Luke I couldn't care less if you want to take the easy and predictable route of dismissing my dislike for Hillary as simple sexism. It's just not worth engaging you on it.
Her record is preposterous, her policy stances are lukewarm and reek of disingenuity, and I wouldn't trust her to guard a landfill. Sorry.
Warren I'd have (almost) no problem with. Hillary may as well be Ted Cruz.
I just don't see her as different from literally any politician ever. She's just a politician. Every disagreement you have with her is just the same as any other politician.
Why the invective against her and not every other politician, ever?
I just don't see her as different from literally any politician ever. She's just a politician. Every disagreement you have with her is just the same as any other politician.
Why the invective against her and not every other politician, ever?
She wants to expand surveillance, involve us in more conflicts, and is pretty much in the pocket of Wall St. But that's not what Muppet has against her. He's just mad that she's threatening the success of someone he likes more. That's all there is to it.
If a politician says they are against expanding surveillance, getting involved in conflicts, and denies ties to upper-class interests... they are lying.
So, is this how it goes? Muppet shows up, makes the same bland, blind attacks on Hillary and the same absurd claims crooked slightly so(From "Hillary is Literally Trump!" to "Hillary is literally Ted Cruz!" as if that's not the same damned thing), gets worked like a heavy bag, radio silence for a few days, 20 goto 10.
Can we just not and say we did until one of us has something new to say?
So I was at my in-laws over the holiday and there was one moderate republican there that was laughing about Trump, until I told him my dad was voting for him and he was surprised saying he had not encountered an actual republican who supported Trump. He started worrying about it and I patted him on the shoulder.
I always get amazed when i encounter an actual moderate republican. I thought they were all Democrats now :-p
They need to be put on an endangered species list. Moderating the GOP is the only route to progress. Once upon a time the Democratic party fought against the New England aristocracy and intelligentsia, exactly the kind of people who now run it. It wasn't that long ago that Republicans were in favor of a 90% top bracket income tax and strong unions and Democrats favored segregation. Policies change, but the names of the brands don't.
I'd like to make a few predictions, and handicap them, for the presidential race. 1. Trump vs. Sanders Sanders wins by a large margin because fuck Trump. (15%) 2. Any other GOP candidate vs. Clinton The Republican wins by a small margin because Hillary loses too much of her support from Sanders supporters staying home. (40%) 3. Trump vs. Clinton Clinton wins in a smaller margin than #2 because, seriously, fuck Trump. (40%) 4. Any other GOP candidate vs. Sanders Up in the air, but I'll call it for Sanders (5%)
I'd appreciate data, this is just my feelings on the race. Sanders is trying to pull a crowd that is both easily distracted and easily disheartened, in my opinion. He is unlikely to get the Democratic nomination, so his support base very well might not turn up for Hillary.
Sanders is pulling the exact size crowds and demographic as well as money as Ron Paul's crowd did. Crowd sizes, amount of individual donors doesn't necessarily add to anything. In reality it's who ultimately shows up to the polls and is eligible to vote (and actually votes).
My prediction is that any D ultimately beats Trump by nearly the same margins. (same with Cruz) Ultimately the The vast Majority of Sanders voters will move back into the D column. Ultimately things like the supreme court, Social rights. People get butt hurt in primaries when their person doesn't win. In the end though they get over it unless the other candidate does something ridiculous. (see Tea party)
I wouldn't make a prediction on anyone else because there are too many factors at play and we are too far away from the elections.
The greater issue than Sanders or Clinton is that the Democrats' ground game sucks. They need to start winning local elections in a hurry. Real change and acceptance of progressive issues has to start locally. They need people like my parents to stop thinking of social programs as something that helps "other people(read: illegal immigrants, mostly)" so that they will support the regrowth of the social safety net as Muppet wants. If that can happen, the progress can march up the chain and not be fought as "Washington interfering in local affairs."
Muppet literally thinks that we can be a Socialist wonderland in 2 years. So with that idea in his head, you are not really going to convince him that a pragmatic choice is a good call. He wants a idealist radical that he isn't even going to get from Bernie Sanders AND either way is not going to happen because of congress anyhow. Soooo because of that he's a "watch the world burn" type where he wants things to get SOOOOO bad that maybe instead of devolving into gangs of First of the North Star type tribes which is most likely, that a revolution will occur giving him the government he actually wants.
//Chance of this happening 0.0001% of a good outcome.
Complete mischaracterization and from there, the expected strawman. I've given up on this thread beyond this point. Sanders is doing pretty swell without my winning over a dozen or two people who don't understand the message because they probably have not dealt with the manner in which the American health and welfare "systems" actually work when you're basically screwed. And that's only a plank of a fairly comprehensive platform.
No, there cannot be full blown Socialism in 2 years or in 20. Clinton, though, is not even an incremental step in the right direction. She's an assertion that where we're headed is fine. Sorry, no thank you.
Sanders is saying, more or less, we need to vote out nearly all incumbents and get on with some sort of program of, if not the renewed pursuit of American exceptionalism, then at least attempting to catch up with the rest of the first world.
I can understand how someone who has never had to choose between medication for a serious illness or food for their table might miss the core of what's being said in Sanders' campaign, I guess. Otherwise, I don't get it. You think he's idealistic? Pandering? Lying? His record seems to indicate otherwise.
Sanders is saying, more or less, we need to vote out nearly all incumbents and get on with some sort of program of, if not the renewed pursuit of American exceptionalism, then at least attempting to catch up with the rest of the first world.
Hold up what? When did he say we need to vote out nearly all incumbents?
Didn't we establish he panders to the gun rights voters in his home state?
Understandably so - hard to achieve much politically, when you're not a politician and not absurdly rich - but yes.
It's not the only example - for example, look up the pork barrel bullshit he was pulling in the 90s with the Pentagon and the V-22 osprey project, which was the F35 boondoggle of the 90s - but it's a tidy, easy one.
(Edit - Oh, I forgot to mention. Sanders was ambivalent on the F35 program, too, until it became known that the Air National guard base in Burlington, Vermont would be one of the larger potential bases. Suddenly, he became a very strong supporter.)
He's a politician, and he's still got plenty of skeletons. Like, when he voted for the appropriations bills for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite supposedly opposing them. Or that time there was only one vote against the authorization for use of force in Afghanistan and it was Bernie San...Nah just kidding it was Barbara Lee, who stood alone. Sanders voted in Favor.
For someone who refers to Bernie's record so often, and what it indicates, Muppet doesn't actually seem terribly familiar with it.
Hold up what? When did he say we need to vote out nearly all incumbents?
I'm also interested in this, since it seems a strange thing for someone who has been an incumbent for the majority of his career. And is currently to boot.
The thing people don't get about Sanders is that pandering to constituents is still pandering. It's not that he operates to his own accord, it's that he operates to benefit those voting for him. He isn't bank rolled by large corporate entities, but that means he can't afford to vote contrary to the popular opinion of those he's representing. As a Jacksonian I am inclined to prefer this to someone bankrolled by big business, but as a Jacksonian who doesn't hate Indians I know it has its problems.
I think there is an aspect to pandering that is not often considered. Politics, especially in a democracy, is ideally going to involve a certain amount of compromise and concensus building. I don't think it's fair to say a politician is pandering unless you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt they're flip flopping to please the people in front of them at that very moment.
That being said, yes, a politician may have to act in some sort of opposition to their direct statements in order to preserve their job but also go about bringing about that gradual change
The thing people don't get about Sanders is that pandering to constituents is still pandering. It's not that he operates to his own accord, it's that he operates to benefit those voting for him.
In fact, you could even go so far as to say that, being a politician, it's literally his job.
I think it isn't pandering if you are already elected in a position, and then something new happens, and you consult your constituents, and they want something different than you would otherwise act, so you vote against your own beliefs.
But it is pandering to say you will vote against your beliefs before you are elected, for the purposes of getting elected.
Comments
Why the invective against her and not every other politician, ever?
Can we just not and say we did until one of us has something new to say?
I always get amazed when i encounter an actual moderate republican. I thought they were all Democrats now :-p
1. Trump vs. Sanders
Sanders wins by a large margin because fuck Trump. (15%)
2. Any other GOP candidate vs. Clinton
The Republican wins by a small margin because Hillary loses too much of her support from Sanders supporters staying home. (40%)
3. Trump vs. Clinton
Clinton wins in a smaller margin than #2 because, seriously, fuck Trump. (40%)
4. Any other GOP candidate vs. Sanders
Up in the air, but I'll call it for Sanders (5%)
My prediction is that any D ultimately beats Trump by nearly the same margins. (same with Cruz) Ultimately the The vast Majority of Sanders voters will move back into the D column. Ultimately things like the supreme court, Social rights. People get butt hurt in primaries when their person doesn't win. In the end though they get over it unless the other candidate does something ridiculous. (see Tea party)
I wouldn't make a prediction on anyone else because there are too many factors at play and we are too far away from the elections.
No, there cannot be full blown Socialism in 2 years or in 20. Clinton, though, is not even an incremental step in the right direction. She's an assertion that where we're headed is fine. Sorry, no thank you.
Sanders is saying, more or less, we need to vote out nearly all incumbents and get on with some sort of program of, if not the renewed pursuit of American exceptionalism, then at least attempting to catch up with the rest of the first world.
I can understand how someone who has never had to choose between medication for a serious illness or food for their table might miss the core of what's being said in Sanders' campaign, I guess. Otherwise, I don't get it. You think he's idealistic? Pandering? Lying? His record seems to indicate otherwise.
It's not the only example - for example, look up the pork barrel bullshit he was pulling in the 90s with the Pentagon and the V-22 osprey project, which was the F35 boondoggle of the 90s - but it's a tidy, easy one.
(Edit - Oh, I forgot to mention. Sanders was ambivalent on the F35 program, too, until it became known that the Air National guard base in Burlington, Vermont would be one of the larger potential bases. Suddenly, he became a very strong supporter.)
He's a politician, and he's still got plenty of skeletons. Like, when he voted for the appropriations bills for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite supposedly opposing them. Or that time there was only one vote against the authorization for use of force in Afghanistan and it was Bernie San...Nah just kidding it was Barbara Lee, who stood alone. Sanders voted in Favor.
For someone who refers to Bernie's record so often, and what it indicates, Muppet doesn't actually seem terribly familiar with it. I'm also interested in this, since it seems a strange thing for someone who has been an incumbent for the majority of his career. And is currently to boot.
That being said, yes, a politician may have to act in some sort of opposition to their direct statements in order to preserve their job but also go about bringing about that gradual change
But it is pandering to say you will vote against your beliefs before you are elected, for the purposes of getting elected.