Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

These threads are getting worse than PopGAF to read through. Why are these threads so shitty?

To add to what others have said, I feel that there is a deep strong feeling present in both Clinton supporters and Bernie supporters. Clinton supporters tend to be establishment Democrats who have a lot of fear that if they don't appeal to the moderate base in America that they could lose the general election and thus 8 years of policy making and at least two supreme court nominations. Keep in mind that many Democrats are still haunted by the 1980s where Democratic presidential candidates were curb stomped by Republicans, many of which believe was due to the fact that the Democratic candidates were too left wing and out of touch with the general populace. They feel that Bernie supporters can jeopardize the general election as Bernie may force Hillary to go too far left or that enough Bernie supporters will stay home on election day which would result in the Republicans winning, leaving the country engaged in 1,000 years of darkness.

Spoiler

There is also the 1% chance that Bernie could somehow when the primaries which would have the general election no longer being a clear landslide for the Democrats.

In contrast Bernie supporters tend to be Democratic leaning supporters who have a strong feeling of frustration of the political system. They have seen the country go further right wing over the past thirty years regardless of what party is in the White House. They feel that people who support Hillary rather than Bernie are traitors and supporters of the status quo. There are only two types of voters true leftists who want to enact real change in the country, and people who will just get in the way of the "revolution".

This is also why the arguments of Clinton supporters against Bernie supporters tend to revolve around Bernie supporters being too idealistic and reckless as they don't live "in the real world." While Bernie supporters tend to bring up how Clinton supporters being too naive as they are supporting a candidate with "lame duck" policies and who is backed by the very people she claims to be fighting.

Being honest, both have their points. And just because one side is correct doesn't necessarily mean the other side is wrong as a lot of this matters in perspective. It is unfortunately that conversations often get more toxic than even discussions between Democrats and Republicans, but it is understandable because emotions are running high and supporters from both sides feel that a lot is a stake in this election.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Anything that threatens the fragile security of Clinton supporters is unscientific/inadmissible/means nothing. So no, that doesn't count.

What do you think of the PPP and CBS poll posted in the last page?

 

[Piecake]

I dunno. It's a sign of vibrancy in the party. Sanders has lit a fire under some people. Hillary won't get my vote and I'm trying really hard to persuade my friends and family to vote Green if she's the nominee, but HRC might be able to grab up a few people who have gotten political largely due to his campaign.

Do you actually have any evidence for this beyond anecdotal? I have seen a few Bernie supporters claim that his campaign has forced Clinton to move left, and now you are claiming that his campaign has gotten people involved in politics that werent before. I mean, I guess it wouldnt surprise me since the purpose of populist rhetoric is to express big ideals that will solve big problems that get a portion of the populace emotionally charged and committed, but it would be interesting to see some evidence beyond just the anecdotal

And stop trying to convince your friends and family to vote green. I am not going to bother to convince you since that is your choice, but in the exceedingly rare chance that those few votes are the difference between a republican candidate and a democratic candidate, then I am going to be quite bitter towards you for shackling us with some more conservative supreme court justices.

 

[Moofers]

What do you think of the PPP and CBS poll posted in the last page?

I already covered that when I said nothing seems all that solid and we'll all just see what happens come Super Tuesday.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Do you actually have any evidence for this beyond anecdotal? I have seen a few Bernie supporters claim that his campaign has forced Clinton to move left, and now you are claiming that his campaign has gotten people involved in politics that werent before. I mean, I guess it wouldnt surprise me since the purpose of populist rhetoric is to express big ideals that will solve big problems that get a portion of the populace emotionally charged and committed, but it would be interesting to see some evidence beyond just the anecdotal

And stop trying to convince your friends and family to vote green. I am not going to bother to convince you since that is your choice, but in the exceedingly rare chance that those few votes are the difference between a republican candidate and a democratic candidate, then I am going to be quite bitter towards you for shackling us with some more conservative supreme court justices.

He can vote however he pleases.

 

[Piecake]

To add to what others have said, I feel that there is a deep strong feeling present in both Clinton supporters and Bernie supporters. Clinton supporters tend to be establishment Democrats who have a lot of fear that if they don't appeal to the moderate base in America that they could lose the general election and thus 8 years of policy making and at least two supreme court nominations. Keep in mind that many Democrats are still haunted by the 1980s where Democratic presidential candidates were curb stomped by Republicans, many of which believe was due to the fact that the Democratic candidates were too left wing and out of touch with the general populace. They feel that Bernie supporters can jeopardize the general election as Bernie may force Hillary to go too far left or that enough Bernie supporters will stay home on election day which would result in the Republicans winning, leaving the country engaged in 1,000 years of darkness.

Spoiler

There is also the 1% chance that Bernie could somehow when the primaries which would have the general election no longer being a clear landslide for the Democrats.

In contrast Bernie supporters tend to be Democratic leaning supporters who have a strong feeling of frustration of the political system. They have seen the country go further right wing over the past thirty years regardless of what party is in the White House. They feel that people who support Hillary rather than Bernie are traitors and supporters of the status quo. There are only two types of voters true leftists who want to enact real change in the country, and people who will just get in the way of the "revolution".

This is also why the arguments of Clinton supporters against Bernie supporters tend to revolve around Bernie supporters being too idealistic and reckless as they don't live "in the real world." While Bernie supporters tend to bring up how Clinton supporters being too naive as they are supporting a candidate with "lame duck" policies and who is backed by the very people she claims to be fighting.

Being honest, both have their points. And just because one side is correct doesn't necessarily mean the other side is wrong as a lot of this matters in perspective. It is unfortunately that conversations often get more toxic than even discussions between Democrats and Republicans, but it is understandable because emotions are running high and supporters from both sides feel that a lot is a stake in this election.

As a Clinton supporter, my reasons are a bit different than what you listed. My actual ideal policies are a lot closer to Bernie than to Clinton. The only thing I disagree with Bernie on is gun control and protectionism (maybe a few other things). The reason why I am not supporting Bernie is that I do not think that any of his ideas have a chance in hell of being implemented even if he did get elected, so why vote for him? I think Clinton is a politician to the bone and will be able to better enact policies that will gradually improve our nation. Nor do I see Clinton taking money from corporations and big business an indication that she won't nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United. She plays the political game, and I think you need to play the political game to have any sort of shot to be effective. Bernie's principle stand, while honorable, isnt going to change anything and is just going to put himself at a disadvantage. Moreover, he has no control over legislation when it gets to Congress, so I am not quite sure how he is going to stop corporate goodies getting into legislation that reaches his desk anyways.

I think the whole idea of a political revolution is ridiculous. I see no evidence of it happening. Moreover, our entire political structure and system was created to avoid drastic change, avoid revolution, and ensure that gradual change was basically the only way America was going to change unless shit completely hits the fan. Well, the shit hasnt the fan yet so we are left with gradual change. Bernie Sanders isnt going to change that. He can't change our whole political structure and get things done by his own will. Once he is president, he will either have the choice of sticking to his high-minded rhetoric and get nothing done, or make some serious compromises (if that actually becomes a possibility to do with republicans) and will then be branded a failure by the left base.

In this situation, I think a wonkish politician who plays the game will be better able to enact change than the populist with big ideas. I'll just be clear and state that this is my perspective on things. I don't know the future and don't know everything so I could be wrong, but this is how I see things playing out, and as a result would prefer Clinton in the general election.

He can vote however he pleases.

Where did I say he couldnt?

 

[reckless]

He can vote however he pleases.

He can vote for who he want, but we can try to convince him not to do something ignorant and dangerous like:
Wasting a vote by voting for the Green party which is not very smart.
Or giving the republican candidate a better chance of winning which is dangerous if you are a minority, LGBT, a woman, poor, or really anyone due to their views on war.

 

[NeoXChaos]

As a Clinton supporter, my reasons are a bit different than what you listed. My actual ideal policies are a lot closer to Bernie than to Clinton. The only thing I disagree with Bernie on is gun control and protectionism (maybe a few other things). The reason why I am not supporting Bernie is that I do not think that any of his ideas have a chance in hell of being implemented even if he did get elected, so why vote for him? I think Clinton is a politician to the bone and will be able to better enact policies that will gradually improve our nation. Nor do I see Clinton taking money from corporations and big business an indication that she won't nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United. She plays the political game, and I think you need to play the political game to have any sort of shot to be effective. Bernie's principle stand, while honorable, isnt going to change anything and is just going to put himself at a disadvantage. Moreover, he has no control over legislation when it gets to Congress, so I am not quite sure how he is going to stop corporate goodies getting into legislation that reaches his desk anyways.

I think the whole idea of a political revolution is ridiculous. I see no evidence of it happening. Moreover, our entire political structure and system was created to avoid drastic change, avoid revolution, and ensure that gradual change was basically the only way America was going to change unless shit completely hits the fan. Well, the shit hasnt the fan yet so we are left with gradual change. Bernie Sanders isnt going to change that. He can't change our whole political structure and get things done by his own will. Once he is president, he will either have the choice of sticking to his high-minded rhetoric and get nothing done, or make some serious compromises (if that actually becomes a possibility to do with republicans) and will then be branded a failure by the left base.

In this situation, I think a wonkish politician who plays the game will be better able to enact change than the populist with big ideas. I'll just be clear and state that this is my perspective on things. I don't know the future and don't know everything so I could be wrong, but this is how I see things playing out, and as a result would prefer Clinton in the general election.



Where did I say he couldnt?

you did not. Just my own thoughts on the matter.

He can vote for who he want, but we can try to convince him not to do something ignorant and dangerous like:
Wasting a vote by voting for the Green party which is not very smart.
Or giving the republican candidate a better chance of winning which is dangerous if you are a minority, LGBT, a woman, poor, or really anyone due to their views on war.

The likelyhood of his vote being consequential in general is small depending on where he votes. He's in WI from what I can recall from a previous thread.

 

[Piecake]

you did not. Just my own thoughts on the matter.



The likelyhood of his vote being consequential in general is small depending on where he votes. He's in WI from what I can recall from the a previous thread.

I think this is exactly the reason why we need ranked voting. People can vote their conscious with their first choice, then choose the safe option that they prefer with the second. I think that sort of system would be far more representative of the people's will than what we currently have.

 

[Condom]

To add to what others have said, I feel that there is a deep strong feeling present in both Clinton supporters and Bernie supporters. Clinton supporters tend to be establishment Democrats who have a lot of fear that if they don't appeal to the moderate base in America that they could lose the general election and thus 8 years of policy making and at least two supreme court nominations. Keep in mind that many Democrats are still haunted by the 1980s where Democratic presidential candidates were curb stomped by Republicans, many of which believe was due to the fact that the Democratic candidates were too left wing and out of touch with the general populace. They feel that Bernie supporters can jeopardize the general election as Bernie may force Hillary to go too far left or that enough Bernie supporters will stay home on election day which would result in the Republicans winning, leaving the country engaged in 1,000 years of darkness.

Spoiler

There is also the 1% chance that Bernie could somehow when the primaries which would have the general election no longer being a clear landslide for the Democrats.

In contrast Bernie supporters tend to be Democratic leaning supporters who have a strong feeling of frustration of the political system. They have seen the country go further right wing over the past thirty years regardless of what party is in the White House. They feel that people who support Hillary rather than Bernie are traitors and supporters of the status quo. There are only two types of voters true leftists who want to enact real change in the country, and people who will just get in the way of the "revolution".

This is also why the arguments of Clinton supporters against Bernie supporters tend to revolve around Bernie supporters being too idealistic and reckless as they don't live "in the real world." While Bernie supporters tend to bring up how Clinton supporters being too naive as they are supporting a candidate with "lame duck" policies and who is backed by the very people she claims to be fighting.

Being honest, both have their points. And just because one side is correct doesn't necessarily mean the other side is wrong as a lot of this matters in perspective. It is unfortunately that conversations often get more toxic than even discussions between Democrats and Republicans, but it is understandable because emotions are running high and supporters from both sides feel that a lot is a stake in this election.

Legitimately great post

 

[UraMallas]

Legitimately great post

Not really. They just explained what was already known. I didn't ask why there is a divide, I asked why these threads are all turning to shit you would normally see in PopGAF threads. Like, where is the strangely sophomoric jabs and drive by posts coming from and calling people things like 'queen'. It's some weird, rah rah, petty, adolescent posting.

 

[disastermouse]

Do you actually have any evidence for this beyond anecdotal? I have seen a few Bernie supporters claim that his campaign has forced Clinton to move left, and now you are claiming that his campaign has gotten people involved in politics that werent before. I mean, I guess it wouldnt surprise me since the purpose of populist rhetoric is to express big ideals that will solve big problems that get a portion of the populace emotionally charged and committed, but it would be interesting to see some evidence beyond just the anecdotal

And stop trying to convince your friends and family to vote green. I am not going to bother to convince you since that is your choice, but in the exceedingly rare chance that those few votes are the difference between a republican candidate and a democratic candidate, then I am going to be quite bitter towards you for shackling us with some more conservative supreme court justices.

I think the problem with trying to get more specific data is that the people that I've seen energized by Bernie are exactly the people pollsters don't call. A lot of them would fail the 'have you voted in a primary recently' (the young maybe haven't) filter questions. I don't know any young people with land lines. That doesn't mean they will actually show up, but they're listening. If Bernie is crushed, they'll likely just tune out again. Meanwhile, she'll also take out formerly lifelong democrats like myself, and I met a few of them at the early rally in Madison - older voters that said they wouldn't vote for HRC if she's the nominee. I don't think that's scientific.

I'm further left than Bernie. I don't care about your bitterness. The Democratic Party has become the graveyard of left political movements. I'd make a concession to vote Democrat again for Bernie (and maybe Warren if she was running), but no one else. Maybe if my efforts keep her out of the whitehouse, we can both be bitter, because I'm already pissed that in my voting lifetime I've seen the Democrats subsume and destroy every attempt at a left movement in this country for the last 30 years.

 

[Condom]

Not really. They just explained what was already known. I didn't ask why there is a divide, I asked why these threads are all turning to shit you would normally see in PopGAF threads. Like, where is the strangely sophomoric jabs and drive by posts coming from and calling people things like 'queen'. It's some weird, rah rah, petty, adolescent posting.

You see no connection between the divide and the result which is that kind of discussion? He explained clearly in the final paragraph why the divide and importance of the elections can result in this.

Or are you just new to ideological discussion because then it makes sense to be shocked by major differences and 'hate' towards those that you think are misinformed or whatever.

 

[gutter_trash]

you guys shouldn't get too worked up this, it's not like 2008.

The playing field for the Dems has slimmed down between an Establishment Superstar, an out of party outsider, and a mid-card talent

Sanders is no Obama, the Dem establishment are not going to let an independent Senator with no party loyalty lead the Democrats

All of this like warm ups for Hillary until the Republicans chose their own candidate

 

[zero shift]

As a Clinton supporter, my reasons are a bit different than what you listed...

I didn't mean to intend that my overview of both supporters is meant to be very specific. It is meant to be taken as a VERY broad generalization.

Not really. They just explained what was already known. I didn't ask why there is a divide, I asked why these threads are all turning to shit you would normally see in PopGAF threads. Like, where is the strangely sophomoric jabs and drive by posts coming from and calling people things like 'queen'. It's some weird, rah rah, petty, adolescent posting.

Not sure how I could explain it better. The threads turn into shit due to the divide. Clinton fans are angry at Bernie fans for potentially jeopardizing the general election. Bernie fans are angry at Clinton fans for standing against the revolution. This angry leads to the many personal attacks and drive by posts that you describe.

 

[reckless]

The likelyhood of his vote being consequential in general is small depending on where he votes. He's in WI from what I can recall from a previous thread.

Of course its an extremely small chance, but there is still a chance. And there seem to be enough Bernie supporters that would either vote green or the much more likely case of just staying home on election day to actually have a noticeable effect. And it's just really annoying seeing the left hurt itself over ideological purity.

 

[Piecake]

I didn't mean to intend that my overview of both supporters is meant to be very specific. It is meant to be taken as a VERY broad generalization.

Oh, I know. I just felt like explaining it, and thought you might find interesting/informative/whatever why I am supporting Clinton since it was different than your explanation.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Of course its an extremely small chance, but there is still a chance. And there seem to be enough Bernie supporters that would either vote green or the much more likely case of just staying home on election day to actually have a noticeable effect. And it's just really annoying seeing the left hurt itself over ideological purity.

Hart, Tsongas, Bradley, Dean etc. We have been here before.

It looks that way now but once the primaries are over most partisans are going to come home and that includes Bernie's 30% of the primary vote. A small sample are not going to vote period but that's normal in any election. Bernie is going to unite behind Hillary so no worries there.

Just sit back and enjoy the Republican show in the meantime. Hillary has been running away with this thing for 3 years now and nothing has happened to change it(yet)

 

[disastermouse]

Of course its an extremely small chance, but there is still a chance. And there seem to be enough Bernie supporters that would either vote green or the much more likely case of just staying home on election day to actually have a noticeable effect. And it's just really annoying seeing the left hurt itself over ideological purity.

It's annoying to see the left hurt itself by not voting left. American politics has shifted so far to the right that now a Democratic candidate is to the right of Republican moderates from the 60s. It has made this shift due to left voters holding their noses and voting for bad candidates.

 

[gutter_trash]

It's annoying to see the left hurt itself by not voting left. American politics has shifted so far to the right that now a Democratic candidate is to the right of Republican moderates from the 60s. It has made this shift due to left voters holding their noses and voting for bad candidates.

there is no Left in the USA, people should realize that.

Dems are centre-right

Hillary has always been more Left on healthcare than Obama

 

[Suikoguy]

It's annoying to see the left hurt itself by not voting left. American politics has shifted so far to the right that now a Democratic candidate is to the right of Republican moderates from the 60s. It has made this shift due to left voters holding their noses and voting for bad candidates.

Where is this idea that Hilary is a moderate Democrat coming from?

Not necessarily directed at you disastermouse.

 

[Aaronology]

As a Clinton supporter, my reasons are a bit different than what you listed. My actual ideal policies are a lot closer to Bernie than to Clinton. The only thing I disagree with Bernie on is gun control and protectionism (maybe a few other things). The reason why I am not supporting Bernie is that I do not think that any of his ideas have a chance in hell of being implemented even if he did get elected, so why vote for him? I think Clinton is a politician to the bone and will be able to better enact policies that will gradually improve our nation. Nor do I see Clinton taking money from corporations and big business an indication that she won't nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United. She plays the political game, and I think you need to play the political game to have any sort of shot to be effective. Bernie's principle stand, while honorable, isnt going to change anything and is just going to put himself at a disadvantage. Moreover, he has no control over legislation when it gets to Congress, so I am not quite sure how he is going to stop corporate goodies getting into legislation that reaches his desk anyways.

I think the whole idea of a political revolution is ridiculous. I see no evidence of it happening. Moreover, our entire political structure and system was created to avoid drastic change, avoid revolution, and ensure that gradual change was basically the only way America was going to change unless shit completely hits the fan. Well, the shit hasnt the fan yet so we are left with gradual change. Bernie Sanders isnt going to change that. He can't change our whole political structure and get things done by his own will. Once he is president, he will either have the choice of sticking to his high-minded rhetoric and get nothing done, or make some serious compromises (if that actually becomes a possibility to do with republicans) and will then be branded a failure by the left base.

In this situation, I think a wonkish politician who plays the game will be better able to enact change than the populist with big ideas. I'll just be clear and state that this is my perspective on things. I don't know the future and don't know everything so I could be wrong, but this is how I see things playing out, and as a result would prefer Clinton in the general election.

This is a great post and perfectly represents my stance on both Bernie and Clinton. Kudos, Piecake.

 

[Elfforkusu]

there is no Left in the USA, people should realize that.

Dems are centre-right

Hillary has always been more Left on healthcare than Obama

That didn't happen on its own. The Democratic party has systematically dismantled the political left, and we're a worse country for it. Being in favor of Hillary is essentially saying you're ok with continuing that, because [insert reason here]. She is the establishment Democratic party's representative. There's no need for a primary if we're trying to decide who the "party" wants. But...

Enough is enough, IMO. And frankly, given how much the establishment is hated this year on both sides, now wouldn't be a bad time for the Dems to reinvent themselves. We'll see how Iowa goes, I guess.

 

[disastermouse]

there is no Left in the USA, people should realize that.

Dems are centre-right

Hillary has always been more Left on healthcare than Obama

There's a left in America, it just keeps casting its lot with the Democratic Party because it loathes the American right. The American right only gets scarier as our politics lurch ever rightward. It's a compelling bogeyman, but someday it will stop working.

I'm hoping 2016 is 'someday'.

 

[reckless]

It's annoying to see the left hurt itself by not voting left. American politics has shifted so far to the right that now a Democratic candidate is to the right of Republican moderates from the 60s. It has made this shift due to left voters holding their noses and voting for bad candidates.

If you want to talk about purely economic terms sure, in terms of social issues not even close. The democrats of today are farther left then they were 10/ 20 years ago on a ton of social issues.

The left cannot win in today's America. So we are left with two choices, super right republicans or center right democrats. At the very least someone like Hillary has promised to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that will overturn Citizens United, that alone should be enough to make anyone even remotely left hold their nose for at least one more time, that will help the left become a viable political ideology a lot more then anything else really.

 

[A Human Becoming]

As a Clinton supporter, my reasons are a bit different than what you listed. My actual ideal policies are a lot closer to Bernie than to Clinton. The only thing I disagree with Bernie on is gun control and protectionism (maybe a few other things). The reason why I am not supporting Bernie is that I do not think that any of his ideas have a chance in hell of being implemented even if he did get elected, so why vote for him? I think Clinton is a politician to the bone and will be able to better enact policies that will gradually improve our nation. Nor do I see Clinton taking money from corporations and big business an indication that she won't nominate supreme court justices who will overturn Citizens United. She plays the political game, and I think you need to play the political game to have any sort of shot to be effective. Bernie's principle stand, while honorable, isnt going to change anything and is just going to put himself at a disadvantage. Moreover, he has no control over legislation when it gets to Congress, so I am not quite sure how he is going to stop corporate goodies getting into legislation that reaches his desk anyways.

I think the whole idea of a political revolution is ridiculous. I see no evidence of it happening. Moreover, our entire political structure and system was created to avoid drastic change, avoid revolution, and ensure that gradual change was basically the only way America was going to change unless shit completely hits the fan. Well, the shit hasnt the fan yet so we are left with gradual change. Bernie Sanders isnt going to change that. He can't change our whole political structure and get things done by his own will. Once he is president, he will either have the choice of sticking to his high-minded rhetoric and get nothing done, or make some serious compromises (if that actually becomes a possibility to do with republicans) and will then be branded a failure by the left base.

In this situation, I think a wonkish politician who plays the game will be better able to enact change than the populist with big ideas. I'll just be clear and state that this is my perspective on things. I don't know the future and don't know everything so I could be wrong, but this is how I see things playing out, and as a result would prefer Clinton in the general election.

This is a realist and pessimistic perspective.

 

[disastermouse]

If you want to talk about purely economic terms sure, in terms of social issues not even close. The democrats of today are farther left then they were 10/ 20 years ago on a ton of social issues.

The left cannot win in today's America. So we are left with two choices, super right republicans or center right democrats. At the very least someone like Hillary has promised to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that will overturn Citizens United, that alone should be enough to make anyone even remotely left hold their nose for at least one more time, that will help the left become a viable political ideology a lot more then anything else really.

Being socially left is a smokescreen. You can't coherently be socially left and economically right - the two concerns are intimately linked. Bernie gets a lot of crap for linking them, but they are undeniably linked. You really can't solve racism, gay rights, immigration, or reproductive rights without addressing the basic economic flaws of our system.

As for Citizen's United, it's bad, but we had eight years of Bill Clinton pulling the country to the right before Citizen's United opened the floodgates. Closing that door is necessary but not sufficient in turning the politics back to the left.

 

[reckless]

Being socially left is a smokescreen. You can't coherently be socially left and economically right - the two concerns are intimately linked. Bernie gets a lot of crap for linking them, but they are undeniably linked. You really can't solve racism, gay rights, immigration, or reproductive rights without addressing the basic economic flaws of our system.

As for Citizen's United, it's bad, but we had eight years of Bill Clinton pulling the country to the right before Citizen's United opened the floodgates. Closing that door is necessary but not sufficient in turning the politics back to the left.

You're acting like Hillary is super right wing or something. Wanting a 12$ minimum wage, cutting the cost of college, raising taxes on the top, investing in clean energy projects, helping strengthen Unions, improving social security. Then she has a track record as being one of the most liberal senators in Congress.

America's political process was not built for huge drastic changes, small steps like these are slowly moving us farther left.

Overturning Citizens United would be a hell of a lot more important in turning the politics back left than people voting for the green party.

 

[benjipwns]

Hart, Tsongas, Bradley, Dean etc. We have been here before.

Unlike Bernie, those were all moderate Democrats though...

Jesse Jackson is a better example of a serious outside challenge, especially since he openly desired a brokered convention at least once.

 

[disastermouse]

You're acting like Hillary is super right wing or something. Wanting a 12$ minimum wage, cutting the cost of college, raising taxes on the top, investing in clean energy projects, helping strengthen Unions, improving social security. Then she has a track record as being one of the most liberal senators in Congress.

America's political process was not built for huge drastic changes, small steps like these are slowly moving us farther left.

Overturning Citizens United would be a hell of a lot more important in turning the politics back left than people voting for the green party.

The problem is that this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about. I honestly believe she'll make the most superficial and halfhearted attempts at those goals (if she attempts at all) and then say, 'Oh well, those darned Republicans wouldn't let me do it. We'll try again next cycle, just make sure you vote for me again.'

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'd be willing to give Bernie a lot more leeway and benefit of the doubt if we hadn't already gone through this whole song and dance of revolution/change with Obama/Occupy. A lack of historical awareness or assumed uniqueness is not appealing or reasonable.

 

[benjipwns]

You're acting like Hillary is super right wing or something. Wanting a 12$ minimum wage, cutting the cost of college, raising taxes on the top, investing in clean energy projects, helping strengthen Unions, improving social security. Then she has a track record as being one of the most liberal senators in Congress.

Kinda sounds like Obama. Without the two years of Democratic majorities in Congress.

I'd be willing to give Bernie a lot more leeway and benefit of the doubt if we hadn't already gone through this whole song and dance of revolution/change with Obama.

Man...

 

[Foffy]

The problem is that this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about. I honestly believe she'll make the most superficial and halfhearted attempts at those goals (if she attempts at all) and then say, 'Oh well, those darned Republicans wouldn't let me do it. We'll try again next cycle, just make sure you vote for me again.'

I'm not sure that's true. I'm sure she will try to get things done.

The red flag is what else does she get done with the elite, the one's who've made this an oligarchy. I mean, something must have happened for her to 180 her stance on health care, where the endgame was single payer. She stands for none of that now.

It's even more oddball, for even Obama has stated the end game is single payer. She actually doesn't side with him on this issue anymore.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Man...

*Shrug*

Policy positions and campaigns are different things.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm not sure that's true. I'm sure she will try to get things done.

The red flag is what else does she get done with the elite, the one's who've made this an oligarchy. I mean, something must have happened for her to 180 her stance on health care, where the endgame was single payer. She stands for none of that now.

It's even more oddball, for even Obama has stated the end game is single payer. She actually doesn't side with him on this issue anymore.

This is going to sound hyperbolic no matter how I say it, but I really believe that a real and total collapse of our system is likely. There are just too many pressures. Climate change will force a critical choice on resource allotment. The stunning incompetence of the political right (I mean incompetence in governing, not getting elected) doesn't allow the system to adapt quickly enough. Labor relationships are as unbalanced as they've been since the end of WWII. Imperialistic wars are coming home to roost in a connected age where coordination is easier, encryption works, and deployment in small terror attacks is so easy - especially in a society where guns are so easily available.

I can't see any of this getting fixed by our broken politics.

 

[benjipwns]

*Shrug*

Policy positions and campaigns are different things.

My complaint was that you slid basically the same point in just before my post.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

My complaint was that you slid basically the same point in just before my post.

 

[GnawtyDog]

There's a left in America, it just keeps casting its lot with the Democratic Party because it loathes the American right. The American right only gets scarier as our politics lurch ever rightward. It's a compelling bogeyman, but someday it will stop working.

I'm hoping 2016 is 'someday'.

As in what exactly?

 

[Foffy]

This is going to sound hyperbolic no matter how I say it, but I really believe that a real and total collapse of our system is likely. There are just too many pressures. Climate change will force a critical choice on resource allotment. The stunning incompetence of the political right (I mean incompetence in governing, not getting elected) doesn't allow the system to adapt quickly enough. Labor relationships are as unbalanced as they've been since the end of WWII. Imperialistic wars are coming home to roost in a connected age where coordination is easier, encryption works, and deployment in small terror attacks is so easy - especially in a society where guns are so easily available.

I can't see any of this getting fixed by our broken politics.

It could be solved by our broken politics. But that could revolves around a very basic question: do we have enough time to mingle in shit before it gets serious? If we had 500 years, sure. But we don't: maybe 50, and I might be generous there. This is why change risks happening through futility, not reason. With reason, we can try to "wake up" the collective, but that's been going on for decades and as I said earlier, we do not have enough time to keep this course with the rate we're going.

We may need to see people suffer and things to become crippling before enough effort is done. Wish it weren't so, but we're losing other options. The political systems have two parties near a cliff, and the answer should be to get away from the fucking cliff, but neither are doing this. They're both stationed in kind of a tug-of-war game, which is too much a standstill at this time.

Our issues are also not just the lack of good solutions fired quickly, but ideas that fuel the problem. Consider for a moment the core goal of the developed world is apparently jobs and growth, even if these are obtained at the destruction of the world these ideas are jammed onto. Many unexamined ghosts feeds into the problem, and we seem to lack the collective intelligence and time to mitigate through all of it in an adequate timeframe. "Man must work" and "Money is wealth" seem to be ruling ideas, even if they're failures, the root of much suffering, the cause of our problems in more ways than one.

It's not fun being a Negative Nancy, but when people don't even acknowledge our problems as problems, and there are so many that it cripples moving forward, and the clock is running down, what else can happen other than implosion? No matter what we do, we're already acting in an almost-too-late scenario.

 

[gutter_trash]

Hillary is more Left than Obama on domestic and social issues,
while she is more Right on Foreign Affairs.

Obama's red line in 2013 was his biggest mishap showing a sign of weakness that Putin is currently exploiting

 

[reckless]

The problem is that this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about. I honestly believe she'll make the most superficial and halfhearted attempts at those goals (if she attempts at all) and then say, 'Oh well, those darned Republicans wouldn't let me do it. We'll try again next cycle, just make sure you vote for me again.'

Well you could have Karl Marx himself elected president and not much would changed due to the Republican congress.

No matter who is elected we are going to have a republican congress blocking any significant change.

 

[Condom]

Well you could have Karl Marx himself elected president and not much would changed due to the Republican congress.

No matter who is elected we are going to have a republican congress blocking any significant change.

Congress won't stay Republican for the whole term. Unless the Democratic party and president fail in getting their voters to vote again.

 

[Piecake]

This is a realist and pessimistic perspective.

I honestly don't see anything that would make me optimistic about our political situation. If Bernie's political revolution actually happens, then that would be fantastic, but I am not going to bother trying to actually make that a reality besides voting since I don't see it happening.

I do not buy into the whole doom and gloom apocalyptic thinking though. I think we we will muddle along in a tub of sticky, smelly shit for a long while. I don't see the general population's lives becoming unbearable and miserable, and without that you certainly will not see any sort of drastic change. My hope is that small change like electoral reform and changing demographics will improve our situation. It is just a simple fact that half of the population drastically disagrees with the people in this thread. Until that starts to change not a whole lot is going to happen.

 

[reckless]

Congress won't stay Republican for the whole term. Unless the Democratic party and president fail in getting their voters to vote again.

They almost certainly aren't going to take Congress in 2016, 2018 is a midterm so pretty much no chance there. 2020/2022 who knows they're too far away and way too many things could happen.

So almost certainly 4 years of Republicans controlling at least half of congress which is enough to stop any drastic change.

 

[B-Dubs]

They almost certainly aren't going to take Congress in 2016, 2018 is a midterm so pretty much no chance there. 2020/2022 who knows they're too far away and way too many things could happen.

So almost certainly 4 years of Republicans controlling at least half of congress which is enough to stop any drastic change.

2016 is going to entirely depend on who the GOP runs, if it's Trump then the Dems could very well retake Congress.

 

[disastermouse]

Well you could have Karl Marx himself elected president and not much would changed due to the Republican congress.

No matter who is elected we are going to have a republican congress blocking any significant change.

'A vote for Hillary is a vote for standstill!'....hmmm...doesn't have much of a ring to it.

I assure you, if Karl Marx was somehow elected president, a Republican and conservative congress would likely have been history for a long time.

 

[disastermouse]

It could be solved by our broken politics. But that could revolves around a very basic question: do we have enough time to mingle in shit before it gets serious? If we had 500 years, sure. But we don't: maybe 50, and I might be generous there. This is why change risks happening through futility, not reason. With reason, we can try to "wake up" the collective, but that's been going on for decades and as I said earlier, we do not have enough time to keep this course with the rate we're going.

We may need to see people suffer and things to become crippling before enough effort is done. Wish it weren't so, but we're losing other options. The political systems have two parties near a cliff, and the answer should be to get away from the fucking cliff, but neither are doing this. They're both stationed in kind of a tug-of-war game, which is too much a standstill at this time.

Our issues are also not just the lack of good solutions fired quickly, but ideas that fuel the problem. Consider for a moment the core goal of the developed world is apparently jobs and growth, even if these are obtained at the destruction of the world these ideas are jammed onto. Many unexamined ghosts feeds into the problem, and we seem to lack the collective intelligence and time to mitigate through all of it in an adequate timeframe. "Man must work" and "Money is wealth" seem to be ruling ideas, even if they're failures, the root of much suffering, the cause of our problems in more ways than one.

It's not fun being a Negative Nancy, but when people don't even acknowledge our problems as problems, and there are so many that it cripples moving forward, and the clock is running down, what else can happen other than implosion? No matter what we do, we're already acting in an almost-too-late scenario.

The choice is socialism or barbarism.

 

[reckless]

'A vote for Hillary is a vote for standstill!'....hmmm...doesn't have much of a ring to it.

I assure you, if Karl Marx was somehow elected president, a Republican and conservative congress would likely have been history for a long time.

Well a vote for Bernie / Green Party is a vote for regression. Can't wait for President Trump /Carson or Rubio.

I guess Trump would be great for entertainment at least.

 

[benjipwns]

Well a vote for Bernie / Green Party is a vote for regression. Can't wait for President Trump /Carson or Rubio.

I guess Trump would be great for entertainment at least.

A vote for the Green Party is a vote for ballot status if that.

His and his families votes aren't going to change the outcome of the vote probably even in his precinct.

 

[Foffy]

I honestly don't see anything that would make me optimistic about our political situation. If Bernie's political revolution actually happens, then that would be fantastic, but I am not going to bother trying to actually make that a reality besides voting since I don't see it happening.

I do not buy into the whole doom and gloom apocalyptic thinking though. I think we we will muddle along in a tub of sticky, smelly shit for a long while. I don't see the general population's lives becoming unbearable and miserable, and without that you certainly will not see any sort of drastic change. My hope is that small change like electoral reform and changing demographics will improve our situation. It is just a simple fact that half of the population drastically disagrees with the people in this thread. Until that starts to change not a whole lot is going to happen.

It depends on what happens with the doom, first, no? What happens if the objective world is damaged so severely by climate change, and the social world takes not only the effects of that but the increase of poverty, social instability, and the increase of being a "have not" in a system that demands you be a "have?" This isn't something that will be defined by the next president, but it will continue to bloom and expand as time goes on, and so long as our heads are in the sand, we're not being sincere enough.

Projections for even the labor front look doomy for the next few decades if technological disruption expands - when that second machine age will fully make a dent is in the air, but many argue this century, and I personally lack a true ballpark idea - but that alone is enough social doom that a doomy scenario happens. I state this as the answer to the problem is merely more jobs, or even worse, a job guarantee for all, which fails to see the innate problem. Mix that with a dying world, and that's quite a cocktail. That's perhaps the worst of all possible scenarios, in merely a first world sense.

Of course, this means we should try and make people more aware of this, and of course demand more from the people we elect. Unfortunately so, there's only one candidate who's mentioned the climate as the worst problem the world faces - and it is - but the labor issue has been ignored by everybody. It's a major ghost in the room regarding human suffering and our ideas making bedsores that only risks getting worse for some, not better.

But remember this: there are literally parts of America today that can genuinely be compared as third world conditions. The climate, be it the real one or the one we project, is already not doing these people any favors, and seems to have no plans in changing. We should be doing a hell of lot more than what we are doing now, but we are led by the least among us.