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

The Democratic Party Going Forward - Page 2

post #51 of 646
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 11/9/16 at 5:11am
post #52 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post

 

But what's the point of doing all of that unless there's also a democratic president? 

 

I didnt miss your point at all. 

And i think this sentence sums up your own lack of recognition of whats being said. 

The people who refuse to vote for Clinton or who are progressive and would rather see Trump win because of the fallout and chaos within the republican party it would cause, also do not view Clinton as a democrat. Just because she has that D next to her name does not erase her siding with republicans four of five times. It does not escape her corruption that youd be hard pressed to match be it republican or democrat.

So when you say something like "Clinton as a democrat would listen to progressives and be in a better position to put progressive ideas forward", we say, given her factual history we have no reason to think this, none, none at all. She has back-stabbed the democratic party every single chance shes been given, why someone would think that pattern of behavior would change when elected is beyond me.

And i will give some merit to the idea that yes, she probably would do a better job of putting more moderate people in place and possibly more moderate bills. But these people would still be corporate shills and do none of the things we need to address, and it wont fix anything and instead just reinforce a corrupt democratic party.

Its a multitude of issues but at the end of the day can easily be summed up as, progressives not voting for the very person who helped create the problem we face within the democratic party, to have hope that she would some how switch gears or allow for gears to be switched within our government, is absurd and extremely naive. 

 

Jimmy Dore of TYT actually makes a solid argument (while i do not fully subscribe to it simply because correlation and causation have not been connected, but it is enticing) that we should look at what happened after Bush. Bush was such a bad president that the results of that was us electing a black man with a Muslim name who ran on ultra progressive ideas. People thought they were electing Bernie. Now they have a chance to, but because Obama a democrat, turned out to be a shill, its helped poison the well. And now we have people, over half the democratic party, supporting the most republican person running, often for the most absurd reasons. 


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/24/16 at 9:28am
post #53 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

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?

 

1. No, clearly not. Im just supporting the one person who would actively go after citizens united and who would actually attempt to change our system from within. Without compromise i might add. Without the desire to take part in a system that if he was not elected as the democratic representative, would not take part in choosing lung cancer over throat cancer..... "Oh but throat cancer can be cured in five more different ways than lung! Take the throat!"

 

2. I have. And im old enough to have learned from this mistake. 

 

3. Its not an opinion, its a fact. Hillary Clinton is not a mystery to the world, we know who she is and the things she has done. We have forty years of her being in some kind of political spotlight and/or office. We know the things she has done, its not a question, its not an opinion. 

post #54 of 646

If the whole crux of your argument is, "we'll punish the world by showing them just how evil a republican can be, and they'll come running to us progressives to save them in 2020" then you've lost the argument. It is predicated on an assumption that millions of people will take away the same lesson you want them to. It is predicated on the idea that something monumentally awful will happen (9/11, Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina) and that it will show the ineptitude of the GOP.

 

But the main issue I have with it is that it's so fucking callous. You're essentially saying, "yeah, some poor people are probably gonna have to die in wars and natural disasters in order to wake the world up"

 

Your philosophy is exactly as corrupt as Clinton's. You'd be willing to sell out the lives of innocent human beings so your political revolution can profit. Why would anyone support a political revolution willing to let terrible things happen just to prove a point. Clue: you're not actually a progressive. You're an anarchist. Adults work within the system to make change. Children like you and Trump just want to blow shit up. 

post #55 of 646
Quote:

Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post

 

2. I have. And im old enough to have learned from this mistake. 

 

Just how old are you, and how many elections have you participated in? Just curious.

post #56 of 646

FWIW-

 

Quote:

El-ahrairah:

 

A rabbit trickster folk hero, who is the protagonist of nearly all of the rabbits' stories. He represents what every rabbit wants to be: smart, devious, tricky, and devoted to the well-being of his warren. A complex folklore was created around him in both Watership Down and Tales from Watership Down. In Lapine, his name is a contraction of the phrase Elil-Hrair-Rah, meaning "prince with a thousand enemies


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Watership_Down_characters#Efrafan_rabbits

 

 

Do we have the leporine Karl Rove in our midst ...?? 

 

: /


Edited by VTRan - 5/24/16 at 11:17am
post #57 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
 

 

Just how old are you, and how many elections have you participated in? Just curious.

 

My first vote was for Bill Clinton's second term. 

post #58 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

FWIW-

 

 

Do we have the leporine Karl Rove in our midst ...?? 

 

: /

 

I think you're trying to look too far into a good name from one of the best books ever written. 

post #59 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

If the whole crux of your argument is, "we'll punish the world by showing them just how evil a republican can be, and they'll come running to us progressives to save them in 2020" then you've lost the argument. It is predicated on an assumption that millions of people will take away the same lesson you want them to. It is predicated on the idea that something monumentally awful will happen (9/11, Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina) and that it will show the ineptitude of the GOP.

 

But the main issue I have with it is that it's so fucking callous. You're essentially saying, "yeah, some poor people are probably gonna have to die in wars and natural disasters in order to wake the world up"

 

Your philosophy is exactly as corrupt as Clinton's. You'd be willing to sell out the lives of innocent human beings so your political revolution can profit. Why would anyone support a political revolution willing to let terrible things happen just to prove a point. Clue: you're not actually a progressive. You're an anarchist. Adults work within the system to make change. Children like you and Trump just want to blow shit up. 

 

WOW, you took that one pretty far. 

Hey tell me, of Trump and Clinton, which one voted for every recent war and helped with a coup that has devastated a country?

Again, not supporting Trump, but this argument youre making is horse shit. You seem to really want to ignore reality and pretend that Trumps rhetroic some how matches Clintons history, doing the things, youre claiming youre terrified of Trump doing. In what world does this make sense? 

 

I get not wanting to vote for Trump but it makes no sense to then suggest Clinton is some how a better option, when your list of fears of what Trump would do, are things Hillary Clinton has already actively done and continues to do.

It really does not even matter what the topic is either. War? Hillary is a war hawk.

Race issues? Hillary has contributed to some of the worst crime bills we've ever seen. Gay rights? Until the nation was 60%+ supportive of gay rights, this woman did everything in her power to stop it.  

Schools and educators? Screwed them.

Bankruptcy laws? Fucked the middle class.

Sold the democratic party to wall street? Check.

Secretly helped to overthrow a government, while publicly refusing to remove their funds, so said corrupt government could simply stomp out anyone opposing them. Done.

 

This may be an issue of semantics due to the fact that Trump has never held public office, but we know 100% what Hillary has done and will do and as much as i dislike Trump and absolutely hate to see the billionaire class get its first peer in the white house, at least a 10% chance he is a wild card. Which is more than the best GOP representative, Hillary. Its a horrible truth, but your worst fantasies of Trump is Hilary's reality. 

 

You want me to keep going on and on about Clinton and the things we know she has done and brings to the table? 

I dont want to hear shit from you about being concerned with people, while you support this horrible excuse for a human being, a human being who has actively arranged a set up and "disposal" of anyone opposing a corrupt government. And who actively supported that Iraq war you hate so much.


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/24/16 at 12:17pm
post #60 of 646

The entire point of the Sanders campaign is a political revolution. You seem to support that. If he can't win the nomination, then that means that the revolution will have to be continued by him in the senate, and by all the progressive members of the senate, and congress. Those people, Sanders, and the progressives will have a better chance to push forward progressive bills with President Clinton, then they would under President Trump. That's it. That's the entire crux of my argument. And it's a fucking good one.

 

If Trump wins, then he'll elect 2-3 supreme court picks which will destroy the progressive agenda for 30 years. He will validate hatred. Muslims and minorities in America will suffer. LGBT community will suffer. Regulations trying to protect the environment will suffer. People who depend on the ACA might go back to being uninsured. Minimum wages won't go up. And who the fuck knows what else.

 

And you'd be willing to live in that America, all so you can punish crooked Hilary? Because you're not punishing her. She'll be fine either way. She has hundreds of millions of dollars. The only people you'll be punishing are average people who will see their quality of life suffer. Be a man. You want to change the system, join the political revolution. Find out if there are any berniecrats running for office in your district or state, work for them. Raise money for them. Do your part to get as many progressives elected into office as you can. But don't claim to be a supporter of Sanders and then fuck over all of those people with a republican president. 

post #61 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

And you'd be willing to live in that America, all so you can punish crooked Hilary? Because you're not punishing her. She'll be fine either way. She has hundreds of millions of dollars. The only people you'll be punishing are average people who will see their quality of life suffer. Be a man. You want to change the system, join the political revolution. Find out if there are any berniecrats running for office in your district or state, work for them. Raise money for them. Do your part to get as many progressives elected into office as you can. But don't claim to be a supporter of Sanders and then fuck over all of those people with a republican president. 

 

Punish Hillary? Seriously? 

This is why you have this massive disconnect and don't understand the problem. 

This is the bullshit mentality that leads you to value Trumps rhetoric more than Hillary's record. Because for you, you think its about "punishing" Hillary, its not at all about the fact that every single concern you have with Trump that he has never actually done in this world, Hillary has. In your world that might make sense, in my world where ive learned from my mistakes and where i wont excuse or ignore one person's actions because i dislike the other person, it makes no sense.

 

I doubt it makes sense to you either, but youve convinced yourself its about punishing Hillary right? Or like the other guy thinks, its undercovers from 4chan or something? The reality of it, you cannot reconcile. You want to think Hillary will be better because in a situation of corporate democrat versus corporate republican, the democrats are better. But you're dismissing how corrupt Hillary actually is and youre dismissing that we dont have to make that choice. 

And me personally? Im not going to make that choice. If i get cancer, dont ask me what kind i want. Either i get it and deal with it or i dont. But dont ask me to pick and choose which cancer i want if my vote of "not having cancer" fails.

post #62 of 646

I'm not defending or ignoring Clinton's past. That's why I'm a Sanders supporter. But if you're going to pretend that Clinton is as bad as Trump, or maybe even worse, then you've already invalidated anything else you might have to say. Clinton may be a shitty person who I disagree with, who has made terrible choices, and has terrible friends. But Trump is literally a cancer. His rhetoric leads to white supremacists finally thinking they have a guy who speaks to them. His actions leads to people beating up homeless Hispanic guys saying "Trump is right, the Mexicans gotta go."

 

You're hopeless. 

post #63 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

I'm not defending or ignoring Clinton's past. That's why I'm a Sanders supporter. But if you're going to pretend that Clinton is as bad as Trump, or maybe even worse, then you've already invalidated anything else you might have to say. Clinton may be a shitty person who I disagree with, who has made terrible choices, and has terrible friends. But Trump is literally a cancer. His rhetoric leads to white supremacists finally thinking they have a guy who speaks to them. His actions leads to people beating up homeless Hispanic guys saying "Trump is right, the Mexicans gotta go."

 

You're hopeless. 

 

You are absolutely ignoring and defending her past. 

You literally just suggested this fantastical future of Trump as president and how bad it would be, without recognizing that Hillary Clinton has actively been a part of committing all those acts you're fearful of Trump possibly doing. And btw, Trumps friends, were the Clinton's before he ran.

post #64 of 646

You keep missing the only salient point. The progressives in congress and in the senate can have influence with a democratic president. They will have none with Trump.

 

That's it. Forget Clinton. Forget Trump. They both suck. One has a proven history of sucking. One says a lot of troubling things that imply he'll suck even worse.

 

I want actual progressives to have power. Okay. Under which president will Bernie Sanders have more power? Under Trump or Clinton? Under which president will Elizabeth Warren have more power? Under Trump or Clinton?

post #65 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

You keep missing the only salient point. The progressives in congress and in the senate can have influence with a democratic president. They will have none with Trump.

 

That's it. Forget Clinton. Forget Trump. They both suck. One has a proven history of sucking. One says a lot of troubling things that imply he'll suck even worse.

 

I want actual progressives to have power. Okay. Under which president will Bernie Sanders have more power? Under Trump or Clinton? Under which president will Elizabeth Warren have more power? Under Trump or Clinton?

 

I addressed that "point". And its not a very good one. You keep trying to put this narrative forward while ignoring that when in power Clinton is a republican. You're going by hoping someone with a D next to their name will for some reason, all the sudden start listening to or supporting people with nearly opposite values and ideas then herself. 

 

You keep wanting to ignore the reality of the scenario for some "hope" and this weird, unfounded equation that all the sudden we will have progressives in office that a clear republican party member who has zero history of being a progressive, will for some reason value. How have you not figured out that Clinton is as bad as Trump when it comes to rhetoric? She will tell you what you want to hear until she has power and a choice to make, then she sides with corporations, war and "evil" deeds. Every fucking time.

post #66 of 646

Okay, you have nothing left to say other than Clinton is the worst person ever, and we're all idiots for thinking that she'll be any better than Trump, who might not be as crazy as he sounds. Cool.

 

What policies of Bernie's do you support by the way?

post #67 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

And me personally? Im not going to make that choice. If i get cancer, dont ask me what kind i want. Either i get it and deal with it or i dont. But dont ask me to pick and choose which cancer i want if my vote of "not having cancer" fails.

 


This is stupid.  In a hypothetical where I'm getting cancer either way, I absolutely want to pick which one I get. I'd be a moron not to.

post #68 of 646
Heh, i think you took that too literally.
post #69 of 646

El ahrairah,

 

Here's a quote from you, back in January:

 

"American's should have zero fear of this happening. Me person i feel we should allow every single refugee into the country (To quote Lebron. Not 3, 4, or 5, 6.....  Every single one of them). Our country was founded on people escaping religious persecution and that is whats happening here. "

 

Do you still believe that? Is that belief of yours going to have a better chance of happening under Clinton or Trump?

 

And from another post, it says you live in Florida. Have you heard of Tim Canova? He's the guy running to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her seat in congress. You can research him and maybe donate money or phonebank or canvass. He's an intelligent and progressive lawyer who'll be a great addition to congress.

post #70 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

Okay, you have nothing left to say other than Clinton is the worst person ever

 

No. Ive said she is the single most corrupt democrat you can find, possibly politician. And its because she is a corporatist republican, masquerading as a democrat and even worse now, as a progressive. And apparently she has people who believe her.

 

Why is it you keep wanting to sum things up in some overly simplified way, but wont address the reality of Clinton as a politician?

Why are you concerned with what i support from Sanders?

Why do you keep wanting to go this route without addressing the fact that Trumps disgusting rhetoric is imperially better than Clinton's political record?

post #71 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

El ahrairah,

 

Here's a quote from you, back in January:

 

"American's should have zero fear of this happening. Me person i feel we should allow every single refugee into the country (To quote Lebron. Not 3, 4, or 5, 6.....  Every single one of them). Our country was founded on people escaping religious persecution and that is whats happening here. "

 

Do you still believe that? Is that belief of yours going to have a better chance of happening under Clinton or Trump?

 

And from another post, it says you live in Florida. Have you heard of Tim Canova? He's the guy running to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her seat in congress. You can research him and maybe donate money or phonebank or canvass. He's an intelligent and progressive lawyer who'll be a great addition to congress.

 

 

1. Neither.

2. Yes, we all know of Tim. But thanks to our corrupt system that Clinton helped create and is currently... pretty much in control of, he has no real chance. But i gladly support his efforts. 

post #72 of 646

Here's 8 new people Bernie Sanders is asking his supporters to raise money for. https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/bernie-for-state-candidates?refcode=reddit

 

Those people, true progressives, will need a democratic president if they have any hope of making a difference. Those people, who don't just sit here and argue like us on messageboards, but are actually trying to go into the belly of that corrupt beast and make a difference.

 

Do those people want Clinton to be president, of course not, they would prefer Bernie. But if he's not on the ballot, and it's between Clinton and Trump, who do you think they're voting for? Who do you think they'd have a better chance of working with?

 

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, that's the only decision left to make. Who do progressives in congress and the senate have a better future with? They all know Clinton is horrible and corrupt, just like we do. But they'd still be able to find common ground with her on a number of issues. And if Clinton doesn't want to work with them, then that progressive coalition can actually block bills that Clinton wants. So they'll be able to negotiate, and get concessions. They'll be their own little amendment kings and queens like Bernie Sanders. 

 

Is that everything we could hope for? Not at all. But it's something. It's the beginning of an actual political revolution. It's working to change the democratic party from within, and take power away from corporate democrats like Clinton, and bring it back to the people. 

post #73 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post

 

Why do you keep wanting to go this route without addressing the fact that Trumps disgusting rhetoric is imperially better than Clinton's political record?

 

I'm guessing its' because this is neither a fact nor imperial (nor empirical).  It's an opinion based on a conjecture. 

post #74 of 646
Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post

 

Is that everything we could hope for? Not at all. But it's something. It's the beginning of an actual political revolution. It's working to change the democratic party from within, and take power away from corporate democrats like Clinton, and bring it back to the people. 

 

Its not even near everything, its not 1% of what we need. Hillary Clinton in office does absolutely nothing but reinforce and confirm a corrupt democratic structure. 

You can pretend that her being in office will some how lead to more progressives in the senate, house and bills or blah blah blah (because that's what has happened with Obama right? And happened with Clinton right? Its not like you're making this suggestion with zero basis to think this right?). But fact is we know nothing we need to address as a nation, will be addressed under Clinton.

 

Lets say that Clinton takes office for 8 years. Who do you think would be more likely to follow her: Warren or DWS? A real progressive or a shill who because of the previous democratic president, has a corrupt power structure working with her? Which one do you think is more likely to happen? 

Tell me, is our government any more progressive after Obama? Did we pass progressive acts because of him being in office?

Did he lead to us getting Sanders or because of a corrupt system in place, is Sanders going to be screwed out of the nomination by someone who should be in prison? 

post #75 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

I'm guessing its' because this is neither a fact nor imperial (nor empirical).  It's an opinion based on a conjecture. 

 

Didnt pay attention to spell correct, sorry.... my bad.

 

And no, its not. 

Within the confines of things happening in the real world, Hillary's political support, legislation, etc. has devastated (not simply affected, but devastated) our own country, other countries and countless lives. The absolute worst you can say about Trump right now, is he says things you disagree with, that is the extent of his political career thus far.

post #76 of 646

So under Clinton you think we're going to be stuck with just another eventual corporate democrat like DWS in 2024?

 

Okay.

 

But please clarify this. Is Trump going to be the biggest disaster ever, so terrible in fact, that America decides to elect a true progressive in 2020?

 

Or, is he just a guy who so far has said some stuff we don't like. In which case he might actually be a popular president. In which case he could get re-elected in 2020, and then since we are so happy with how not bad he is, maybe the republicans can run on his record of job growth in 2024 and win again and again?

post #77 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

 

WOW, you took that one pretty far. 

Hey tell me, of Trump and Clinton, which one voted for every recent war and helped with a coup that has devastated a country?

Again, not supporting Trump, but this argument youre making is horse shit. You seem to really want to ignore reality and pretend that Trumps rhetroic some how matches Clintons history, doing the things, youre claiming youre terrified of Trump doing. In what world does this make sense? 

 

I get not wanting to vote for Trump but it makes no sense to then suggest Clinton is some how a better option, when your list of fears of what Trump would do, are things Hillary Clinton has already actively done and continues to do.

It really does not even matter what the topic is either. War? Hillary is a war hawk.

Race issues? Hillary has contributed to some of the worst crime bills we've ever seen. Gay rights? Until the nation was 60%+ supportive of gay rights, this woman did everything in her power to stop it.  

Schools and educators? Screwed them.

Bankruptcy laws? Fucked the middle class.

Sold the democratic party to wall street? Check.

Secretly helped to overthrow a government, while publicly refusing to remove their funds, so said corrupt government could simply stomp out anyone opposing them. Done.

 

This may be an issue of semantics due to the fact that Trump has never held public office, but we know 100% what Hillary has done and will do and as much as i dislike Trump and absolutely hate to see the billionaire class get its first peer in the white house, at least a 10% chance he is a wild card. Which is more than the best GOP representative, Hillary. Its a horrible truth, but your worst fantasies of Trump is Hilary's reality. 

 

You want me to keep going on and on about Clinton and the things we know she has done and brings to the table? 

I dont want to hear shit from you about being concerned with people, while you support this horrible excuse for a human being, a human being who has actively arranged a set up and "disposal" of anyone opposing a corrupt government. And who actively supported that Iraq war you hate so much.

 

It's pointless arguing. I don't like Sanders either but the same answer you'll get from people here is "well, I don't want someone to make a stand against the problems within the system, just little changes are enough for me". Mainly it's because Clinton is a woman and, like Obama, they'll accept whatever faults just as long as their social justice priorities are satisfied first and foremost. I had these same arguments with people on CHUD during Obama's first six months when his excuse was "oh, we'd like to push through all this progressive legislation but we don't have the votes" which was bullshit since GWB got whatever evil fascist shit he wanted through with even less political capital. 

 

The Republican party came out and stated that their main priority was to make sure that Obama A: couldn't get anything done and B: wasn't given a second term yet he still played nice with them as they have refused to budge on anything and gridlock the system. I'd rather have someone elected who fought out against Conservative scum, attacked them publicly for being the cowardly slithering monsters they are and who isn't a corporate whore, didn't vote for wars, didn't work for Wal-mart which benefits from Free-Trade/NAFTA which is killing the manufacturing base which is the reason why the USA had the greatest economy on the face of the Earth. CHUD's answer to that? "Tough shit because it's mostly white people who worked those jobs".  

 

So don't waste your time because the people here will do what Devin Faraci did; condescend and bait you so that when you talk back, no matter how reasonable or logical your argument is, they can use it as justification to ban you which is why this sites numbers are in the toilet and Nick can't be bothered to run it anymore.    

post #78 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBeyond View Post
 

 

 

So don't waste your time because the people here will do what Devin Faraci did; condescend and bait you so that when you talk back, no matter how reasonable or logical your argument is, they can use it as justification to ban you which is why this sites numbers are in the toilet and Nick can't be bothered to run it anymore.    

 

Let go.

 

Please.

 

Let go.

post #79 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

So under Clinton you think we're going to be stuck with just another eventual corporate democrat like DWS in 2024?

 

Okay.

 

But please clarify this. Is Trump going to be the biggest disaster ever, so terrible in fact, that America decides to elect a true progressive in 2020?

 

Or, is he just a guy who so far has said some stuff we don't like. In which case he might actually be a popular president. In which case he could get re-elected in 2020, and then since we are so happy with how not bad he is, maybe the republicans can run on his record of job growth in 2024 and win again and again?

 

I have no idea if Trump is going to be a huge disaster. I think he will be a bad president, but there is a chance he surprises us. He has been a.. eh.. semi-progressive for much of his life and seems to only be pandering to the gerrymandered group that can get him elected. And he definitely has the ego to take corporate money and then tell them to fuck off. 

There are a handful of differences and potential outcomes here and myself, while im incredibly disturbed by his rhetoric, i dont live in this echo-chamber that equates Trump to Satan. Its not one or the other, things are far more complicated then that, there are degree's we have to consider and evaluate. 

 

I would say we have a better chance of getting a real progressive in office after Trump, rather than after Hillary. Just look at presidential trends recently and how people are voting. Its not a trend to hang your hat on, but its more viable then this idea that Clinton will lead to actual progressives. 

 

And again i want to make it clear that i do think Clinton would do a better job than Trump. But we simply cannot keep verifying this system of corruption and supporting the lesser of two evils and Clinton is the apex of this. We're running out of time to fix this situation, some think we already have ran out of time. But its quickly getting to a point where we wont be able to change things peacefully at all. And its ridiculous to think that we can move forward some how by putting a person in office, that helped to create this problem to begin with and has done nothing but continued the corruption to an unfathomable degree. Im sorry, but that's no the answer. 

 

As mentioned before one of the things that confuses and bothers me the most is this extremist application of fantasy when discussing Trump. As if there is no room for reality in attempting to determine what a Trump presidency would be like. And in this process the criticisms levied against him and the fantastical imaginary future people feel he may bring to the table, the examples of this future being mostly things that Hillary has actually participated in as a politician. This is why i keep mentioning fantasy versus reality with Trump and Clinton. It would make sense if you listed concerns A, B, C, D and said you refuse to vote for Trump. But to then say that Hillary, a person who actively participates in those concerns and then worse, has made a career out of backstabbing progressives, is this some how better choice or worthy of vote, is super confusing and makes no sense. You have to do some big time mental gymnastics to really reach this stance where you're willing to ignore reality and replace it with fantasy.


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/25/16 at 12:13pm
post #80 of 646
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 11/9/16 at 5:10am
post #81 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

"But its quickly getting to a point where we wont be able to change things peacefully at all."

?

 

?

post #82 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

"But its quickly getting to a point where we wont be able to change things peacefully at all."

?

 

El ahrairah fancies himself as V.

post #83 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

El ahrairah fancies himself as V.

 

Or its just a simple fact.... and something that probably wouldn't happen in our lifetimes. 

But this is not a new story, we've seen it before, over and over and over again. We know how it starts and we know how it ends and it never ends peacefully unless its nipped in the bud right away. 

Ask Honduras. 


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/25/16 at 4:00pm
post #84 of 646
Quote:

Robert Reich
Last week I suggested Bernie supporters do three things: (1) fight like hell for Bernie until he either gets or loses the nomination, (2) if Hillary gets the nomination, fight like hell for her, and (3) regardless of who wins the nomination or the election, continue to build a powerful progressive movement.

Several of you disagree with (1), saying Bernie has no chance, and his continuing candidacy is just hurting Hillary, so he should bow out of the race. I’ll get back to this point in a subsequent post.

Here I want to address those of you who disagree with (2). As I understand your arguments, they fall into four categories:

1. Some of you say that by refusing to fight for Hillary (if she gets the nomination) you’ll show the political establishment you want the changes Bernie has been advocating. The problem with this logic is the “political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people in comfortable and often privileged positions who will continue doing what they’re doing because they like the status quo, and won’t even be aware you’re not fighting for Hillary – unless, that is, Hillary loses to Trump. Which leads to the next argument.

2. Some of you say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The problem with this logic is it's wrong. Regardless of what you may think of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is a true menace to this nation and to the world. He’s a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have his finger on the nuclear bomb. Need I say more? Which brings us to the third argument.

3. Some of you say a Trump presidency would be so horrible it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response. The problem with this argument is twofold. First, Trump could do huge and unalterable damage to America and the world in the meantime. Second, rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

4. Finally, some of you say that even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all. I can’t criticize you for voting your conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.


What do you think?

 

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1224386530907274

post #85 of 646

Shocking. 

Someone who worked for the Clinton's disagree's with people who absolutely refuse to support Hillary's corrupt career and future.

 

You always have to love the attempt at forced decision making for other people. "But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump."

 

"Im not saying you like to murder children, but if you dont donate to us, 1000 more kids will die."

post #86 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

Shocking. 

Someone who worked for the Clinton's disagree's with people who absolutely refuse to support Hillary's corrupt career and future.

 

So in that Reich piece, which number did you identify with more, #3 or #4....I'm guessing a little of both with a dash of #2

 

Is this you? (from the FB responses)

 

 

 

...and FWIW-

Quote:

 

I endorse Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. He’s leading a movement to reclaim America for the many, not the few. And such a political mobilization – a “political revolution,” as he puts it -- is the only means by which we can get the nation back from the moneyed interests that now control so much of our economy and democracy.

 

This extraordinary concentration of income, wealth, and political power at the very top imperils all else – our economy, our democracy, the revival of the American middle class, the prospects for the poor and for people of color, the necessity of slowing and reversing climate change, and a sensible foreign policy not influenced by the “military-industrial complex,” as President Dwight Eisenhower once called it. It is the fundamental prerequisite: We have little hope of achieving positive change on any front unless the American people are once again in control.

 

I have the deepest respect and admiration for Hillary Clinton, and if she wins the Democratic primary I’ll work my heart out to help her become president. But I believe Bernie Sanders is the agent of change this nation so desperately needs.

 

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1161639723848622

post #87 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Was going to bring up #3. I think there is a good chance that in 2020 the electorate will be so sick of a radical "outsider" as POTUS that the Dems go for safe "traditional" candidates. Meaning a move closer to the center. This goes for the GOP in 2024 if Trump gets re-elected.

Also, you all assume that Trump if elected will be defeated in 2020. There is no guarantee he loses again if he gets in there. Remember, America was stupid enough to give Nixon, Regan and GWB a 2nd term. In this hyper partisan environment, Trump being a 2 termer is not too far fetched. I mean after the 2000 election and how it went down, who expected W to get 4 more years.
post #88 of 646

Demographics within the democratic and liberal base suggest otherwise when you think about establishment vs outsider. Or more importantly, progressive vs moderate. 

post #89 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post

Also, you all assume that Trump if elected will be defeated in 2020. There is no guarantee he loses again if he gets in there. Remember, America was stupid enough to give Nixon, Regan and GWB a 2nd term. In this hyper partisan environment, Trump being a 2 termer is not too far fetched. I mean after the 2000 election and how it went down, who expected W to get 4 more years.

 

I wouldnt put Bush jr. on the list of "stupid enough to vote for second term". Most voters vote based on whats happening currently, and Bush jr at the time had signed a bunch of tax breaks for everyone and we had not crashed yet. So the vast majority of people simply saw that they had more money in their pockets, we had the housing bubble and things were okay, if you didnt know better or recognize the housing bubble, then you'd think Bush was actually doing good things. 

 

Now, the problem with trickle down economics when taken to the extreme Bush took it to was it will provide a boost for your average person, but that boost is not concrete, it wont last. Eventually things will fall apart and they did. But for your average American voting who has a 60 hour a week job and two or three kids, you cant expect them to dive very deep in political issues.

RR was a similar issue as well, he provided a false economic boost.

 

I bring that up because most likely Trump would be another Bush and right now our economy has fallen so much for the average person, he couldn't do what Bush did. Even if he tried 30 tax breaks, we would still a temporary boost of like... a week, at best. 

When the economy is this bad, its hard to fake a boost. Look at Obama and his half-assed boost, hoping it would do more by simply providing bad jobs when the bigger issue is actually wages. But when you increase the job market, and instead of fully and properly funding those jobs you send the money to corporations to put in their pockets, then those jobs are rather useless to the economy. 


Edited by El ahrairah - 5/26/16 at 2:14pm
post #90 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

So in that Reich piece, which number did you identify with more, #3 or #4....I'm guessing a little of both with a dash of #2

 

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

 

Why does it matter?

post #91 of 646

This State Department situation with the edited video pertaining to the Iran nuclear deal has become a sore spot:

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/jake-tapper-journalists-need-to-drop-personal-bias-call-out-state-dept-censorship/

 

Quote:
State Department spokesman John Kirby made a major admission on Wednesday when his investigation concluded an omission in a 2013 Iran negotiation press briefing was not, in fact, a “glitch.” Jen Psaki implied that State Department policy allowed officials to lie to reporters in order to keep diplomatic negotiations secret, but Kirby says that briefing clip’s mysteriously disappeared afterwards occurred on purpose.
post #92 of 646

This is precisely why I was thrilled to see John Bel Edwards win the governorship in Louisiana:

 

http://acasignups.net/16/06/01/louisiana-47-those-eligible-medicaid-expansion-already-enrolledin-first-11-hours

 

So, in about 11 hours, 47% of those eligible for Medicaid expansion have already enrolled.  Edwards has a really hard road ahead of him, thanks to the state's economic woes.  He's going to have to make cuts with a Republican legislature more inclined to hurt the poor and the middle class.  He just did this, though, and it's great.  Every Democrat should praise him right now.

post #93 of 646
Thread Starter 

Bernie Sanders is almost tied with Clinton in California, but in a sense he's already won in the long run:

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/133945/bernie-sanders-already-won-california

post #94 of 646

I wasn't sure which of the existing threads on Democratic politics would be appropriate for this.  Bill Clinton was publicly asked about the execution of Ricky Ray Rector for the first time since 2000 (I think...if anyone wants to correct me on this minor historical point, I would appreciate it), and the response he offered speaks volumes.  His refusal to grant Rector clemency and subsequent decision to fly back to Arkansas to witness the execution was either political opportunism, a sincere desire to see justice done, or both, depending on where you stand.  In any case, it's one of the darker episodes in Clinton's record on criminal justice issues, and I suspect it will continue to come up.

 

It makes me wonder if Clinton might make criminal justice reform his signature issue as First Man.

 

 

(Fang is a reporter for Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept website.)

post #95 of 646

That'd be awesome. Maybe Bill can get it back to what it was Pre-Bill as president.

 

Sadly i dont have much faith in a person who flew back to Arkansas to watch a retarded man die OR did this to avoid answering questions in one of his many sex scandals cases..... classic republican move.... avoid criticisms and questioning of potential infidelity by overseeing the murder of a mentally retarded death row inmate.. Texas style at its best.


Edited by El ahrairah - 6/7/16 at 4:33pm
post #96 of 646
El ahrairah is the picture of compassion.
post #97 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

El ahrairah is the picture of compassion.

 

Aww, thank you so much!

all i ever wanted was your approval and am always seeking your praise. 

post #98 of 646
Who on this site isn't?
post #99 of 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Who on this site isn't?

 

I'm not.

 

Drop dead.

post #100 of 646

Well, you did ask.

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