CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Democratic Party Going Forward
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Democratic Party Going Forward

post #1 of 646
Thread Starter 

Not so odd given that the crazy action is going on in the GOP, but there are fundamental shifts going on in the Democratic party as well. 


This piece in The New Republic caught my eye:

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/127154/democratic-party-south-changed-good 

 

A fundamental shift in the South to the Democratic side would result in a "lock" on the Presidency for decades. 

I think the article is a little optimistic. It may take decades for that kind of major shift to happen. And it IS possible the GOP could start fielding candidates who can appeal to minorities. 

 

There's also the rise of Elizabeth Warren, the likelihood that President Obama will assume some sort of leadership role (unofficial of course) and the possibility of Hillary in the White House next year. 

 

So are the Democrats really on an upswing? 

post #2 of 646
I don't know if it's so much that the Dems are on the upswing as it is the GOP is sitting in their car in the garage and the engine is running.

The question is, will they be able to open the garage door and pull themselves into the future?
I'm not getting an optimistic vibe about the situation.
post #3 of 646

Democrats won a special election for the Oklahoma State Senate in a very red area.  Granted, the Republican who forced the election plead guilty to embezzlement and the Republican nominee in this election wasn't very personable, but this is the second seat Oklahoma Dems were able to pick up since September (that was a House race in another reliably red area).  Republicans still overwhelmingly control everything in Oklahoma, but it's nice to see Dems getting some wins.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/13/1469347/-Incredible-Democrat-picks-up-dark-red-legislative-seat-in-Oklahoma-for-the-second-time-this-cycle#view-story

 

The Oklahoman middle class has been embracing solar energy more than most states, something Republicans took notice of when they tried to take away the tax incentives for going solar.  Maybe the state is getting a more progressive streak?

post #4 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post


The Oklahoman middle class has been embracing solar energy more than most states, something Republicans took notice of when they tried to take away the tax incentives for going solar.  Maybe the state is getting a more progressive streak?

Yeah I wouldn't say there's a big Progressive streak happening in the State. Tulsa has always been the most progressive city in the state. Here in OKC there's been major strides towards progressive attitudes, but re-electing Mary Fallin shows that most of the state is still Republican.

Also I bought a house a couple years ago and looked into solar panels, but our governor signed a bill to force a tax on alternative energy, effectively taking away any incentives for going solar.

http://m.newsok.com/article/4248019

With the energy companies losing money hand over fist and laying off hundreds of workers there are a lot of people in this state that are flat out terrified. And that's not even bringing the sudden explosion of earthquakes over the last couple of years. The Republicans are using that fear effectively.

There's hope for the Democratic party here (and in the south) but personally I don't see a many changes that signify a major party shift happening.
post #5 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by RodofWar View Post




Also I bought a house a couple years ago and looked into solar panels, but our governor signed a bill to force a tax on alternative energy, effectively taking away any incentives for going solar.

Holy shit. It baffles me that politicians can be so blatantly bought. Even in 2016, after all these years, it still blows my mind.

post #6 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by RodofWar View Post


Yeah I wouldn't say there's a big Progressive streak happening in the State. Tulsa has always been the most progressive city in the state. Here in OKC there's been major strides towards progressive attitudes, but re-electing Mary Fallin shows that most of the state is still Republican.

Also I bought a house a couple years ago and looked into solar panels, but our governor signed a bill to force a tax on alternative energy, effectively taking away any incentives for going solar.

http://m.newsok.com/article/4248019

With the energy companies losing money hand over fist and laying off hundreds of workers there are a lot of people in this state that are flat out terrified. And that's not even bringing the sudden explosion of earthquakes over the last couple of years. The Republicans are using that fear effectively.

There's hope for the Democratic party here (and in the south) but personally I don't see a many changes that signify a major party shift happening.


​I couldn't quite remember if Oklahoma effectively enforced a tax on alternative energy and didn't have the time to do the proper research, so thank you for the information.  That's really too bad that the state was able to stifle the movement, especially considering that prices are becoming more affordable.  I had read for awhile that Oklahoma's middle class was very willing to go in that direction, and it was one of the more exciting environmental stories going. 

 

The earthquakes have made me think that Democrats could have an opening there, if they effectively explain the dangers of over-fracking.  Then again, you're saying that Oklahoma energy companies are laying workers off, so I'd imagine that Republicans could quickly extol the benefits of fracking through job creation.

post #7 of 646

A very interesting read on growth restrictions in big cities and suburbs, but also housing affordability:

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-11/san-francisco-can-t-stand-how-much-it-wants-to-grow

 

I've actually never been to San Francisco, but I've had friends who lived there briefly and felt like they were priced out almost immediately.  Many of my New York friends have felt the same way.  The article brings up Jason Furman (chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers) who recently stated that land-use regulations could be driving up economic inequality, while the writer brings up that one of his Bloomberg colleagues thinks that housing affordability could be a good inroad for Republicans in big cities.

 

Housing affordability truly is an issue Democrats need to be better on, and I've been waiting to see how cities attack this.

post #8 of 646

In 2013, Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago had 50 public schools (all in poor areas) shut down.  There were protests, anger and lots of worries about kids falling through the cracks.  It turns out those worries had some truth to them:

 

http://catalyst-chicago.org/2015/02/for-the-record-tracking-434-missing-students-after-closings

 

That article is almost a year old now, but I bring it up because, now, equipment from those closed schools is missing too (and because possible children missing school is far more serious, obviously).

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1248855/bga-public-eye-cps-doesnt-know-happened-equipment-50-closed-schools

 

Barbara Byrd-Bennett, a former CPS schools chief, is getting the blame for bad record-keeping.  If that's true or not, who knows?  Byrd-Bennett is an easy scapegoat right now because she's in trouble for giving contracts to a former employer for promised kickbacks.  Byrd-Bennett was an Emanuel appointee, though, so her guilty plea is just another pedagogical blemish for his administration. 

post #9 of 646

John Bel Edwards is starting a new chapter in Louisiana, but Bobby Jindal is not leaving him with a clean slate:

 

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/14642333-171/edwards-owes-up-to-155m-to-cover-jindals-business-deals

 

Louisiana has many problems, but that's certainly going to sting.

post #10 of 646

Illinois goes to the polls tomorrow, but there are other things going on than the presidential primaries:

 

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/kim-foxx-bid-unseat-anita-alvarez-cook-county/Content?oid=21359641

 

I don't know if Anita Alvarez will win reelection or if the Laquan McDonald controversy will be enough for Kim Foxx to get in.  What I do know is that Foxx would be better suited for Cook County State Attorney.

post #11 of 646

The Fiscal Policy Institute and New York millionaires joining to put the pressure on Cuomo:

 

https://taxes.yahoo.com/post/141429524253/millionaires-raise-our-taxes-to-address-poverty

post #12 of 646

De Blasio postponing an important water tunnel to fund other things:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/nyregion/de-blasio-postpones-work-on-crucial-water-tunnel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

 

Quote:
The entire Brooklyn-Queens leg of the new tunnel was scheduled to be finished by 2021, with $336 million included in the capital budget in 2013 by Mr. de Blasio’s predecessor, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, for whom completion of the third tunnel was the most urgent and expensive undertaking of his tenure.
 
But last year, Mr. de Blasio’s administration, eager to keep a lid on water and sewer rates that had grown by an average of 8 percent annually under Mr. Bloomberg, moved financing for the third tunnel to other projects, Amy Spitalnick, a de Blasio spokeswoman, said.
post #13 of 646

"The Contemptuous Certainty of Barack Obama"

 

http://theweek.com/articles/623077/contemptuous-certainty-barack-obama

post #14 of 646
Because we have kind of committed to this whole idea that people are treated as innocent until proven guilty.
post #15 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Because we have kind of committed to this whole idea that people are treated as innocent until proven guilty.

 

Which would be fine for the year 2020 after the investigation has finished, granted she not be in prison during that time.  We cant have a candidate who might be indited during the general election, or even presidency. Only in an ultra corrupt system can a person facing ongoing investigation by one of the highest law enforcement agencies the country has and still be able to run for public office. 

post #16 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

 

Which would be fine for the year 2020 after the investigation has finished, granted she not be in prison during that time.  We cant have a candidate who might be indited during the general election, or even presidency. Only in an ultra corrupt system can a person facing ongoing investigation by one of the highest law enforcement agencies the country has and still be able to run for public office. 

 

So, you're a Trump supporter?

post #17 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

So, you're a Trump supporter?

 

Wow.

So if someone recognizes the reality of a situation and shows concern for something that is a pretty big deal, they must... what? Support Trump? Why would you even go right to that?

post #18 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

Wow.

So if someone recognizes the reality of a situation and shows concern for something that is a pretty big deal, they must... what? Support Trump? Why would you even go right to that?

 

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't deny supporting Trump....

 

OR

 

Perhaps are you a disgruntled Bernie supporter?

 

 

 

Seriously, I'm just tired of hearing all this anti-HC bullshit put forward by someone who more than likely can't understand how monumentally fucked this country would be if someone like Trump were to be elected POTUS.

 

As I get older I realize that when it comes to US politics, idealism with an eye looking toward the future is incredibly important, but you have to temper it with a healthy dose of pragmatism.

The GOP offers nothing but past, failed policies.

 

So, given the choice between a not-so-squeaky-clean Dem and a raging, ignorant, narcissistic pseudo-Repub. asshole....I'll choose the Dem every time because at least there is a chance of getting something positive accomplished with a Dem in power....compare this to the death-cult that is the GOP. 

 

 

 

post #19 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

 

Which would be fine for the year 2020 after the investigation has finished, granted she not be in prison during that time.  We cant have a candidate who might be indited during the general election, or even presidency. Only in an ultra corrupt system can a person facing ongoing investigation by one of the highest law enforcement agencies the country has and still be able to run for public office. 

 

No, only in an ultra corrupt system would merely being "under investigation" by law enforcement officially curtail the rights of a citizen to participate in the democratic process, prior to formal indictment.  This is a major cornerstone of civics you're bleating about, so if you're going to be so high-handed about it, try not to get it completely, 180 degrees wrong. 

post #20 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

Only in an ultra corrupt system can a person facing ongoing investigation by one of the highest law enforcement agencies the country has and still be able to run for public office. 

She's well within her rights, of course ... but I get your anger. Clinton's sleazy, nasty, a lapdog to Wall Street, and her so-called foreign policy expertise can fit into a thimble (the Libya intervention, for example, was a colossal fuck-up that the Dems do their best to ignore). I also find it hilarious when people try to describe her as progressive, since she's basically a neocon.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_hillary_clinton_a_neoconservative_hawk_what_iraq_and_libya_decisions_tell_us_about_her_foreign_policy/

 

Will she be indicted? Probably not. I don't think it matters anyway. There's already plenty of shit on her table.

post #21 of 646
While a Trump presidency would obviously harm or kill a lot of people, Clinton has already racked up an impressive body count through her votes in the Senate and her tenure as Secretary of State. Voting for either candidate would feel like an admission that I'm far enough removed from the respective candidate's victims or potential future victims to feel comfortable actively taking part in that candidate's election. And I'm just not. I'm not voting for someone I see as evil all the way down to the bone marrow, regardless of what ticket they're running on.
post #22 of 646
You two are out of your minds if you're likening Clinton and Trump, and people like you are the reason the world is simultaneously baffled and terrified.

It's not apples and oranges. If Clinton is apples, Trump is dräno. That none of you acknowledge that is just ridiculous.
post #23 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

No, only in an ultra corrupt system would merely being "under investigation" by law enforcement officially curtail the rights of a citizen to participate in the democratic process, prior to formal indictment.  This is a major cornerstone of civics you're bleating about, so if you're going to be so high-handed about it, try not to get it completely, 180 degrees wrong. 

Really? 

Because countries who actually send their politicians to prison for being corrupt, we don't see people under investigation attempting to be "president" because of the very obvious concerns there are and many with laws to prevent this.

post #24 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't deny supporting Trump....

 

OR

 

Perhaps are you a disgruntled Bernie supporter?

 

Seriously, I'm just tired of hearing all this anti-HC bullshit put forward by someone who more than likely can't understand how monumentally fucked this country would be if someone like Trump were to be elected POTUS.

 

As I get older I realize that when it comes to US politics, idealism with an eye looking toward the future is incredibly important, but you have to temper it with a healthy dose of pragmatism.

The GOP offers nothing but past, failed policies.

 

So, given the choice between a not-so-squeaky-clean Dem and a raging, ignorant, narcissistic pseudo-Repub. asshole....I'll choose the Dem every time because at least there is a chance of getting something positive accomplished with a Dem in power....compare this to the death-cult that is the GOP. 

 

 

 

 

 

So lets clarify all of this since apparently my position on who i support means more to you then facts. 

 

 

1. I support Trump more than Clinton, but neither will get my vote or support. 

 

 

2. Im a Bernie or bust guy, no one will get my support other than him and possibly whoever comes after as a result of his honesty.

So when you say something ilke.... 

 

"Perhaps are you a disgruntled Bernie supporter?

 

Seriously, I'm just tired of hearing all this anti-HC bullshit put forward by someone who more than likely can't understand how monumentally fucked this country would be if someone like Trump were to be elected POTUS."

 

..... And then attempt to justify a vote for Hillary, the woman who helped her Husband sell the democratic party to republicans, i can only laugh.

Im a Bernie supporter BECAUSE im disgruntled about our corrupt system. A corrupt system of one party that Hillary took part in creating. 

This idea that "democrats" (IMO Clinton voters are actually republicans) should support Hillary over Trump because she is the lesser of two evils is currently unnecessary, but also like.... ehh... its like you're wife cheating and then you attempting to explain why you should be more disappointing with the guy you didnt know, over her.

 

 

3. "So, given the choice between a not-so-squeaky-clean Dem and a raging, ignorant, narcissistic pseudo-Repub. asshole....I'll choose the Dem every time because at least there is a chance of getting something positive accomplished with a Dem in power....compare this to the death-cult that is the GOP. "

 

And at this point in your professed elderly age, you should have also realized that the vast majority of established democrats are nothing but late 90s republicans and working and representing the same people/industry as the current GOP. Which if i didnt mention before, is a situation we are in BECAUSE of the Clinton's. 

 

I do love this though.... "a not-so-squeaky-clean Dem".

Way to absolutely minimize and ignore the reality of the situation. 

We're not talking about Elizabeth Warren here, a woman who has stood up for her ideals while also (but not often) siding with corporate power. We are talking about a person who could potentially be charged with treason and then long before this (ignoring the  instances of her being corrupt as shit in between these periods) helped sell the democratic party to create the situation we are currently in. This is not some "not so squeaky clean" situation. And to try to make this somehow less of a problem then Trump's rhetoric, is as bias and ill-informed as it gets..... or maybe instead of ill-informed, not really concerned with the problems one suggests they are concerned with. If your concern is really where you say its at, then you should want nothing to do with Hillary and her name having a "d" next to it, should mean absolutely nothing. But apparently the opposite is the case, yes?

 

The funny thing here and the irony, is, this is the same situation the republicans have gotten themselves in and why they could not stop Trump from becoming the representative. They gerrymandered themselves into a hole by minimizing their voter base to people who will vote for someone simply because of the "r" next to their name. Which btw, is what Hillary and her corrupt little pig controlling the DNC have attempted to do.


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/21/16 at 7:45am
post #25 of 646
Okay, so you're a Bernie supporter who is actually voting for Trump, who had a tenuous grasp on the processes of criminal prosecution and predicates for treason. Now that we have that cleared up, please tell me more about how your Pre-Crime Division will reform the electoral process.
post #26 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Okay, so you're a Bernie supporter who is actually voting for Trump, who had a tenuous grasp on the processes of criminal prosecution and predicates for treason. Now that we have that cleared up, please tell me more about how your Pre-Crime Division will reform the electoral process.

 

You talk about "tenuous grasps", while you yourself seem to fail basic reading comprehension. 

 

Quote:

1. I support Trump more than Clinton, but neither will get my vote or support. 

 

 

2. Im a Bernie or bust guy, no one will get my support other than him

 

Literally the second and third sentences of my post, so...... good job reading.

 

 

As for potential treason charges (while unlikely) its not me saying this, its lawyers and journalists applying law.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/AndrewNapolitano/hillary-clinton-fbi/2016/01/28/id/711562/

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/yes-hillary-clinton-did-commit-a-crime/

 

You do understand that the federal investigation can lead to espionage charges right? Which, is treason. 

 

 

Quote:
Now that we have that cleared up, please tell me more about how your Pre-Crime Division will reform the electoral process.

 

Lastly, i have no idea wtf you're even talking about here. 

Why you cannot grasp that its a bad idea to have someone running for president who is also potentially up for federal indictment for what could potentially amount to treason, is beyond me.

 

It seems to me that you just want to pretend that this situation is continued fox news rhetoric. When there might have been a time when you could say that (although you should have been leery), now that specific information has been given, immunities have been given to witnesses, you should now realize the severity of the situation and that its not FN rhetoric.  

post #27 of 646
Hey man, don't blame me. You've been suspected of being a Trump supporter, ergo you must be treated as a Trump supporter within the public sphere. Any other system would simply be corrupt.
post #28 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

So lets clarify all of this since apparently my position on who i support means more to you then facts. 

 

 

1. I support Trump more than Clinton, but neither will get my vote or support.

 

So in your eyes Trump and Clinton are equally....'evil'? 

The simple fact that someone even entertains the idea that Trump would be a better POTUS should immediately call into question that someone's ability to think rationally.

 

 

"Perhaps are you a disgruntled Bernie supporter?

Quote:

2. Im a Bernie or bust guy. No one will get my support other than him and possibly whoever comes after as a result of his honesty.

So when you say something ilke.... 

 

So, you are a disgruntled Bernie fan. ;)

 

To be clear...I actually love that Bernie is out there raising the bar when it comes to promoting progressive ideals. It is sorely needed and if his presence pushes HC more to 'the left', all the better...BUT,  and there is a huge butt here in the form of Trump and the GOP/"government sucks" power brokers that would loooooove to see Trump get elected. Trump would be the proverbial 'bull in a china shop' when it comes to governing the Federal gov. 

 

Grover Norquist has been famously quoted as saying "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Trump would be the person that would be sitting on top of 'the gov.' in that above scenario. 

 

Quote:

..... And then attempt to justify a vote for Hillary, the woman who helped her Husband sell the democratic party to republicans, i can only laugh.

Im a Bernie supporter BECAUSE im disgruntled about our corrupt system. A corrupt system of one party that Hillary took part in creating. 

This idea that "democrats" (IMO Clinton voters are actually republicans) should support Hillary over Trump because she is the lesser of two evils is currently unnecessary, but also like.... ehh... its like you're wife cheating and then you attempting to explain why you should be more disappointing with the guy you didnt know, over her.

 

And at this point in your professed elderly age, you should have also realized that the vast majority of established democrats are nothing but late 90s republicans and working and representing the same people/industry as the current GOP. Which if i didnt mention before, is a situation we are in BECAUSE of the Clinton's. 

 

The Dems have always been left of center/right in my lifetime....the perception of them being '90's repubs'  is due mainly to the fact that GOP has gone so far to the right that anyone/thing to the left of them would place you in the center of the political spectrum.

 

The Dem party has never held a uber-progressive, socialist, 'hippies' agenda. They have always been pretty middle-of-the-road politically. 

 

Would it be good if they were super progressive...sure, but lasting political/sociological change doesn't occur rapidly....it can take generations for it to happen and pushing for quick and  'radical' change can end up backfiring.  Look to the political backlash of the marriage equality or ACA ruling....you have all the local gov. fundie conservatives freaking out and trying anything and everything to push back against these very progressive ideals.

 

Hell, there are  pockets of conservatism all across this country that are still fighting these kind of battles.

Bolivar County, Mississippi Fought School Desegregation For 50 Years. It Finally Lost.

 

FFS, there would have never been something like the ACA or marriage equality being implemented if the GOP were to hold the White House. The fact that these things are the way they are is due mainly to democrats pushing for it.

 

Quote:

I do love this though.... "a not-so-squeaky-clean Dem".

Way to absolutely minimize and ignore the reality of the situation. 

We're not talking about Elizabeth Warren here, a woman who has stood up for her ideals while also (but not often) siding with corporate power. We are talking about a person who could potentially be charged with treason and then long before this (ignoring the  instances of her being corrupt as shit in between these periods) helped sell the democratic party to create the situation we are currently in. This is not some "not so squeaky clean" situation. And to try to make this somehow less of a problem then Trump's rhetoric, is as bias and ill-informed as it gets..... or maybe instead of ill-informed, not really concerned with the problems one suggests they are concerned with. If your concern is really where you say its at, then you should want nothing to do with Hillary and her name having a "d" next to it, should mean absolutely nothing.

 

This could have been written by someone that listens to Rush, gets their news from Fox and reads Newsmax, Breitbart, et al.

I've seen damn near the same sentiment expressed on other forums I frequent by folks that are hardcore conservative/Trump supporters.

 

Would I like an Elizabeth Warren presidency, hell yeah, but that is not where we are as a country right now....we will (most likely) have a choice between HC and Trump and if you see them as equally bad, you need to have your eyes checked.

post #29 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Hey man, don't blame me. You've been suspected of being a Trump supporter, ergo you must be treated as a Trump supporter within the public sphere. Any other system would simply be corrupt.

 

I will blame you and whoever else has "suspected it". Because in order to "suspect it" you have to ignore my very clearly stated stance OR apply this idea simply because i criticized Clinton. So which dumb reason do you fall under? Was it your ability to reply to my post but for some reason not be able to read what was in it, or is criticizing someone else all it takes for you to make these extremely broad strokes of assumption?

post #30 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

As for potential treason charges (while unlikely) its not me saying this, its lawyers and journalists applying law.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/AndrewNapolitano/hillary-clinton-fbi/2016/01/28/id/711562/

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/yes-hillary-clinton-did-commit-a-crime/

 

You do understand that the federal investigation can lead to espionage charges right? Which, is treason. 

 

Lastly, i have no idea wtf you're even talking about here. 

Why you cannot grasp that its a bad idea to have someone running for president who is also potentially up for federal indictment for what could potentially amount to treason, is beyond me.

 

It seems to me that you just want to pretend that this situation is continued fox news rhetoric. When there might have been a time when you could say that (although you should have been leery), now that specific information has been given, immunities have been given to witnesses, you should now realize the severity of the situation and that its not FN rhetoric.  

 

 

Holy crap....I reference newsmax in my response and I see you use them as a source....:rolleyes:

post #31 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

So in your eyes Trump and Clinton are equally....'evil'? 

The simple fact that someone even entertains the idea that Trump would be a better POTUS should immediately call into question that someone's ability to think rationally.

 

 

Yah i do. They are part of the same corrupt system that you pretend to be against. 

In fact i'd actually suggest that Trump is about 10% wild card. We know he does not actually believe his rhetoric (he clearly understands how to pander to a demographic that will get him elected. Which btw, is the same problem with Clinton and her supporters), and we know the majority of his life he has identified as a democrat.

But i actually think he would simply be another Bush where two or three people... Chaney, Rove, etc. will have to come in and basically be the president because he will have no idea what he is doing. 

 

That being said,  again, neither will get my support or vote. This is a lesser of two evil's vote now, and i believe we dont have to go down that road. 

 

Would i like to see Trump as president over Clinton? 

Clinton would probably do a better job. BUT, with Trump in office for four years, we might actually be able to put someone like Elizabeth Warren in office in 2020, instead of simply riding out another corporate shill undercover republican for 8 years, which is what we'd have to do with Clinton.

 

Its a no win situation between these two, which is why no one professing to understand the issues we face, should be supporting Clinton. We have a major problem in this country with political corruption and voting for Clinton, no matter how you try to justify it, wont fucking help as she is as corporate and politically corrupt as it gets, yes, even more then Trump. And again.... pay attention, that's not suggesting the situation would be different with Trump, its just a fact.

 

 


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

So, you are a disgruntled Bernie fan. ;)

 

 

Im a disgruntled American who practices what i preach. What's your excuse? 

Why do you ignore the fact that you're supporting a person who has been instrumental in creating the very situation you claim to have such a grasp on and in terms of voting and support, is more republican then Trump is?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan

 

The Dems have always been left of center/right in my lifetime....the perception of them being '90's repubs'  is due mainly to the fact that GOP has gone so far to the right that anyone/thing to the left of them would place you in the center of the political spectrum.

 

The Dem party has never held a uber-progressive, socialist, 'hippies' agenda. They have always been pretty middle-of-the-road politically. 

 

So this is what leaves me looking at Clinton supporters as a complete joke. 

 

1. No, the triangulation of the democratic party during the Clinton administration is what what did it. Its also what has allowed the GOP to go further right then they were without losing votes (until the 2nd Bush admin).  Without the sale of the democratic party, none of this can happen.

 

2. As an ideology and less focusing on the name behind it, yes it has been "uber progressive and socialist". Its the same ideology used to get us out of the great depression, and funny enough, the same ideology that made america the most powerful nation in the world.  Democrats were not "middle of the road" until post-Clinton and even that term "middle of the road" is a false equivilency to what they were actually doing (voting republican on political issues, bringing up non-partisan issues and pretending they are partisan)

 


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan

FFS, there would have never been something like the ACA or marriage equality being implemented if the GOP were to hold the White House. The fact that these things are the way they are is due mainly to democrats pushing for it.

 

 

So again not to defend republicans but i will stick to facts here. 

Fact of the matter is the ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation, Bush sr. and RR and it was believed that Bush sr. would have implemented it had he had a second term. And of course the only politician to enact the ACA before Obama, was Mitt. So....... I get what you're saying, but if anything it should just show you that you're supporting a one party system. The republicans didnt want Obama to pass the ACA because he supported it, not because they had any real objectification to it. Its a big blow job to insurance companies, republicans loved it. They loved it so much, they fucking wrote it. And btw, also one of the reasons we can say that modern dems are nothing but 90s republicans.

 

 

 

Quote:
Would I like an Elizabeth Warren presidency, hell yeah, but that is not where we are as a country right now....we will (most likely) have a choice between HC and Trump and if you see them as equally bad, you need to have your eyes checked.

 

But we are there. 

In fact we have someone with a better understanding of what we need than Warren, who holds roughly half of the democratic vote right now... a person who would be leading most likely, had Clinton not been able to control and corrupt the DNC. Yah... we're there and since im not a hypocrite and am more concerned with the actual issues then a letter next to someone's name, ill stand by Bernie and not go with possibly the single most corrupt democrat on the face of the earth.


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/21/16 at 8:51am
post #32 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

Holy crap....I reference newsmax in my response and I see you use them as a source....:rolleyes:

 

 

Would you like a link to liberalviewer? A lawyer on youtube who is as progressive as it gets and a qualified lawyer who says the same fucking thing? 

 

Again, maybe you should stop focusing so much on the letter next to someones name and instead focus on what's said and evidence for. 

This thing with focusing on the wrong thing seems to be a regular problem in your world.

 

I get the hesitation when it comes to right wing websites, but valid information is valid. If its valid, it can be verified through numerous sources that have no partisan gain, how many do you want me to give you? I noticed you didnt mention the other link, i had a third that i forgot to add as well.

Information is valid because it can be sourced and cited through credible means, not because of a single source saying it. Which is why you focused on one site and not the other, and why i could spend half the day citing what you would consider "liberal" sources for the sme information. 

 

EDIT:

 

You mentioned things you've discovered as you've aged. 

 

Well, you know what i have discovered as ive aged? And its a general consensus among older people who have witnessed what they have with our political system. Labels don't mean shit. 


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/21/16 at 8:54am
post #33 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post

Yah i do. They are part of the same corrupt system that you pretend to be against. 

In fact i'd actually suggest that Trump is about 10% wild card. We know he does not actually believe his rhetoric (he clearly understands how to pander to a demographic that will get him elected. Which btw, is the same problem with Clinton and her supporters), and we know the majority of his life he has identified as a democrat.

But i actually think he would simply be another Bush where two or three people... Chaney, Rove, etc. will have to come in and basically be the president because he will have no idea what he is doing. 

 

That being said,  again, neither will get my support or vote. This is a lesser of two evil's vote now, and i believe we dont have to go down that road.

 

You can believe we don't have to go down that road all you want, but the reality of the situation is that there are pretty much 2 roads to choose from and just choosing to sit in the intersection and pout could very well allow Trump (and his ilk) to take off down that road....and he'll be driving a steamroller.

 

Quote:

Would i like to see Trump as president over Clinton? 

Clinton would probably do a better job. BUT, with Trump in office for four years, we might actually be able to put someone like Elizabeth Warren in office in 2020, instead of simply riding out another corporate shill undercover republican for 8 years, which is what we'd have to do with Clinton.

 

Probably?

I for one don't want to see what sort of monumental fuck-ups that someone like Trump could do with 4 hours in the WH much less 4 years.  The amount of damage Trump and a GOP controlled congress (either by action OR inaction) could do to this country could be astronomical in scope. You think that 8 years of Dubya was detrimental....yikes.

 

Quote:

Its a no win situation between these two, which is why no one professing to understand the issues we face, should be supporting Clinton. We have a major problem in this country with political corruption and voting for Clinton, no matter how you try to justify it, wont fucking help as she is as corporate and politically corrupt as it gets, yes, even more then Trump. And again.... pay attention, that's not suggesting the situation would be different with Trump, its just a fact.

 

 

I agree that corruption is a problem and money needs to be removed from the political process but at least there would be a chance of change with HC in office. I'd argue that with Trump as prez., corruption would exponentially increase because he wallows in greed and is incapable of turning that side of his personality off.
 

Quote:

Im a disgruntled American who practices what i preach. What's your excuse? 

Why do you ignore the fact that you're supporting a person who has been instrumental in creating the very situation you claim to have such a grasp on and in terms of voting and support, is more republican then Trump is?

 

So this is what leaves me looking at Clinton supporters as a complete joke. 

 

I'm a pragmatist. I think keeping someone that hates the idea of government from being in charge of it is more than a little important.

HC at least has some degree of reverence for the concept of governing compared to Trump and his willfully ignorant, reality tv show version of the world.

If that means voting for HC over Trump, she has my vote.

 

Quote:

1. No, the triangulation of the democratic party during the Clinton administration is what what did it. Its also what has allowed the GOP to go further right then they were without losing votes (until the 2nd Bush admin).  Without the sale of the democratic party, none of this can happen.

 

2. As an ideology and less focusing on the name behind it, yes it has been "uber progressive and socialist". Its the same ideology used to get us out of the great depression, and funny enough, the same ideology that made america the most powerful nation in the world.  Democrats were not "middle of the road" until post-Clinton and even that term "middle of the road" is a false equivilency to what they were actually doing (voting republican on political issues, bringing up non-partisan issues and pretending they are partisan)


So again not to defend republicans but i will stick to facts here. 

Fact of the matter is the ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation, Bush sr. and RR and it was believed that Bush sr. would have implemented it had he had a second term. And of course the only politician to enact the ACA before Obama, was Mitt. So....... I get what you're saying, but if anything it should just show you that you're supporting a one party system. The republicans didnt want Obama to pass the ACA because he supported it, not because they had any real objectification to it. Its a big blow job to insurance companies, republicans loved it. They loved it so much, they fucking wrote it. And btw, also one of the reasons we can say that modern dems are nothing but 90s republicans.

 

 

".....allowed the GOP to go further right"? 
 

WTF-  The GOP's overwhelming desire to destroy every last little bit of the 'New Deal' is what drove them father right....the fact that Clinton was liked and the economy was doing well when he was in office was just another excuse that they used to justify their own retrograde -dying- ideology.

The election of Pres. Obama is what finally drove them off the deep (right) end. 

 

Regarding the ACA....the fact that is was a conservative idea didn't mean shit to the GOP once Obama got behind it, they fucking disowned faster than you can say 'Reagan' and the fact that the GOP hated it just because Obama supported it should tell you all you need to know about how petty and narrow-minded the current GOP is.

 

How many times have the GOP members of congress voted to try and defund the ACA?  IIRC, it was around 60 times...all the while knowing that it stood no chance of it passing through congress.  If this doesn't say "we're a bunch of dicks" about the GOP I don't know what does.

 

Is the ACA perfect, hell no....I would have loved 'single payer' but it's helped 1000's (millions?) including me when my gallbladder suddenly burst about 2 years ago.

 

Also, the idea of Bush senior implementing affordable healthcare legislation is fucking laughable. Conservatives in Congress would have never gone for something like that.

 

Quote:

But we are there. 

In fact we have someone with a better understanding of what we need than Warren, who holds roughly half of the democratic vote right now... a person who would be leading most likely, had Clinton not been able to control and corrupt the DNC. Yah... we're there and since im not a hypocrite and am more concerned with the actual issues then a letter next to someone's name, ill stand by Bernie and not go with possibly the single most corrupt democrat on the face of the earth.

 

 

Putting aside your hyperbolic ranting about how HC is the "most corrupt dem. on the face of the Earth"; if you can't see that she would be a much better choice than the trainwreck that would be Trump  presidency, I can't take your opinions seriously.

 

You could always vote for Gary Johnson...?

post #34 of 646
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

You can believe we don't have to go down that road all you want, but the reality of the situation is that there are pretty much 2 roads to choose from and just choosing to sit in the intersection and pout could very well allow Trump (and his ilk) to take off down that road....and he'll be driving a steamroller.

 

 

The reality of the situation is we have a candidate who even after facing the biggest blocking being that of his own party (the corrupt members of who apparently you support) still holds at 46%. It wont take much to get him above 50 or the proper number of delegates.... Democrats simply have to practice what they preach. Which apparently youre failing at.

 

As for Trump, i dont care. Look, you people have created this bubble of hyperbole and rhetoric with Trump and now have him on par with Satan himself.  When the fact of the matter is when it comes down to it, a Trump or Clinton presidency wont be that much different from one another. The important things in our country, will still go ignored. Maybe you should focus more on cleaning your own house then another..... that seems to be the solution with Clinton supporters. The irony being is that if Trump wins, it will be because Clinton supporters voted for her and not the man who utterly destroys Trump in every single vote and poll.

 


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan

You think that 8 years of Dubya was detrimental....yikes.

 

 

Oh shit you're right! I just realized we could have another Bush on our hands...... hey remind me again, who went along with virtually everything Bush wanted to do? Was it Bernie or Hillary? And remind me again, did Hillary or Trump remove themselves from the disastrous ideas of the Bush administration faster.... which one removed their support faster...... hummmm....

 

Vote Hillary right?

Because nothing can be more disastrous then the two other people who recognized bad legislation, acts and political moves before and quickly after (for Trump, much quicker then Hillary). Right?

 

Got it. Vote Hillary.

If you dont want another Bush admin, vote for the person who almost fully supported the Bush admin. that totally makes sense.

 

This is how bad Hillary supporters are with their nonsense and how little logic or application of reality is being used. Im left having to say that things that are simple facts, but seem like it defends Trump, when thats the absolute last thing.... second to last thing... i want to do.

 

 

 

Quote:
I'd argue that with Trump as prez., corruption would exponentially increase because he wallows in greed and is incapable of turning that side of his personality off.

 

You can argue this all you want, but fact is there is nothing really behind it. 

Where as, there's quite a bit behind the notion that Hillary is not just more corrupt, but will only become the DNC representative BECAUSE she corrupted the system.

 

This is what im talking about with the logic. How the holy hell can you understand this concern and be more against Trump, than Hillary?  FACT, politically speaking, Hillary is a billion times more corrupt then Trump.

We could argue why that is and throw out all the possibilities and imaginary futures you want to, but we know for a fact what we will get with Hillary. Which is, the single most corrupt democrat in the country.

 

 

Quote:

WTF-  The GOP's overwhelming desire to destroy every last little bit of the 'New Deal' is what drove them father right....the fact that Clinton was liked and the economy was doing well when he was in office was just another excuse that they used to justify their own retrograde -dying- ideology.

The election of Pres. Obama is what finally drove them off the deep (right) end. 

 

 

No. What drove them further right was the triangulation of the republican party and the creation of the bible belt in the late 70s. Without the democrats being on board, this would have died out. So who better to sell out the democratic party than the republicans Bill and Hillary Clinton? 

Who then sold the democratic party and we were on the way to the full, one party system we have now. Again, without the sale of the democrats, the further right wing we started to see would have simply been relegated to low watt air waves and fringe groups. 

 

Bush sr. was at right wing as it really gets without getting into the religious right wing. And the reason why Trump was able to get elected over establishment republicans (the system of one party they set up) was because they gerrymandered themselves into a hole. 

 

 

Quote:
Regarding the ACA....the fact that is was a conservative idea didn't mean shit to the GOP once Obama got behind it, they fucking disowned faster than you can say 'Reagan' and the fact that the GOP hated it just because Obama supported it should tell you all you need to know about how petty and narrow-minded the current GOP is.

 

And the only reason youre voting for Hillary is because she has a "d" next to her name.  The fact that she is the most corrupt politician we can find and votes traditionally republican... means what to you?

Obviously nothing. 

So what's the difference? This imaginary future where Trump is this massive disaster and some how Hillary wont be?

I don't see much of a difference here.

 

And btw i would like to point something out here. The republicans are attempting to remain in power. Its getting harder and harder for them to do so, so there is a rationale (not saying its great, but it is there) to simply being against the opposing party.  So again, what is your excuse for ignoring reality, facts and to not vote on what you claim to be things you understand and ideas you hold?

 

Again, we see the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters. "They didnt support it because Obama!! I will only support Hillary because of the D by her name!"

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Also, the idea of Bush senior implementing affordable healthcare legislation is fucking laughable. Conservatives in Congress would have never gone for something like that.

 

See... these are your delusions. This is pure insanity. 

 

Why the fuck do you think he, the HF and his former president wrote it? What? For Mitt to apply to a single state over a decade later? 

And how can on one hand you say the GOP didnt support the ACA solely because of Obama, and now move on to saying they would not have supported it under Bush? Which btw, politics was not like it is not back in the Bush sr administration.  

This was a hot topic back then, and widely supported by all parties and people. This, the ACA, was the republicans answer to it, hence why the democrats came up with shit like "Hilary care". Which btw, again, was a topic that then became ignored, instead of passed, BECAUSE of the sale of the democratic party by the Clinton's. See, the pressure for both parties to pass some kind of health care system was being placed on everyone by the democrats at the time, it was such a pressure that the republicans even recognized they had to implement something. Thats how politics used to be. It was not this silly "we support this/they dont support it at all", it was "the vast majority of Americans take issue with something, dems have an idea, reps have an idea".

But of course again, none of that mattered in the end. Thank you Bill and Hillary for dropping the topic and selling the democrats. 

 

 

Quote:
I'm a hypocrite. I think keeping someone that hates the idea of government from being in charge of it is more than a little important.

 

Fixed

 

 

Quote:
Putting aside your hyperbolic ranting about how HC is the "most corrupt dem. on the face of the Earth"; if you can't see that she would be a much better choice than the trainwreck that would be Trump  presidency, I can't take your opinions seriously.

 

Hyperbole? Really?

Name a single democrat in office right now who's level of corruption expands past or is even on par, with Hillary's.  Just one. 

 

You do realize that your Trump rhetoric is you applying this worst case scenario that you really dont have much of a reason to apply, right? Not yet at least.  Where as you want to blatantly and knowingly ignore the corruption we know for a fact Hillary is capable of and even currently involved in.

 

You seem to not understand that if we are to measure the political corruptness of these two, Hillary would be done with ther ace before Trump even started. Im sorry facts and reality do not matter to you, but they do to me. I tend to find Hillary supporters dont take facts or logic seriously, so its not very surprising that you wouldnt take my opinions, based on said facts, seriously. 

 

Find me a democrat and information about Trump, that shows Hillary is not just the most corrupt member of the democratic party, but less corrupt than Trump.

 

 

Quote:
You could always vote for Gary Johnson

 

Which would be the same as me not voting. Hell, im better off writing in Bernie. 

But how about you put your money where your mouth is and vote Bernie?

At least your ideals and conscious.... not sure if you have either at this point.... will be clear. 

 

 

 

 

Well... We know why she needed her own server and blackberry w/o Homeland Security having access to it, she was too busy doing things like supporting the coup of foreign governments. But hey, Trump's the disaster right?

 

 


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/21/16 at 12:01pm
post #35 of 646

Well, this got out of hand quickly.

 

As a very big Bernie supporter, there's honestly only one choice, do everything you can to support Bernie up through the convention. Hopefully he influences the party platform, and delivers a powerful speech. Okay. Then what?

 

Get Clinton nominated. Why?

 

Bernie is old. I would rather he enjoy his last terms in the senate as a powerful member of the progressive wing, being influential, being important, being able to hold Hilary Clinton accountable, and use his power to bring important issues to the fore. When he proposes a bill, he would be able to mobilize his base to call and protest and get the senate democrats to support him. He would be one of the most recognizable people in the senate, and would not be ignored, especially because they will still need the progressives to come out and support them in 2018 mid term elections.

 

If Bernie supporters act like children, and don't vote for Clinton, or even worse, vote for Trump, then all you're doing is making Bernie's last term in the senate totally irrelevant. He'll be the one to take all the blame for Trump. Nothing he proposes will ever pass the senate, because even the democrats will block his bills. You would basically be dooming his legacy.

post #36 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post


...I don't see much of a difference here
That is why you fail...
:-/

Have fun voting for Trump....
post #37 of 646

....and I happened to notice this just a little while ago.

 

BUSTED: Trump-loving comment trolls pose as Sanders and Clinton supporters to divide Democrats

 

There's a link in the above article to the 4chan posts in question (I'm not going to include a link to that forum here) and given the nature of the source, take this story with a grain of salt.

 

That said, if ever this kind of thing would be occurring, it's certainly this election season.

post #38 of 646
Amateurs. Nixon would have sent his guys to burn an orphanage to the ground while dressed in Sanders and Clinton campaign t-shirts.
post #39 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Amateurs. Nixon would have sent his guys to burn an orphanage to the ground while dressed in Sanders and Clinton campaign t-shirts.

It is only May....
post #40 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


That is why you fail...
:-/

Have fun voting for Trump....

 

Sanders you mean? 

 

The ironic thing is Trump is now beating Hillary in almost every poll. Its been a slow gain, but we knew if he kept gaining it would happen. Of course, while Sanders margin has decreased, he still beats Trump by impressive double figures. 

 

So like i said. I will vote for the person who is an actual progressive, who is actually honest, who has no scandals or corruption surrounding him and who could actually hand Trumps ass to him in an election, instead of failing and giving Trump the presidency. Which is what will happen if Hillary is the candidate. 

 

Im not sure why, but the thing you seem to have a very hard time understanding (i imagine its for bubble reasons) is that at the end of the day Trumps rhetoric, while absolutely deplorable and disgusting, is only rhetoric. Hillary Clinton's scandals, FBI investigation, corruption of the democratic party, is very, very, very real. Trump (while its a safe assumption) we can only assume will sell even more of our nation to the highest bidding corporations. Hillary, its unquestionable if she will do this or not. We know she will, shes said she will. 


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/23/16 at 1:20pm
post #41 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post

If Bernie supporters act like children, and don't vote for Clinton, or even worse, vote for Trump, then all you're doing is making Bernie's last term in the senate totally irrelevant. He'll be the one to take all the blame for Trump. Nothing he proposes will ever pass the senate, because even the democrats will block his bills. You would basically be dooming his legacy.

 

So is this one of those fake Sanders supporters mentioned above? 

I ask because Sanders supporters tend to understand that they are voting for policy, not a letter next to a name. 

They also tend to understand what can be achieved through the supreme court and executive orders. 

 

You can call people "childish" for not supporting Clinton all you want. But some of us have morals and expectations and absolutely will not support the person who helped corrupt the democratic party in the first fucking place. 

post #42 of 646

Yeah, I'm not a fake Sanders supporter. Feel free to check my post history. But you failed to address the larger issue, which is that Sanders himself will vote for, and caucus with the democrats in Senate. He'll be able to work within a Clinton administration and propose progressive bills, and rally his troops to put pressure on Clinton and other senate dems to support him. But if Sanders supporters vote in Trump then Bernie will be worthless in the senate. Nothing he proposes will pass, and he'll be blamed for everything. 

 

The smart thing to do is vote for Clinton in the general election. Give her a year and change to show if she's as corrupt as we all think. If so, stay home in 2018, and she will lose the mid-terms, and then we can launch a progressive primary campaign in 2020 to make her a one term president.

post #43 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

Yeah, I'm not a fake Sanders supporter. Feel free to check my post history. But you failed to address the larger issue, which is that Sanders himself will vote for, and caucus with the democrats in Senate. He'll be able to work within a Clinton administration and propose progressive bills, and rally his troops to put pressure on Clinton and other senate dems to support him. But if Sanders supporters vote in Trump then Bernie will be worthless in the senate. Nothing he proposes will pass, and he'll be blamed for everything. 

 

 

The larger issue is not Sanders voters, voting for Trump. More will write in Sanders in a primary election then vote for Trump. The majority will simply not vote or vote Clinton. 

Me personally i will not vote for whoever the GOP would put in (of the 16, Trump or not) or the alternative democrat option, i cannot vote for the most corrupt democrat in Washington right now. I have standards and principals, and i dont vote because of a letter next to someone's name. I would just as easily support a conservative if they made more sense than Hillary and was a real conservative not an establishment republican like everyone we see running in the GOP lately... and Hillary Clinton who of course is far more moderate corporate republican than democrat. 

 

The larger issue is impacting the system even if a Bernie presidency fails. 

 


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

The smart thing to do is vote for Clinton in the general election. Give her a year and change to show if she's as corrupt as we all think. If so, stay home in 2018, and she will lose the mid-terms, and then we can launch a progressive primary campaign in 2020 to make her a one term president.

 

 

 

This is why i felt that comment about fake Sanders supporters was more aimed at you. 

If you are a Sanders supporter, then you should understand why you are voting for him. Which is the attempt at changing a corrupt and bought political system. You'd know that this wait and see game you seem to want to have with Clinton, should have been already destroyed in your mind. She is as corrupt as it gets. We dont need to wait and see. How much more corrupt do you think she can be dude? She helped her husband triangulate the democratic party and sell it to corporate republicans thus creating the one party corruption problem we face. The email scandal. The secret supporting of a coup against the Honduras government. Her and her little buddies in the DNC have been doing nothing but rigging the democratic process as this thing continues.. what more do you need to see? Dont sit here and attempt to patronize people who refuse to vote for this disgusting monster simply because you want to ignore the reality of the situation. 

 

 

And a reminder.... Clinton will most likely be indited before the general election. As she should be given what she pulled. 

post #44 of 646

It's interesting seeing this from a UK perspective, because the Sanders phenomenon seems quite similar to the push that put the old school stalwart leftist Jeremy Corbyn in charge of Labour last year. A kind of grassroots shot at elevating someone with principles and ideals over the slick compromising candidates that had become standard, and one that actually worked.

 

I guess the difference to me is, Labour really needed to hit the reset button at that point because the wheels had fallen off the New Labour bus and the moderate Tory-lite approach wasn't getting anyone anywhere. I'm sure they'll inch back to the centre eventually but however Corbyn works out in the long term, getting back to their roots and appointing someone like him was probably a necessary step for the party at that moment.

 

The thing about the Democrats is, to my eyes it doesn't seem like they're in the kind of desperate state that necessitates a drastic change in direction. Admittedly I haven't followed everything Obama has done, but from this overseas perspective it seems like he's kept a cool head and tried to steer things in the right direction, with at least a moderate amount of success. From what I gather his approval ratings are doing well and he seems to be quite well regarded on the whole. This seems to me like odd timing for a fuck-the-system call for revolution.

 

Given that his biggest problem seems to be obstruction from the other side, to my mind the sensible thing would be to play the long game, solidify around what Obama was doing, try to secure a solid win while the Republicans are in a fractured state and then work from there. I know the polls supposedly show Sanders has better odds than Clinton against Trump (something I can't help but find hard to swallow) but my feeling is putting forward a strident ideologue like Sanders right now would be an unnecessary gamble with the potential to backfire badly, either in November or in four years time.

 

Clinton to me would seem like a fairly sensible choice to do what I suggested above if not for all the baggage. A lot of people seem to have a visceral hate for that woman, and even though I keep hearing about how tough and resilient she is, so far she doesn't seem to be doing a terribly effective job at building a counter-narrative against the attacks from both left and right. Maybe someone else would've been a better pick, but I'm not convinced the only or best alternative is Sanders.

post #45 of 646

Sanders as the nominee could be a gamble in an ordinary election against a more centrist, well-liked GOP opponent, but I think he would stand better chance against Trump than many realize.  Throughout the race for the Democratic nomination, he has outperformed Clinton among independents, a group that Democrats will need this November, and I can't imagine Trump besting him among young voters.  Some pundits are arguing that Sanders would unravel the moment GOP attack ads started to red-bait him with the dreaded "C word", but if Sanders managed to define himself early in the race and stay on message, the impact of that would not likely be large enough to derail his campaign.

post #46 of 646

Every poll has Sanders destroying Trump. 

Where-as Clinton is now losing in the majority of polls. And its because people dont trust her, we know far too much about her and the things she has done. I mean for Christ's sake, the email shit is so bad on her end, it ended up making Fox News look good and almost honest (at least, far more than her).  Hell, i dont listen to the man, but im willing to bet Rush Limbaugh looks better than she does on this subject.

post #47 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

The larger issue is not Sanders voters, voting for Trump. More will write in Sanders in a primary election then vote for Trump. The majority will simply not vote or vote Clinton. 

Me personally i will not vote for whoever the GOP would put in (of the 16, Trump or not) or the alternative democrat option, i cannot vote for the most corrupt democrat in Washington right now. I have standards and principals, and i dont vote because of a letter next to someone's name. I would just as easily support a conservative if they made more sense than Hillary and was a real conservative not an establishment republican like everyone we see running in the GOP lately... and Hillary Clinton who of course is far more moderate corporate republican than democrat. 

 

The larger issue is impacting the system even if a Bernie presidency fails. 

 

This is why i felt that comment about fake Sanders supporters was more aimed at you. 

If you are a Sanders supporter, then you should understand why you are voting for him. Which is the attempt at changing a corrupt and bought political system. You'd know that this wait and see game you seem to want to have with Clinton, should have been already destroyed in your mind. She is as corrupt as it gets. We dont need to wait and see. How much more corrupt do you think she can be dude? She helped her husband triangulate the democratic party and sell it to corporate republicans thus creating the one party corruption problem we face. The email scandal. The secret supporting of a coup against the Honduras government. Her and her little buddies in the DNC have been doing nothing but rigging the democratic process as this thing continues.. what more do you need to see? Dont sit here and attempt to patronize people who refuse to vote for this disgusting monster simply because you want to ignore the reality of the situation. 

 

 

And a reminder.... Clinton will most likely be indited before the general election. As she should be given what she pulled. 

 

You keep missing the main point man. Let's say she's not indicted. Let's say it's Trump vs Clinton in a general. That's your choice. Plus Green party, plus Libertarian, plus just stay home.

 

Out of those 5 choices, which choice will result in the best chance that progressive policies that Bernie is fighting for will actually manifest? It's fine to be idealistic, but even when we acknowledge the rampant corruption of the DNC, and a lot of congressional democrats, how else can you make changes, other than to work within the system. Bernie and his grassroots team are trying to elect other progressives. So that they can have a progressive coalition in both houses. The only real way either of those progressive wings will have power is under a democratic president. Period. 

 

Do you have anything to say in response to that? We can sit here and agree about how much Clinton sucks. Okay. Then what? 

 

I know a lot of people will make the argument that we should vote for Clinton because of the supreme court. And that's kind of fair. She'll probably elect centrists who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. But that's better than the nutcases Trump will put up. But the main argument is that all the progressives that are running to be congressman will be worthless under Trump. The entire grassroots movement is an effort to replace corrupt democrats with progressive democrats. But what's the point of doing all of that unless there's also a democratic president? 

post #48 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

Sanders as the nominee could be a gamble in an ordinary election against a more centrist, well-liked GOP opponent, but I think he would stand better chance against Trump than many realize.  Throughout the race for the Democratic nomination, he has outperformed Clinton among independents, a group that Democrats will need this November, and I can't imagine Trump besting him among young voters.  Some pundits are arguing that Sanders would unravel the moment GOP attack ads started to red-bait him with the dreaded "C word", but if Sanders managed to define himself early in the race and stay on message, the impact of that would not likely be large enough to derail his campaign.


I think people underestimate Trump's savvy. Like I saw this interview the other day where he walks back on most of the stuff he's been spitting and comes across as pretty affable. Now he's won the race I suspect he's not going to spend the next six months dishing out reactionary rhetoric but turning on the salesman charm and trying to woo people. He might turn out to be good at that.

 

Clinton clearly knows her stuff but I'm not convinced of her ability to charm and woo the public, or to deflect the inevitable attacks on her history, some of which might have some substance. As for Sanders, I dunno. In terms of policy he seems to just wheel out the same soundbites on his pet topics every time I hear him speak. He defaults to this accusatory, borderline spiteful tone that I'm betting is more effective for scolding those on his own side than those who directly oppose him. A one on one Sanders vs Trump debate would be a curious spectacle indeed.

post #49 of 646
El ahrairah, I have a couple follow up questions:

1) Do you have standards and/or principles?
2) Do you think you will ever vote for the letter next to a person's name?
3) Would you say Hilary is corrupt?
post #50 of 646

Gov. Terry McAuliffe is under federal investigation for campaign contributions:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-virginia-governor-terry-mcauliffe-federal-investigation-20160523-story.html

 

Quote:

A McAuliffe spokesman referred questions to lawyer Marc Elias, who said in a statement: "We cannot confirm the CNN report. Neither the Governor nor his former campaign has knowledge of this matter, but as reported, contributions to the campaign from Mr. Wang were completely lawful. The Governor will certainly cooperate with the government if he is contacted about it."

 

McAuliffe -- a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton and a prolific fundraiser -- worked as an unpaid director for the Clinton Foundation until he was elected governor. The official said the inquiry includes McAuliffe's time on the board. Neither the Clinton Foundation nor leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a target of the probe.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Democratic Party Going Forward