimensional a fashion. It's not happening on the state level for Republicans, for instance. If we see abstention/Republicans pushing for Hillary, it stands alongside 10 instances of abstention by Democrats.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

You're looking at it in too one-dimensional a fashion. It's not happening on the state level for Republicans, for instance. If we see abstention/Republicans pushing for Hillary, it stands alongside 10 instances of abstention by Democrats.

Point to me a single columnist as reputable as Brooks, or an outlet as respected as the National Review, that's pushing for abstention if Hillary gets the nomination.

 

[Kyzer]

In general, people creating narratives for others and their agendas and intent with voting, instead of actually giving each other the benefit of the doubt to at least believe what they say about themselves.... is really obnoxious.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Point to me a single columnist as reputable as Brooks, or an outlet as respected as the National Review, that's pushing for abstention if Hillary gets the nomination.

You're again missing the point. What I said was that abstention is proven to have negative effects, as seen in years upon years of low turnout by Democrats.

 

[not psycho]

Republican constitutiences aren't willing to let themselves be browbeaten into accepting the status quo, so they all get a seat at the table.

The Tea Party is demographically a group that votes. People listen to them because they vote. They get their people elected because they vote for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

Some examples:

- Nikki Haley, a 38-year-old Indian-American state representative, beat out three prominent Republican rivals in the South Carolina primary race for governor, capturing 49% of the vote

- Rand Paul, who gave a speech at the first tea party event held in December 2007 and who subsequently endorsed by other Tea Party groups, won the Super Tuesday GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. Paul, the son of Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, comfortably beat Republican establishment favorite Secretary of State of Kentucky Trey Grayson with 60% of the vote, and subsequently won in the November general election

- In Utah attorney Mike Lee defeated establishment Republican U.S. Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) in the GOP senate primary on May 8, 2010

- In Alaska, attorney Joe Miller defeated current U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, in the GOP primary race on August 24, 2010.

- In Delaware, Tea Party-backed candidate Christine O'Donnell defeated veteran U.S. Representative Mike Castle in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.


----


What I'm seeing is a group of older, mostly White people who have always voted a lot, continuing to vote a lot. But this time they voted for their crazy Tea Party candidates, got them through the primaries, and elected them. And they scared other Republicans into moving towards their views, because Republicans knew they could lose in a primary, because again... the Tea Party is a group that votes.

Are you saying that they elected their Tea Party candidates by a long term abstention strategy? Abstention is the most status quo action imaginable. If the Tea Party didn't vote establishment Republicans would have been safe in their primaries.

A group that has never voted has no credibility for voting, and obviously they can't vote in their favored candidate because they don't vote at all.

 

[kame-sennin]

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)

I think you're dodging my point. The idea isn't that Trump would be better on trans issues than Hillary. The idea is that you make the Democrats actually do what advances your interests when they're in power, because not fighting for your rights costs them elections. If they see that they can throw you under the bus without any political consequences, they'll drop you once the heat gets on - which is why trans people get tossed out of half of the anti- GLBT* discrimination laws in the country. You take your lumps in the short term to build a more viable long-term movement.

This is exactly why progressives have no control over the democratic party while social conservatives have been holding republicans hostage for fifteen years. Progressives are always worried about losing this election. 'But what if the republicans win, they'll set things back?!' Because of this mentality, they give the democrats a pass and watch the party slide slowly to the right.

Progressives don't understand concepts like sacrifice plays or delayed gratification. Yes, the stakes are high - it's always "the most important election of our lifetime". Yes, the republicans will fuck things up and cause significant human misery over the course of 4 or 6 years. But over the course of twenty years, the democrats have done damage on a scale the republicans could never imagine. Since the 1980's, the New Democrats have watched and contributed to the destruction of unions, they've undone the most crucial elements of FDR's bank reforms which gave us 70 years of economic stability, and they've perpetrated a system of mass incarceration so draconian that it has set African Americans back, in aggregate, to the conditions of the Jim Crow era.

Republicans could never have crushed unions in one four year term. A single republican president or class of senators would never be allowed to totally deregulate the banks. And if any republican proposed overturning the civil rights act, they'd be run out of town on a rail. But democrats have, in concert with republicans, accomplished all of these things. As a person of color, I would gladly endure the shittyness of a single Romney term if it meant undoing the New Jim Crow eight years later.

But you can't protect the gains that progressives have made, or push for new gains, if you're not willing to punish democrats every once and a while. You have to sacrifice one election so you can get a stronger candidate in the next three. While a republican term might be harmful to the country, the damage caused by undisciplined democrats over the long term is much much greater.

 

[Azzanadra]

This is exactly why progressives have no control over the democratic party while social conservatives have been holding republicans hostage for fifteen years. Progressives are always worried about losing this election. 'But what if the republicans win, they'll set things back?!' Because of this mentality, they give the democrats a pass and watch the party slide slowly to the right.

Progressives don't understand concepts like sacrifice plays or delayed gratification. Yes, the stakes are high - it's always "the most important election of our lifetime". Yes, the republicans will fuck things up and cause significant human misery over the course of 4 or 6 years. But over the course of twenty years, the democrats have done damage on a scale the republicans could never imagine. Since the 1980's, the New Democrats have watched and contributed to the destruction of unions, they've undone the most crucial elements of FDR's bank reforms which gave us 70 years of economic stability, and they've perpetrated a system of mass incarceration so draconian that it has set African Americans back, in aggregate, to the conditions of the Jim Crow era.

Republicans could never have crushed unions in one four year term. A single republican president or class of senators would never be allowed to totally deregulate the banks. And if any republican proposed overturning the civil rights act, they'd be run out of town on a rail. But democrats have, in concert with republicans, accomplished all of these things. As a person of color, I would gladly endure the shittyness of a single Romney term if it meant undoing the New Jim Crow eight years later.

But you can't protect the gains that progressives have made, or push for new gains, if you're not willing to punish democrats every once and a while. You have to sacrifice one election so you can get a stronger candidate in the next three. While a republican term might be harmful to the country, the damage caused by undisciplined democrats over the long term is much much greater.

Progressives can learn a thing or two from the conservatives. Their stubborness, how they control the party and not the other way around... heck, I swear that a higher percentage of Republicans vote than Democrats. You need to stand up against your party, realize its just as corrupt as the Republicans (maybe even more so) and that is partially why Sanders is so important. Even if Sanders didn't make good on all his promises, its a wake up call to the establishment that has been manipulating and indoctrinating the public for years. Its a sign that the people wont take this BS anymore.

 

[Days like these...]

This is exactly why progressives have no control over the democratic party while social conservatives have been holding republicans hostage for fifteen years. Progressives are always worried about losing this election. 'But what if the republicans win, they'll set things back?!' Because of this mentality, they give the democrats a pass and watch the party slide slowly to the right.

Progressives don't understand concepts like sacrifice plays or delayed gratification. Yes, the stakes are high - it's always "the most important election of our lifetime". Yes, the republicans will fuck things up and cause significant human misery over the course of 4 or 6 years. But over the course of twenty years, the democrats have done damage on a scale the republicans could never imagine. Since the 1980's, the New Democrats have watched and contributed to the destruction of unions, they've undone the most crucial elements of FDR's bank reforms which gave us 70 years of economic stability, and they've perpetrated a system of mass incarceration so draconian that it has set African Americans back, in aggregate, to the conditions of the Jim Crow era.

Republicans could never have crushed unions in one four year term. A single republican president or class of senators would never be allowed to totally deregulate the banks. And if any republican proposed overturning the civil rights act, they'd be run out of town on a rail. But democrats have, in concert with republicans, accomplished all of these things. As a person of color, I would gladly endure the shittyness of a single Romney term if it meant undoing the New Jim Crow eight years later.

But you can't protect the gains that progressives have made, or push for new gains, if you're not willing to punish democrats every once and a while. You have to sacrifice one election so you can get a stronger candidate in the next three. While a republican term might be harmful to the country, the damage caused by undisciplined democrats over the long term is much much greater.

You've stated this so much more meaningfully and expressively than I ever could. Thank you!