OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chicken Man said:
Except they are, with a few exceptions.
Click to expand...

Dunno about "few"- there was nowhere near this kind of revolt when Obama took the nomination from Clinton, or any other primary I can recall. This time there's a pretty clear philosophical difference between the candidates instead of simply a brand preference between two candidates with basically the same agenda. The split is between moderate/centrists and progressives, and when the centrist candidate very actively represents everything the progressives are mad about, party unity is going to be kind of a tall order.
 
jp_nyc said:
More obvious than awkward. Of course there was anti-Sanders bias in the DNC. Bernie quit the party and spent years shitting all over them. Then he ran for the POTUS nomination on the DNC’s ticket and spent more time shitting all over them. Who would expect that to engender a kind reaction?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that caucusing with them for his entire political career was "shitting all over them." Presenting a legitimate challenge to the candidate the party establishment decided on years ago didn't make them happy, though. DNC leadership isn't the party, though- to many of us, Bernie represents the true ideals of the democratic party while Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz represent the corrupt, morally bankrupt joke it has become over the last 30 years. This email leak vindicates that viewpoint.
 
I am a yuge Bernie supporter. I would like to vote for a third party candidate but not because I'm mad Bernie lost or think Clinton isn't left enough, because I despise the 2 party system. I know there are some pissed off Bernie supporters, but I would like to think that by election time, they will have enough common sense to realize what a disaster a Trump presidency would be. I think Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will campaign for Clinton very hard and hopefully convince even the stubborn Bernie supporters to vote Clinton.
 
Beyer160 said:
Dunno about "few"- there was nowhere near this kind of revolt when Obama took the nomination from Clinton, or any other primary I can recall. This time there's a pretty clear philosophical difference between the candidates instead of simply a brand preference between two candidates with basically the same agenda. The split is between moderate/centrists and progressives, and when the centrist candidate very actively represents everything the progressives are mad about, party unity is going to be kind of a tall order.
Click to expand...

Clinton is a centrist. As a non-supporter, I actually prefer she pick someone that reflects her centrist agenda. It shows a rare honesty on her part. At least she's being up-front about not pushing a progressive platform.
 
Chad said:
I know there are some pissed off Bernie supporters, but I would like to think that by election time, they will have enough common sense to realize what a disaster a Trump presidency would be.
Click to expand...

There are two schools of though on this- the "let the shithouse burn" philosophy is to oppose Clinton on principle, and if Trump wins the ensuing disaster will simultaneously destroy the republican brand and realign the democrats with true liberal values. This is a very dangerous game that involves a lot of very bad consequences (a neofascist christian conservative government that will stack the supreme court for decades, for starters), but a slim chance at a very positive outcome. I'm philosophically attracted to this idea, but the realist in me understands it's extremely reckless.

The other idea is to just get on your knees, open wide and support Clinton. This way we continue our long, slow decline and don't change anything, but avoid the cataclysmic disaster of Der Trumpenfuhrer. This is generally "safer" than the first idea, but the long term problem is that we're just going to do this all again in 4 years, when the democrats will be weaker and the republicans will be even stronger.

So, who's got the lyric sheet to "Oh, Canada?"
 
Beyer160 said:
There are two schools of though on this- the "let the shithouse burn" philosophy is to oppose Clinton on principle, and if Trump wins the ensuing disaster will simultaneously destroy the republican brand and realign the democrats with true liberal values. This is a very dangerous game that involves a lot of very bad consequences (a neofascist christian conservative government that will stack the supreme court for decades, for starters), but a slim chance at a very positive outcome. I'm philosophically attracted to this idea, but the realist in me understands it's extremely reckless.

The other idea is to just get on your knees, open wide and support Clinton. This way we continue our long, slow decline and don't change anything, but avoid the cataclysmic disaster of Der Trumpenfuhrer. This is generally "safer" than the first idea, but the long term problem is that we're just going to do this all again in 4 years, when the democrats will be weaker and the republicans will be even stronger.

So, who's got the lyric sheet to "Oh, Canada?"
Click to expand...

I think Berines strong run will make the party better. It has opened the door for Elizabeth Warren to have a shot at the next nomination. Maybe Clinton bails after 4 years, she isn't a springchicken.
 
Beyer160 said:
There are two schools of though on this- the "let the shithouse burn" philosophy is to oppose Clinton on principle, and if Trump wins the ensuing disaster will simultaneously destroy the republican brand and realign the democrats with true liberal values. This is a very dangerous game that involves a lot of very bad consequences (a neofascist christian conservative government that will stack the supreme court for decades, for starters), but a slim chance at a very positive outcome. I'm philosophically attracted to this idea, but the realist in me understands it's extremely reckless.

The other idea is to just get on your knees, open wide and support Clinton. This way we continue our long, slow decline and don't change anything, but avoid the cataclysmic disaster of Der Trumpenfuhrer. This is generally "safer" than the first idea, but the long term problem is that we're just going to do this all again in 4 years, when the democrats will be weaker and the republicans will be even stronger.

So, who's got the lyric sheet to "Oh, Canada?"
Click to expand...
You never see it being played at ball parks on electric guitar. Need to get on that.

EDIT: scratch that. Neil is on it.


EDIT AGAIN: Yah, but he uses to many notes and little shreddy things. It can be done better.
 
Bernie supporters will break down along these lines:
Experienced voters and politicos will hold there nose and vote for Clinton, maybe 50% of Bernie fans.
A few idealists will vote 3rd party, maybe 10% at best.
A tiny insignificance minority will vote for Trump, not even 1%.
The rest won't vote at all.
 
Pine Apple Slim said:
Bernie supporters will break down along these lines:
Experienced voters and politicos will hold there nose and vote for Clinton, maybe 50% of Bernie fans.
A few idealists will vote 3rd party, maybe 10% at best.
A tiny insignificance minority will vote for Trump, not even 1%.
The rest won't vote at all.
Click to expand...
Last poll i saw showed something like 85% and rising support for Hillary among Bernie supporters.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Yeah, the media is all freaking over Bernie supporters not going to Clinton because of Kaine. But the reality is very few of them will support Trump, Johnson, or Stein. Clinton needs a centrist who knows the system and will push her agenda in Congress. Kaine, while the boring choice, was the right one.

I'm still not voting for her. :embarrassed:
Click to expand...

Well, if you can't be part of the solution, continue being part of the problem.

Nothing personal, but it comes down to brass tacks. If you don't vote for Clinton, it's making someone else's trump vote more powerful. Thats just the fact of the matter. If you're OK with that, so be it.
 
Last edited:
Beyer160 said:
There are two schools of though on this- the "let the shithouse burn" philosophy is to oppose Clinton on principle, and if Trump wins the ensuing disaster will simultaneously destroy the republican brand and realign the democrats with true liberal values. This is a very dangerous game that involves a lot of very bad consequences (a neofascist christian conservative government that will stack the supreme court for decades, for starters), but a slim chance at a very positive outcome. I'm philosophically attracted to this idea, but the realist in me understands it's extremely reckless.
Click to expand...

The problem with letting the shithouse burn is that tarnishing the Republican brand doesn’t work. Republicans don’t abandon the party, they just get crazier. And the DNC leadership is too inept to maintain a hold on Congress. When Bush left office pundits were predicting the GOP spending the next decade or more in the wilderness while the Democrats ran both houses of Congress and the white house. Instead the GOP took back both houses of Congress by claiming Obama was a Nazi commie.
 
jp_nyc said:
The problem with letting the shithouse burn is that tarnishing the Republican brand doesn’t work. Republicans don’t abandon the party, they just get crazier. And the DNC leadership is too inept to maintain a hold on Congress. When Bush left office pundits were predicting the GOP spending the next decade or more in the wilderness while the Democrats ran both houses of Congress and the white house. Instead the GOP took back both houses of Congress by claiming Obama was a Nazi commie.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, I think they called Obama a Muslim socialist :grin:
 
The only explanation that makes sense:

13692453_1770580179820210_964993048467889275_n.jpg
 
Beyer160 said:
Dunno about "few"- there was nowhere near this kind of revolt when Obama took the nomination from Clinton, or any other primary I can recall. This time there's a pretty clear philosophical difference between the candidates instead of simply a brand preference between two candidates with basically the same agenda. The split is between moderate/centrists and progressives, and when the centrist candidate very actively represents everything the progressives are mad about, party unity is going to be kind of a tall order.
Click to expand...
If a "Bernie supporter" finds it remotely acceptable to vote for Trump they never understood Bernie's message.
 
335clone said:
Well, if you can't be part of the solution, continue being part of the problem.

Nothing personal, but it comes down to brass tacks. If you don't vote for Clinton, it's making someone else's trump vote more powerful. Thats just the fact of the matter. If you're OK with that, so be it.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier in this thread:

1. New York will go for Clinton and all three news networks will call it the moment the polls close.
2. That's exactly the same thing Trump supporters tell me. So if both sides think my third party vote is a vote for the opposition candidate, then it must be the right thing to do.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
As I said earlier in this thread:

1. New York will go for Clinton and all three news networks will call it the moment the polls close.
2. That's exactly the same thing Trump supporters tell me. So if both sides think my third party vote is a vote for the opposition candidate, then it must be the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

As long as you consider trump and clinton equally bad with no care for SCOTUS picks or concern for the future of the country, I guess your logic is solid.

imgres.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top