Those Who Say They Won't Support the Eventual Nominee -- Consider This...

[Stand and Fight]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

One disturbing thing I've seen on here and other places online is people refusing to support the eventual Democratic nominee if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. To be honest, the majority of people I've seen saying this have been Sanders' supporters and some Clinton supporters occasionally. What worries me about this is that I don't think that they've considered the ramifications of what they're saying. I don't think they've thought about things in relation to historical precedence. Perhaps, most importantly it seems they've not considered recent history as well.

Think of what things were like under George W. Bush. Bit by bit more and more regulation was done away with. Wall Street speculation became more rampant and reckless. Little consideration was given to what it meant to make home loans that were more creative, more crafty, variable rates... The banks essentially gambled in the speculations department knowing all the while that the party couldn't last forever. Then the bottom fell out in 2008. BAM! CRASH! The party was over! Chaos ruled the day and historic havoc affected the financial markets.

Things haven't been perfect under Obama. I haven't always agreed with his policies and don't feel he was progressive enough on things like health care or holding the banks accountable. Nonetheless, under the presidency of Barack Obama, things have started to turn around with the unemployment rate now sinking to the lowest it's been in a while. There was a thread posted a short time ago that posed the question of whether one is better off than they were on January 20, 2009. I'm from, and live in, Vegas. My hometown was hit hard by the Great Recession and I watched from afar in Washington D.C. as Vegas suffered a great deal. While things are still not back to where they were, I think the president's policy -- even if I didn't and don't agree with them all -- have been beneficial to the nation's economic well-being.

That said, I think things will only continue to get better under the presidency of Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders. If one of the Republicans gets in office, I fear for the economic well-being of the country. After all, every time we've had a major economic collapse -- the Great Depression or Recession -- it's been under the administration of a former Republican business man like George W. Bush or Herbert Hoover. Now just imagine a businessman that's declared bankruptcy as much as Trump being president! Nightmarish, isn't it? For that reason I will enthusiastically support either Democratic candidate.

To clarify, I'm asking if people would rather not vote for one candidate or another and potentially hand the country over to Trump, Cruz, or Rubio? You really think any one of those three is going to do anything progressive?


PS:
I don't post on here as much as I used to anymore. The vitriol displayed by many posters is disgusting to me. Having attended the Nevada Democratic caucus last week, I found both Bernie and Hillary supporters to be civil and reasonable. Even if they didn't always agree. I joined DU in 2004 in the wake of the election. I was living in Oklahoma in the time and DU was a bastion against the right wing insanity that one would expect to find in such a place. However, over the years, the immaturity, rudeness, lack of civility, unhinged attacks on fellow Democrats, and the adoption of Republican talking points against Sanders and Clinton make me ill. Chances are I won't respond to rude replies on this post either, but I hope that one day DU gets back on its footing of civility. I cannot recall a time where it's ever been quite as bad as it is now -- not 2004 when I was still lurking or even 2008. It got ugly then -- especially in regards to Secretary Clinton -- and things have turned more acerbic as of late. I look forward to the day when I can sign into DU again and enjoy being around fellow liberals, have discussions even if disagree, and once more rely on this place as a solid place to get up-to-the-minute news and discussion on current events.

[mindwalker_i]

1. Look a little further out

Beyond DU, how many people won't support Hillary as he nominee? You can berate them and yell at them to your heart's content, but a lot of people see the sleazy campaign she's running, the lies she's tld, her connections to Wall Street, and just flat out won't vote for her. That's the reality of the situation. Yelling about it won't help. Nominating Hillary is putting us in that situation.

[scscholar]

36. But is she any more than him?

Any more than him?

[peacebird]

201. Any more than which him? Bernie? Bernie is honest & trustworthy. Hillary lies and panders.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

62. Think there's a combination of Green Party people, brand new voters, a few non-political types

Who don't think the ramifications of having a Republican winning is that serious, (must not realize what Bush did to this country), some people who have personalities where they do not compromise (many are men who have an authoritarian bent). Perhaps some mysogynists (some men - and even women) who hate women or do not believe women are capable of being in a leadership position. Some purists who think Bernie is pretty much perfect - similar to the people who worshipped Dean, Obama, Clark, etc. and ended up being very disappointed in the way their candidate behaved afterwards.

One cannot worship a politician - they are human and are very competitive and therefore apt to do almost anything to win, including telling supporters whatever they want to hear in order to win.

[Lizz612]

90. Nailed it

We do a disservice to our politicians when we put them on a pedestal. I have a friend who was a John Edwards supporter and she's still bitter about the amount of energy she feels she waisted.

[840high]

65. +10

[Merryland]

177. yes -

and the Hillary people are scared.

[Barack_America]

2. Thanks, but I have considered it.

[Stand and Fight]

5. So... I'm curious.

Are you saying you would not vote or would vote for a Republican instead if Hillary wins?

[Barack_America]

15. Wouldn't it be my only choice?

[Stand and Fight]

19. I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Barack_America]

22. There would only be a choice of Republicans on the ballot.

[Stand and Fight]

29. Awww... I see.

If I understand you correctly, for you the candidate of your choice is Senator Sanders. So, if he doesn't win that means it's Secretary Clinton, whom you consider to be a Republican; ergo, there would only be Republicans on the ballot. I don't agree with you there, but thank you for clarifying.

[artislife]

42. There would be a Green Party candidate on there, too.

This will cause some to ask themselves if they will vote for party or for issues.

[merrily]

79. There is no reason to take the bait. Your vote is your business.

You are posting things that could get you a hide or a ban.

[merrily]

88. It's a potential violation of the Terms of Service. There's supposedly more

tolerance before the primary winner is known, but that is a gray area. People have been banned. If you want to invite hides and a possible banning, that is your prerogative. Go for it with my blessing. Heaven knows, I hate censorship and have no desire to silence you. I just don't want people to get blindsided. IMO, there is rarely a reason why you have to say how you personally intend to vote, though.

[Ned_Devine]

113. Thank you!

I'll delete it

[merrily]

116. You're welcome, but you could also reword.

[Ned_Devine]

118. No biggins. I'm letting this place get to me

I should probably post in Bernie only threads. It's better for my overall sense of well being. All the other back and forth is tapping into my ugly side

[Merryland]

179. I've put a whole bunch of them on ignore.

It works wonders for the blood pressure, Ned.

[Stand and Fight]

56. Yes, that makes sense to me. Thanks for the input. n/t

[haikugal]

136. Many of us have decided we will not vote for the lesser of evils and yes we do have somewhere

else to go. Those who think they can continue to control us with the usual song and dance will be very surprised with their result. We refuse. Deal with it. We have dealt with the sneers and various abuses for years. We're done.

[Frances]

202. I've heard this argument before.

People like you gave us Ronald Reagan because they could not vote for Brown for governor because Brown was the lesser of 2 evils.

People like you gave us George W Bush because Gore was the lesser of 2 evils.

And people like you will give us Trump and fascism because they will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils (either Bernie or Hillary depending on the individual)

[haikugal]

203. I was one who warned against Reagan..nice try.

The Supreme Court gave us Bush and a corrupt election machine re-elected him.

I will not be giving you Trump and fascism because I didn't sign away our right to a free information source that tells the truth rather than petty propaganda.

Try again, you're full of fail.

[Merryland]

178. and a write-in space in almost all states.

[merrily]

77. Stop baiting people into posting things that could get them hides. Thanks in advance.

[hifiguy]

3. It depends entirely on your state.

My state has been sky blue since 1960 except for the '72 Nixon landslide, which was quickly undone.

[Stand and Fight]

11. Understandable. I'm asking about things beyond the primary.

I sincerely hope that any of the baboons on the Right can't repeat 1972 or 1980.

[merrily]

83. This is nothing like 1972 or 1980. And fyi, Mondale was a moderate, despite

all the hype to the contrary.

[merrily]

81. Not Reagan? Even Massachusetts went for Reagan and it went McGovern in 1972,

the only state so to do. I think that's how it got the reputation of being the bluest state. Eisenhower and Reagan and the rest Democrats since at least FDR.

[hifiguy]

93. Nope we went for our home state son,

Fritz Mondale.

[merrily]

94. Ah, favorite son. Good for your state! Massachusetts fell for the Gipper, but

then I don't always see Massachusetts as blue as other people see it. I guess that's because I've never lived in a red state.

BTW, do you like my new sig line/

[hifiguy]

95. It doesn't show on my phone

I will check it out tomorrow!

[onecaliberal]

4. The fucking planet will NOT support life if we don't do something now. What the hell is

so difficult to understand? She is in the pocket of big oil. I'm not voting against my family and their survival on this planet. Because in the end no goddamn thing is more important than that.

[Punkingal]

7. Wow....thank you!

[Stand and Fight]

8. Calm down...

I'm not saying support Hillary or Bernie. I think my post's tone was pretty clear in that. I'm asking if people would rather not vote for one candidate or another and potential hand the country over to Trump, Cruz, or Rubio? You really think any one of those three is going to do anything progressive?

[onecaliberal]

9. Enjoy my dust bin.

[el_bryanto]

17. That seems like an odd response.

I don't think the OP said anything particularly offensive.

Bryant

[Stand and Fight]

20. I'm very confused by that kind of vitriol.

Up until this point I'd forgotten about the "Ignore" feature. It's disappointing to see that sort of thing to say the least.

[HooptieWagon]

43. Hillary is going to push fracking and more war...

All the while cranking a vacuum to 11 to suck every bit of money up to give to Wall St. Hell, if I wanted that bullshit I'd just go ahead and vote republican.

[ccinamon]

53. EXACTLY! nt

[hifiguy]

97. As sure as eggs is eggs

as our English cousins say.

[merrily]

92. Please name all the progressive things Bill Clinton accomplished in office, other than the

very mixed blessing of DADT, conceived by Powell and Morris. (He could have just revoked Reagan's Executive Order, but wanted cover from Congress.)

Please name all the progressive bills and amendments Senator Clinton wrote that became law.

Other than giving speeches, please name all the progressive measures taken by Clinton as Secretary of State.

Thanks in advance.

BTW, what on earth made you assume onecaliberal did not understand your OP?

[NEOhiodemocrat]

60. Thank you onecaliberal!

I agree with you completely. I know there are many issues to consider but I am scared by the lack of urgency on climate change. If liberals are not stressing the importance of this issue who will?

[840high]

67. Thank you.

[merrily]

89. +1

Calm the frack down. (see what I did there?)

[Hatchling]

120. I always wondered why they called that procedure fracking.

Did no one ever watch Battlestar Galactica?

[merrily]

121. I never did. Did they use "fracking" as a substitute for the f word?

[JonLeibowitz]

127. No, it's definitely slang for "fracturing", the means by which they expose the resources desired.

[merrily]

130. That is exactly how I used it upthread (jokingly), but I got a reply about Battlestar Galactica

that I did not understand.

[Hatchling]

132. Yes!

Fracking this and fracking that. And just plain frack!

I was stunned and found it very ironic that the companies called it fracking because that's what it does to the people and land around it.

[merrily]

133. Thank you!

[haikugal]

138. Boom!!

This isn't a fucking game!!

[liberal_at_heart]

6. another loyalty pledge post. Trashing thread.

[Stand and Fight]

10. How is it a pledge?

It's asking people to consider a point.

[merrily]

96. Please see your replies 5 and 29 and my reply 77.

That is where OPs like this one are leading. It's not rocket science.

[djean111]

12. There sure have been a bunch of those today, all wrapped in different packaging.

Yawn.

[merrily]

102. Why should today be different from any day in the last 2 or 3 years?

I've noticed a number of "Let's all be friends" threads lately, too.

I think the word is out that she feels relatively confident about winning now, so, remember, to become the first woman President, she's going to need the votes of those Bernie Bros we've all been trashing since Bernie announced he was exploring a run about 18 months ago.

Suddenly, we're real Democrats again. Funny that.

[Merryland]

182. authoritarian mindsets

use phrases like "fall into line" as if I am not equally turned off by Hillary and Donald Trump. Yes, equally turned off.

[bvf]

13. Uh...

What worries me about this is that I don't think that they've considered the ramifications of what they're saying. I don't think they've thought about things in relation to historical precedence. Perhaps, most importantly it seems they've not considered recent history as well.

Yeah, talking down to people is certainly a good way to make one's case.

[farleftlib]

14. Loyalty oath time already?

No thanks.

[NurseJackie]

16. Best to ignore them.

[Stand and Fight]

23. I was hoping for a discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not seeing much of that here. A lot of people jumping to conclusion and quick to attack despite the very middle-of-the-road tone I had. Since when is advocating voting for whoever the nominee is considered wrong on a DEMOCRATIC board?

[kjones]

26. Since the start of this primary, this has NOT been a Democratic board. nt

[Stand and Fight]

28. It certainly seems that way. n/t

[Bradical79]

30. It's just an old discussion

Your tone is nicer, but there's just not much to discuss on the subject.

[Stand and Fight]

33. Not everyone is on DU 24/7 and participated in said discussion(s)...

For some of us it's a new discussion, but I can understand where you're coming from. I still hope people would be civil. Too much to ask for perhaps?

[merrily]

85. Dinnae matter. DUers who have already responded to thousands of OPs like yours

for the last two or three years are so over them.

ETA: Besides, assuming adult DUers will change their votes because of an post is a lot of things, one of them being unrealistic. Even if there hadn't been thousands of posts like yours already, we're not political naifs to whom the things you post never occurred before.

[drray23]

31. i suspect a significant number of the more extreme

sanders supporters are not and were never democrats. Either they never gave a damm about the democratic party in particular and the political process in general brfore, or they are gop plants. Any reasonable democrat would see that there is no advantage in handing trump the presidency. It goes against every progressive belief.

[Stand and Fight]

35. Handing Trump the Presidency -- Precisely!

To me that would seem to be the very thing that no true Democrat would want. It's not about loyalty oaths -- not sure where people are getting that from -- at all. It's about making sure that a dangerous egomaniac doesn't secure the presidency. If this thread is any reflection, it's clear that some Sanders supporters are very rude and have no interest in discussing things that make them uncomfortable. I can understand why one question their true loyalties and motivations.

[haikugal]

139. If that's your concern then why are you supporting a losing candidate? She will lose.

[jeff47]

44. Yours is the 8 millionth post on the subject.

You're making the same, tired old "lesser of two evils" argument. So you're not going to get discussion. It has been hashed out over and over and over again.

Fundamentally, the problem is the party has ignored, derided and abused the left 3/4ths of the party for the last 30 years. The party relies on "who else you gonna vote for" to do this - which is exactly what your post comes down to.

We'd like the party to stop doing that and actually reflect the majority of the electorate, much less the party (example: single-payer has 60-70% support nationally, depending on the poll).

Pleas have not worked. Attempts to turn the party apparatus have not worked (The county party literally took away a seat rather than let me win it). Cutting off donations has not worked, it just makes the party cling closer to the 1%. Attempts to "hold the party's feet to the fire" in less-critical positions have failed. The party has treated the results of that as "Third Way can't fail, it can only be failed". Heck, the party has actively campaigned against Democratic nominees in order to keep the "right kind" of politician in power (example: Lieberman).

We're out of options. Either the party has to start giving a shit about the base, or they lose.

Does that mean a Republican can win? Yes. From our perspective, we're looking at a slow drive to hell or a fast drive to hell. We still end up in hell. And those of us younger than Boomers will live long enough to arrive there on either path.

Don't like being held hostage? Now you know how I have felt for my entire adult life.

[ccinamon]

59. STANDING O!!!

Much better said than my detailed list of 7 items down below! (post 41)

[Kall]

112. A Republican is going to be President eventually.

Last edited Sat Feb 27, 2016, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)

That's just political reality. This idea that (just taking one example) it's a long-term strategy to pass a Republican health care bill from the 1990s with 100% Democratic votes, trumpet it as great despite voters not perceiving it as so, and then base its long-term survival on holding the White House in perpetuity is just the dumbest strategy ever. The ACA has been underwater in public opinion since Day One and contrary to what the six-figure Democratic professional strategists were saying at the time, did not save Congress for the Democrats in 2010 (oops) and did not lead to political suicide for the Republicans for attempting to repeal it once people experienced the benefits of it, because people were unimpressed with the benefits of it, so the Republicans have attempted to repeal it 60 times with no political consequences (oops).

Of course, back then the six-figure Democratic political strategists were saying that the ACA wasn't what people wanted, but was just the first step on the road to single-payer. Now the line is that single-payer is impossible because of the ACA. I never bought the first argument, but Lucy and the football comes to mind for those that did.

Now, compare that to the number of times Republicans have tried to repeal single-payer Medicare. So, the way to make "progress" lasting is not to construct some Rube Goldberg device that is fundamentally unpopular based on peoples' experienced results and then fight a perpetual rear-guard action to defend something they don't like. The way to make progress lasting is to build support for and eventually pass a program that is fundamentally popular based on peoples' experienced results (like single-payer Medicare) and which they want already, so that when a Republican is President (it's going to happen eventually) or Republicans win Congress, public opinion will punish them if they dare to mess with it. Or if they stand in the way of creating it. So this is not difficult to understand, but it's beyond the understanding of some people when their interests lie in not understanding it.

[merrily]

141. I want to bear the children of this post, up to and including the last line.

[Beartracks]

152. Very well stated. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

47. Why don't you vote for OUR candidate in the primary?

[Lizz612]

111. Why don't you respect others' choices?

We have primaries for a reason, so we can put forward a strong candidate for the general election. And sometimes that means that reasonable can respectfully disagree. "Why don't you vote for OUR candidate in the primary?" *shakes head* Why don't you just give me a pony?

[HooptieWagon]

129. Oh, so you want us to respect your choice...

...but it's ok to disrespect OUR choice?

[Lizz612]

171. Disrespect

Asking you on Democratic Underground to vote for the Democrat for president in the general election is disrespectful?

[ebayfool]

150. So "respectfully" = "give me a pony"?

Mebbe you oughta think on this, see if you can spot a problem.

That crap right there is not part of the solution, you know.

*shakes head* indeed!

[Lizz612]

172. Oh so I'm part of the precipitate?

The OP asked if people will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election, and someone comes back with, "Just vote for my guy in the primary!"

If we can't get you a pony for your birthday would you like a new computer? "Just get me a pony!" Are you intent on being disappointed?

[ebayfool]

174. You're the one that threw out "Why don't you just give me a pony?" while mumbling about respect.

I just pointed out one doesn't go with the other. So yeah, you are part of the problem. And now you escalate with computer? Are you intent on proving my point?

Shoe fits. Wear it.

[Lizz612]

181. Mumbling?

This is the internet, mumbling requires tiny grey fonts!

Your right, ponies and computers are not respect for other peoples' choices, or presidential candidates. I'll stop trying to make analogies.

To be clear I was responding to "Why don't you vote for OUR candidate in the primary?" which struck me as a rather petulant response to a question about voting for the eventual nominee, whomever that might be.

Question: What are you going to do if you don't get your way?
Response: Why can't you just let me get my way?
Third party: Because other people have a say in this too.

[ebayfool]

193. LOL! You're alright!

And it didn't hurt a bit for me to say that!

Tho' I do wish I could figure out how to do the tiny grey fonts. I DO mumble a lot - makes the neighbors keep their distance.

[NurseJackie]

74. I get that ... and good luck.

I've just had enough of the vanity and selfishness of those threatening not to vote because of their disappointment or hurt feelings.

[merrily]

107. If you think this is about hurt feelings and/or disappointment, you ain't been listening.

[seaglass]

188. Why listen to republican-enablers? It's pointless, there is no common ground to be found with

people who profess to be progressive but when their candidate loses they no longer care about those who would be negatively impacted by a Repub president. It's extremely selfish and narrow-minded thinking.

I guess people don't remember the 8 years of Bush hell, or Reagan hell. And don't understand how Repubs owning Congress and the Presidency for 4 years, 8 years can have long term consequences.

[merrily]

190. Fine. Don't listen. Just don't make up sh*t.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

72. No one I interact with daily in the meat world intends to.

Well, I take it back, I do know one 'undecided'. Apart from her, though, every single person I've talked to face to face, of any political bent, can't stand Hillary.

[merrily]

108. Please see Replies 79 and 88 on this thread. Thank you.

[katmondoo]

21. Life for me has been OK since 2010

Not great but I am fine, I feel more secure, I have money to go to the beach at least once in the summer for a week, I have enough food, once in a while I can eat out. I lost a lot of money on my condo but the upside is the taxes were reduced because it no longer has the same value. I make some money working at home doing craft type things. People have money to buy them for fun. I am on social security and having a Republican in charge would take away my feeling of security and create stress. What worries me is having an out of control ego maniac in the White House. I lived through Bush and cannot go through those years again. I will fight and support any Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable.

[Stand and Fight]

25. That's the way I see it as well.

I'm sorry about some of the difficulties that you've encountered However, I'm especially happy to hear that you have kept your head up despite those hardships. It would be easy to grow apathetic and to tune out things.

When I look at Donald Trump and consider that most of his policy positions can be summed up in his own words as, "It's going to be the best plan. I've got a wonderful ideas. It's going to be awesome. Make America great again!"... When he's throwing people out for simply holding signs in protest, that's extraordinarily worrisome. Neither Sanders or Clinton would do that. I admire each of them all the more -- just because they're being decent people. Trump as president would go full authoritarian!

[kjones]

24. The irony of people complaining about loyalty oaths while seemingly taking one for Bernie.

"Bernie or bust"

[farleftlib]

27. Um, you might want to look up

what a loyalty oath is. Vowing to vote only for the candidate of your choice ain't it.

[kjones]

34. Hmm...

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-c-7cnMzTZ5hl--S4S072QZsokrXCh5HsbcFIIn4-UI/viewform?c=0&w=1

Call it what you want I guess...

[merrily]

100. "seemingly" taking an oath? LOL! o.k. nt

[kjones]

134. You're right...

I meant "definitely."

[merrily]

135. Oh, that's merely false. I would have stuck with funny if I were you.

[kjones]

140. Well, you can lead a bro to water but you can't make 'em drink.

Especially once they're all full of Kool-aid.

[merrily]

142. Funny to false to non sequitur. You should have quit while you were almost ahead.

Also, it's sexist to call a woman a bro.

[kjones]

154. Sexist? You'll have to explain that one.

The rest of those complaints are self explanatory, being SC primary eve and all.
Bernie people have been touchy today.

People's votes are to do with what they want, but I hardly see the problem of
pointing out that a loyalty pledge is a loyalty pledge.

[merrily]

157. No, not self-explanatory.

"Promise you will vote for the person you already want to vote for" is not the same as "promise to vote for whoever the nominee is, even if the nominee is Hillary and you really, really don't want to vote for Hillary." Those two requests are nothing alike. Another poster already explained that to yoou. You're insisting on a false equivalency.

As far as sexism, in your mind, it is okay to, without a request, call a woman "Mister?" Or to call a man "sis" or "Miss?" I don't think it is. Why would you assign someone a gender anyway?

The rest of those complaints are self explanatory, being SC primary eve and all.

If you're talking about what I posted to you, they weren't complaints. I was laughing at the silly things you were posting. Mockery, maybe. Complaints, no.

Bernie people have been touchy today.

Typically one-sided bs.

[Mike Nelson]

32. Agree...

...don't know where it's going to end, sadly.

[EdwardBernays]

37. here's the thing

If it's Hillary v Trump, Hillary is going to be obliterated. For a wide variety of reasons which are extremely obvious.

Me voting against my conscious isn't gonna change that. In fact, if anything my vote - and the votes of everyone that has to hold their nose and vote for her - will convince the DNC that they were right all along. That the ever dwindling Democratic Party...



...which is so weak after 8 years of a corporatist center-right Democrat, that that party was right to foist another corporatist center-right candidate on us.

Bottom line though, I won't again vote for someone that I think is corrupt and dishonest. And no amount of fear mongering about the GOP will change that.

[Stand and Fight]

38. That makes no sense.

It's well known that Democrats lose elections when people don't get out and vote. Your solution is that if Sanders doesn't win, you would rather not vote at all because it would be against your conscience and you believe Trump will win anyhow? If Sanders is the nominee, even if I think he might lose, I'm pouring as much money into his campaign as I can and I'm going to spend my day hauling people down to their polling place to vote on election day.

[EdwardBernays]

40. if you thought...

Sanders was dishonest and corrupt and you still wanted to vote for him that's your choice.

I won't vote for someone I think is dishonest and corrupt.

If the party wants my support after the convention they'll have to have a nominee I can vote for that I don't actively dislike and actively think is bad for America.

I care about America more than the party and won't be scared into forgetting my belief system. And I'm not the only one.

[HooptieWagon]

49. +1000

[ccinamon]

51. Well Said!

thank you!

[Stand and Fight]

52. Carrying about America more is precisely why I DON'T want a Republican in office.

It's not about loyalty to the party. It's about keeping people whom seem one wave short of a shipwreck out of the White House.

[EdwardBernays]

58. nonsense

from my perspective - from many people's perspective - there's no better version of corrupt and dishonest.

You care about America? Don't push someone that is distrusted by the majority of Americans, who deliberately obscures her business deals and hides behind Republicans when progressives ask her what she got paid millions to say to the banks.

Hillary Clinton is not a liberal or a progressive. I am voting for someone that is progressive. If the DNC can't provide that person I'll either vote third party or stay at home.

And if Trump gets elected, because the DNC chose a shit candidate, then the DNC and the people that supported that candidate are to blame - not those of us who fought for a progressive candidate.

Basically, if Trump wins - which he will if Hillary is the nominee - don't blame Sanders supporters; look in the mirror.

Sanders is Trumps kryptonite. Trump is Hillary's kryptonite.

And even if she DOES win, she will actively damage America.

[Stand and Fight]

63. Distrusted by the majority of Americans?

I will never understand how people on both sides can say in one breath the majority of Americans believe this, so it is right. That's a logical fallacy. Just because the majority believes something does not make it right. The premise of your argument is nonsense. Why? The majority of American's voted for Bush in 2004, that doesn't make it right. If the majority of Americans vote for Trump, that won't be any more right. It will be just as sad and bad for the country as Bush winning a second term. If you believe that Hillary would damage America, then you're unhinged.

[farleftlib]

73. It doesn't matter if it's correct, it's the perception that counts

and people's perceptions of a candidate dictate their votes. Yeah Bush was a nightmare but people's perception is that he was the guy they wanted to have a beer with, so the rest of us thinking people got stuck with him.

Likewise, people's perception that Hillary is dishonest will give us President Trump.

It has nothing to do with logic and little to do with reality. Except I agree with them - she is dishonest.

[EdwardBernays]

76. I'm not

and honestly if you think she wouldn't you're delusional.

She's wildly corrupt and dishonest and has surrounded herself with lobbyists, who have also been funding her campaign.

She and her husband have helped some truly awful people, for the benefit of getting themselves rich.

There's ample evidence of all of this, which pretty much the entire country knows - aside from - somehow - Clintonites.

As for what the majority of people think, yeah it doesn't make it right, but if it doesn't give you pause, or make you want to at least check and see if you are the wrong one, then what can I say?

Did you know that she promised to produce a list of all of the "Foundation" donors - broke that promise at the time and to this day hasn't?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-clinton-donations-idUSKBN0MF2FQ20150319

Did you know that the Foundation deliberately hid donors by funnelling them through a canadian charity owned by Frank Giustra.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clinton-foundation-remain-secret/2015/04/28/c3c0f374-edbc-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

Do you know that Bill publicly praised an oppressive dictator and promoted his "bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy" - all to help the same Frank Giustra get a uranium contract?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Did you know that Clinton said her "top priority" at State was to sign off on a deal between Boeing and Saudi Arabia - who combined donated 25M to the "foundation" - Being also paid Bill 250K for one speech. She of course signed off that deal.. even though State was warning that Saudi Arabia was shitting on it's own citizens, holding mass public executions and horribly oppressing women? And Clinton's "top priority" was a 29 Billion dollar weapons deal. Not helping the women of Saudi Arabia. Selling weapons.

Did you know that both Saudi Arabia and Boeing share the same lobbying form - the one owned by her campaign chairman?






And that's the tip of the iceberg.

If you think someone that behaves like that - and worse - won't damage America you're ... wrong.

And hey, none of that ^^^ is progressive or liberal behaviour.

If that was a Republican you'd probably be signing a petition to have them tired for war profiteering, corruption and misleading the American public.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

78. No, you're wrong.

If the majority of people say 2+2 = 5, then yes, that does not 'make it so'. 2+2 is still 4.

But if the majority of the people say they don't trust Hillary Clinton, than it is entirely correct to say the majority don't trust Hillary Clinton.

Now you may think they don't trust her for good reasons, but the fact remains that they don't trust her, and it doesn't make it not so, just because you say.

And btw, no, the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush in 2004. Perhaps a majority of people who VOTED in 2004 did, but certainly not 'a majority of Americans'.

[EdwardBernays]

80. That's correct - significantly more people distrust Clinton than voted for Bush

which is worth noting.

[ccinamon]

64. MOST Excellent reply!!!

Well said!!!

[Beowulf]

66. Then give people a reason to go out and vote!

And fear isn't a good enough reason.

Calling Bernie supporters as being caught up in personalities shows how little Clinton supporters understand what the left is about. We're about issues. We're about addressing what we feel is wrong and broken in our country. We support Bernie because he embodies what we believe in. Unfortunately, to us Hillary embodies too much of what we feel is wrong, especially the major issue for us: breaking the chokehold the oligarchy has on power.

[ccinamon]

68. YES!

Perfectly said!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

75. The Party needs to learn not to constantly crap on the left wing.

They keep demanding we have candidates from the RW of the Party, who turn around and ignore things the folks on the left think are critical. As long as we keep voting for those centrists, they have no incentive to learn that lesson. They need to learn to SHARE power with the folks on the left once in a while, or they're going to find the folks on the left quit showing up to vote for their centrists. They keep moving the Party to the right, and leaving ever more folks on the left out in the cold. Even right now, it looks like they might finally have moved far enough to the right that a leftist has a shot at winning the primary. But instead of embracing a resurgence of the left, EVERY SINGLE centrist is lining up to undercut him. Everybody who is doing well under the status quo is trying to protect that status quo.

Well, there's a LOT of folks not doing so well under the status quo, and they're getting sick and tired of propping up status quo centrist Dems. And we've gotten to the point where if the Dems aren't willing to embrace Sanders this time, there are actually enough people on the left to potentially step out and form an honest to God left party, if the Dems no longer intend to be the party of the left. If you want to be the party of the center, fine. Just don't expect the people on the left to support you any more.

[BillZBubb]

149. That's a problem with a broad coalition party.

There are a lot of Democrats who are conservative on differing issues. Most of them don't see themselves as conservative, which is a problem. The left of the party has become more isolated as the rest of the party has drifted rightward.

The DLC and its successor the Third Way were set up to move the Democratic party to the right. Their approach was to remain liberal on social issues, but to turn rightward on everything else. Sort of soft core libertarianism--not progressivism. Today, a mainstream Democrat is to the right of an Eisenhower republican. To those of us on the left, this is intolerable. But, there are far more of them than there are of us.

If you want to be a Democrat and you want to participate with the majority of the party you have to accept that reality. There is a philosophical chasm between what the Third Way wants and what the left wants and the Third Way isn't about sharing anything.

This primary, more than any I can remember, is about the soul of the party. It is the Third Way versus progressivism. I fear a breach is quite possible and maybe it needs to happen.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

162. I agree with most of that. Where I disagree is the line

But, there are far more of them than there are of us.

I don't actually think so, and I think the polling on Clinton and Sanders shows it. The left is almost as big as the centrists now, with many more people who are not specifically ideological, but simply want a party that represents them, and are willing to support either end if they feel a candidate is good. If there really were 'far more of them', Sanders' campaign would have gone exactly as expected, with no more fizz and pop than the 'gravelanche'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Actually in political science theory it is called punishign the party

and it is something most partisans around the world do not understand.

This is pretty basic to understand and while this link is to Brazilian politics it applies

http://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2012/11/dp168.pdf

In some states in the US, like mine. Independents are the majority of voters. The Rs are a dying concern and the dems are barely holding. The only reasons voters have not fully thrown both to the curb (though the new run off system will start that process at the state level), is because choice is not seemingly there.

Read into what is happening in California. But at a bigger picture level, (not that this will happen in the US anytime soon), the way to end corruption is for voters to punish corrupt pols and parties, equally if they feel they are equally responsible.

By the way this is not calling for anybody to vote for anybody, but extremely basic political theory.

[EdwardBernays]

189. This

Spot on.

People have been conned into supporting parties and candidates they dislike - with fear - for decades. And look what it's done to America.

On top of that the least democratic political institutions in America are our two main parties. And ironically the one that is always whinging about voter suppression is the least democratic one going.

Parties don't listen to their supporters when its time to choose a nominee. They don't listen to them after a nominee is elected either.

It's NO WONDER parties are dying and quick.

As they should.

American democracy is becoming a joke wrapped in a farce doing nothing more than providing lip service to its constituents wellbeing and repaying trust with deceit and corruption.

[nadinbrzezinski]

191. We have a democracy?

WHERE?

I don't make that assumption.


My BIL and I have many ways to call it... zombie democracy, life support democracy, pretend democracy and my personal favorite, erzats democracy.



It is amazing though that people really do not know this extremely basic theory. They USED to teach it in basic poli sci 101 coursework, but since they do not teach civics in High School anymore, poli sci 101 is US government... hmmm I wonder who that benefits.

[EdwardBernays]

192. Absolutely

And I use the term very loosely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

194. By the way this might be of more than passing interest to you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511352649

Speaking of punishing parties... or whatever. While everybody is goading everybody, that one was ahem curious

[EdwardBernays]

195. I saw that

and even posted it on a forum full of Trump supporters... they lost their collective minds.. some claiming they'd never vote for a Republican again if that happened... amazing..

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. Lovely grenade toss my friend

[EdwardBernays]

197. it's a fun passtime...

lol...


here's some of the comments

[merrily]

122. EdwardBernays never said he wouldn't vote.

He said only that he would not vote against his conscience.

[Merryland]

183. well said.

[OZi]

39. Consider this...

"We won't hurt you as bad as the Republicans," is not a very compelling argument.

I've been down this road before and have had "buyer's remorse" since. It's clear to me now that the party I have been supporting no longer truly shares my values. I think it's time for me to join the unaffiliated "i" crowd.

You are pushing the "ooo, scary Republicans" narrative pretty hard and kudos for that. Consider this... I've survived a Reagan and 2 Bushes. The Dem Presidents I have voted for have done some pretty scary shit too.

At the end of the day, why should I get caught up in the D vs R game when a lot of the puppet strings lead back to the same places?

[ccinamon]

48. STANDING O!!!!

Short, sweet, succinct!

[Stand and Fight]

50. You assume I see either Democrat as bad or scary. I don't.

I do however see the Republicans that way.

[OZi]

71. And that is why the party is failing to earn my support. n/t

[merrily]

123. Where in that post did you see any assumptions at all about you?

The poster simply stated his or her position.

[merrily]

115. But the Republicans a Democratic President will nominate to the Supreme Court are better than the

Republicans a Republican President will nominate to the Supreme Court. So, there is that.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States

[ccinamon]

41. Yes, I have thought of the ramifications.....

of voting 3rd party over Clinton if Bernie is not our nominee.

NOTE to jury: I'm honestly answering the questions....if you feel my answer needs to be hidden, make sure to hide the OP as well.

In no particular order:

1) We've had 30+ years of democrats caving, conceding, and rarely fighting for liberal values and they are now reaping the results of ignoring the core principles/morals of MOST democrats and moving rightward and co-opting republican stances. I've been yelling about this issue for over 20 years

2) The PTB in the democratic party knew 8+ years ago (with OWS and the election of Obama) that liberal voices were getting stronger and louder and they had a chance to engage, listen, and vote appropriately --- they refused/ignored it --- and this is the result. I have seen them support the more conservative democratic candidates over the more liberal way too often.

3) Sometimes you have to let the forest burn to make room for new growth. And if the country needs to get "worse" under a Trump/republicans to wake the lazy asses up and get involved in their future, then so be it. Why should MY VOTE cover their sorry ass???

4) Those of us who REFUSE to do the insanity thing of continuing to vote for the lesser of 2 evils are not the reason the republicans may win the WH in 2016, the DNC and their corporate masters are the reason for ignoring the liberal voices for the past 30 years.

5) Want democrats to vote, make sure there is someone there to vote for. Stop taking my money and giving help ONLY to candidates YOU deem viable (also think of DWS and her support of republicans over democrats).

6) Saw a great analogy today: we are heading towards a cliff and there are 3 choices: 1) stop before going over the edge (Bernie) ; go over the edge at 50mph (Hillary) ; go over the edge at 65mph (republicans). With options 2 and 3 your chances of survival is slim, only with option 1 do you have a decent chance of surviving...this is where I feel we are today.

7) After awhile incrementalism and/or the status quo doesn't work and is no longer a viable option...like now. Now is the time for radical change and putting people before profits and corporations.

Yeah, some of the above seems contradictory, but depending on how I'm feeling, all or parts of the above is why I'm not interested in voting for the status quo candidates.

BTW, Not all people are qualified for all careers...I don't have the tact or patience to put up with stupidity, which is why I have not run for office.

Hope this answer helps you understand!

[Merryland]

185. A great quote, forget who said it...

"the lesser of two evils is still evil."

[JackRiddler]

45. Arrrrgh will you allow democracy to go ahead in peace and stop?!

We are not in a general election. Talk about the issues relevant to the decision in front of us, not the loyalty bullshit that everyone can figure out for themselves when the first (and MOST IMPORTANT) decision is made. Who are you comes before who you are going to be against!

[Codeine]

46. In my closet I have a Howard Dean tshirt.

I also have a John Edwards shirt and a Dennis Kucinich shirt. None of those men (thankfully, for some) became my party's nominee. I still voted for the eventual standardbearer, because that was the sane thing to do.

In fact, this may be the first time the person I supported in the primary process actually wins. Odd feeling.

[Stand and Fight]

54. That's gonna be a great feeling for you! I know how you feel!

I was for Edwards in 2008 at first. Thankfully he didn't win after all that "love child" stuff came out, but I think he had the right progressive message. Thanks for your input.

[cantbeserious]

57. Maintaining The Status Quo For Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Is The Limit Of HRC's Vision

EOM

[ccinamon]

61. That is how I see her as well.

She gets more entrenched every year. Her co-opting Bernie's phrases and stances just lends more credence to the "unauthentic" tag she has been labeled with.

[840high]

69. ..+1

[merrily]

125. I think her vision is to be the first woman President.

Seems as though she will say anything she thinks will help her attain that goal.

[Nanjeanne]

70. I'm done with the Party in general. It no longer represent my point of view.

The Democratic Party is doomed by the tactics of Hillary and her surrogates. As a life-long Democrat who believed I could work within the party to make it more progressive and supportive of my values, I am done with it.

I will no longer feel responsible for propping these people up by my vote. I no longer give a damn about the lesser of two evils. I will continue to work ONLY for the candidates that I truly believe represent me. My vote is no longer available to the party. It is only available to those politicians in or out of the Democratic Party that I believe in. The rest of the politicians and the Democratic Party as a party are on their own. And they can thank Hillary Clinton if they win and they can thank Hillary Clinton if they lose.

[ccinamon]

84. EXACTLY!!!!! nt

[m-lekktor]

87. I am not a DEM, I have nothing in common with these Hillary supporters

if they are what the party has become.

[Lizzie Poppet]

187. Likewise. I'm here because it is (was?) a bastion of progressivism.

I'm not a Democrat, and I have zero loyalty to that party. I have loyalty to progressive principles, and thus indirectly to politicians that embrace and advance those principles. The Democratic Party is moving away from my principles, I suspect for the purpose of raw political expediency. Party loyalists, which I suspect constitute the majority here, seem to have little issue with that...and that's their perfect right. But that movement towards the center (center-right, in the case of some) moves the party away from the not-insignificant minority of folk like me here.

A Hillary win in the primary is a dreadful development, not just because she fails to embrace progressive principles in a remotely convincing manner, but because I believe she can't win in November (and that the GOP will retain control of the Senate if she runs, due in large part to her considerable motivation of the GOP base).

[SoLeftIAmRight]

82. I have been considering shit since they started killing our leaders in the 60's

[Thinkingabout]

91. Either we unite or there needs to be preparing for a Republican president

And right now those choices are between Trump, Cruz or Rubio. I am not ready for any of those choices. If those professing to be progressive are sincere about being progressive then just kiss any progressive issues getting past and probably more progressives we have gained getting removed such as ACA. Republicans has wanted to drop SS and probably Medicare. With a Republican congress and president more conservative SC appointments. The young people will be in really bad shape in another 40-50 years.

[Andy823]

99. Problem is

A lot of the so called Bernie supporters don't really want to see a Democrat in the WH. All one has to do is read the posts. Real supporters of Bernie's post about his accomplishments, his history, and the issues. The ones that continually day after day post trash and bash threads using a scorched earth policy against Hillary, are actually killing two birds with one stone. They tear Hillary apart while "claiming" to be supporting Bernie, yet the post do not "help" him get elected, they actually turn people away from Bernie. Their agenda is not helping Democrats get elected, but destroying DU, and trying to get people to either not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, or convince them to stay home because Democrats are "as bad or worse than republicans."

The GDP has turned into a cesspool of hate and right wing talking points. It has Karl Rove written all over it.

[hobbit709]

103. Hillary is an actual Democrat? She's a minion of the 1%.

[Thinkingabout]

126. There are more than one person who has wealth who are Democrats,

Having wealth does not change their ideas. Also I know lots of people who do not have wealth and they vote against their best interest for Republicans. One's net worth does not make one a Republican.

[merrily]

137. Hobbit said nothing about her wealth. Look up "minion," or read the post again

or both.

It's not about her wealth. No one says RFK would have made a bad President. It's about her last 54 years.

[hobbit709]

161. she's not one of them.

[Thinkingabout]

167. She was Democrat before her net worth rose, yes she is Democrat.

[hobbit709]

168. Corporate D, not an FDR-JFK style D.

[Thinkingabout]

169. Your opinion, and does not mean she isn't Democrat. You don't have any

proof she isn't just as I don't have proof you are Democrat.

[hobbit709]

170. Just take at good look at her cronies.

Kissinger, Blankfein, Trump. She is known by the company she keeps.

[Nanjeanne]

105. Don't speak for me.

My view of a Democrat is not just a word. It is a vision for the country.

[Stand and Fight]

114. Agreed.

The nastiness by the majority of Sanders' supporters in this thread with how they talk down to people and act so rudely is troublesome to say the least.

[TM99]

131. You start a condescending thread

telling voters you disagree with to 'consider' the consequences like they are children and you the wise adult, and now you think Sanders supporters who stand up to you and push back against your supposed 'wisdom' are the nasty ones?

This right here is the quintessential MO of the Clinton supporter here and elsewhere. This right here is why the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging voters. You are part of the problem, and you are too blind to see it.

[merrily]

146. You're correct about the condescending nature of the OP. However, I saw no

condescending replies from Bernie supporters. They stated their positions. They did not assume the OP could not think and needed spoon feeding, as the OP assume. Bernie supporters basically stated their positions or reactions as though they were talking to an adult who would understand what they were saying. That's not condescension.

I also noticed that the OP did not pay much attention to the replies of Bernie supporters. Further the OP has no problem with Hillary supporters saying nasty things about Bernie supporters, but chimed in with a number of them.

As usual, baseless insults to Bernie supporters and a pass for Hillary supporters. Same sh*t, different day.

[TM99]

158. As you correctly put it --

same shit, different day.

I suppose it is tiresome but at this point I just shrug it off with a laugh.

[merrily]

159. I'd rather shrug with a hug.

To you.

[TM99]

166. Awww....thanks.

[jeff47]

155. +infinity (nt)

[Thinkingabout]

124. Yes there are RW trolls here, we don't have to follow them, we can still vote

For a Democrat.

[Merryland]

186. there is more to progressive-ism than issues

The country desperately needs leaders with vision. Like Bernie Sanders.

[Lizz612]

101. A luxury

I've come to think of either not voting, or voting for a third party in a close race, as a luxury I don't think I have. I think of voting as harm reduction, it's the least we can do to make things better while acknowledging that it can only do so much.

[merrily]

144. There is an argument that voting LOTE causes more harm in the long run.

[Lizz612]

173. Mmm, true

But I can't only vote thinking of the long term, I have to think of the short term as well. If Obama can't replace Scalia, I don't want Cruz to appoint someone who will overturn Roe v Wade. I want to end the war on drugs because it's killing people now, like as you read this sentence now.

It's a balance that everyone has to choose on their own.

[merrily]

175. I didn't suggest you think only of the long term or that you vote in any specific way.

I merely noted there is an argument to be made.

I want to end the war on drugs because it's killing people now, like as you read this sentence now.

The war on drugs began, I think? under Nixon. Not sure. But, it has gone on for some time. Has voting for Democratic Presidents ended the war on drugs?

[Lizz612]

184. Ugh god

No, and I don't know that a president alone can. We've trained up a whole generation of law enforcement officers and DA's on this, not to mention all the ways we've tied funding for departments to it.

I consider Regan's '88 law the start of it, but I think the tide is finally changing. The cost in actual money is starting to add up and fiscally conservative Republicans (a dying breed) can't justify it forever.

Anyway, what was the original topic? Lol! I can't see on my phone!

[merrily]

198. Some facts and observations.

First, regardless of when you consider the war on drugs to have begun, most people think it began with Nixon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

Dating it to 1988 weakens your argument. Since Reagan left office, we've had 12 years of Republican Presidents, both named Bush, and amost 16 years of Democratic Presidents--both New Democrats-- including one whose prison policies were a significant escalation of the war on drugs, to the profit of private prisons. The other, Obama, claims to have already ended the war on drugs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/18/obama-says-he-ended-the-war-on-drugs-dont-believe-him/

However, I remember during his first term the DOJ raiding medicinal marijuana places in states where state law allowed them. I also remember his head of the DEA being very adamant about the classification of marijuana. This, though a majority of the population is for at least decriminalizing use.

No, and I don't know that a president alone can.

No President of any Party alone can change laws, even though DU seems to use this excuse only for Democratic Presidents. However, no President is as helpless as one might conclude from reading DU either. However, again, you weaken your own position: If the President can't do anything about the drug war alone, how strong a reason is it to vote for a Democratic President?

In any event, I would have a lot more respect for this argument if a President had tried his best to end or de-escalate the war on drugs and failed. However, since a lot of drug law enforcement comes from the Feds, specifically the Executive Branch, Presidents can do a lot about that. Even courts have weighed in on that. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/20/victory-medical-marijuana-court-tells-doj-lay-legal-providers

As far as costs, Republicans are not even trying to justify them. To the contrary, they've been protesting them, and, AFAIK, they began protesting them sooner and more strongly than Democrats, even before this Presidential campaign began.

The original topic was voting LOTE. I said there were a long term argument that it was quite harmful and you cited people dying as we typed (with a Democrat in the Oval Office for the past 7+ years) as a reason to vote Democratic for President. I don't know that there is a point to continuing the discussion though. I am not trying to persuade you how to vote. As stated before, I simply noted the existence of an argument that LOTE does a lot of damage in the long run. By the same token, I don't think you should vote based on assumptions that may or may not have a basis in fact or history, but I will leave that to you.

Have a wonderful day. (That's often posted here sarcastically. I am posting it sincerely.)

[kath]

109. My. Vote. Is. my. Business. Period.

[Dems to Win]

110. If we won't address climate change proactively, economic crash will cut carbon emissions

I don't live or work to support 'the economy', I don't vote to support 'the economy.'

The point being made by Bernie and his supporters is: 'The Economy' doesn't work for ordinary Americans! It doesn't work for the planet!

No threat of economic crash will get me to vote with the corrupt, clueless Democratic Establishment. Status Quo won't cut it in our desperate situation, and they have offered up the ultimate corporate and Wall Street funded candidate.

There is nothing more same-old than returning the same married couple to the White House who left it 16 years ago. There is nothing more sleazy and greedy and corrupt than that same married couple having cashed in on their public service to the tune of $200 million in the intervening years, and now they are asking for our vote once again.

I cannot imagine that Hillary can possibly win, no matter what I do with my blue state vote.

[Kalidurga]

117. You are making some serious errors in logic.

I will read your post in it's entirety if that mistake is fixed if not well I am just not interested. First mistake, no one owes Democrats their vote. That kind of thinking is for socially conservative Republicans who win votes by promising to oppress people that social conservatives deem unworthy of being equals in society. Democrats must earn votes by showing how they are going to make life better for the groups that conservatives hold down by ostracization, punitive laws, and in too many cases by physical force. They also must show how they are going to relieve the economic hardships imposed by a feudal like system.

Another problem is thinking that everyone who tends to vote Democrat is in fact a democrat. Many people who vote this way are doing so for pragmatic reasons and not because they feel they are Democrats, but because Democrats are the only other viable party in national elections and voting Republican is out of the question. Many of these people aren't going to see a lot of difference between a corporatist Clinton and a corporatist Trump. But, they hold Democrats to higher standards so guess what that leaves them to thinking they will not vote for a friendly face that will cut them.

Instead of arguing that one must vote for the Democratic nominee over a Republican make that nominee be someone that liberal Democrats, liberal Independents, and progressives can vote for not someone they must vote for because Republicans suck.

[CentralMass]

119. Let's see, in the last 8 years we let nearly 9 million more Americans fall under the povery line.

46.4 million people are living in poverty. Something like 42.5% of Hispanic children in the country are living in poverty and 38.5% of black children.

Corporate profits are at a record high yet workers wages as a share of the GDP have not been this low since 1929
We have added $9.2 trillion dollars to the national debt and it sits at $19 trillion and a crippling 104% as a share of the GDP.

The middle class now comprises less than 50% of income earners in the country.

Be afraid of the current policies.

[Thinkingabout]

128. Failure to unite and elect democrats will produce more living in proverty.

[CentralMass]

145. The is one candidate in the race thst is talking about rebuilding this country from the bottom up an

All the others are fighting to do from the top down.

[Thinkingabout]

153. I listened again tonight his interview with Chris Matthews, yes he is talking about

rebuilding this country from the bottom up but there has to be more than talk. I talk about winning the lottery, I have not won.

[jeff47]

156. So we should support the candidate that won't even fucking talk about it?

[RiverLover]

164. He wants more than talk, why do you think he's running for president? /nt

[Thinkingabout]

165. I have heard revolution, break up the banks, Medicare for all, free

College. He did not produce a viable means of getting this agenda enacted. Congress is heavy on the Republican side and as he has experienced in the last several years this bunch is not going to pass. As I say if I just had the right numbers I could win the lottery.

[merrily]

147. LOL!

[DemocraticWing]

143. Vote Democrat in November to keep the fascists out of the White House

If the possibility of President Trump or President Cruz doesn't scare you right into the waiting arms of EITHER Hillary or Bernie, you're complicit.

[EndElectoral]

148. The lesser of two evils argument. Seems it comes every election while the party keeps trending right

[CBGLuthier]

151. As I have said many a time it really doesn't matter for me. Oklahoma is where I vote.

My vote for president in the general election has never once been counted in my life because of the god damned electoral college.

I have very much thought through the ramifications of continuing to support inferior candidates because we only have two choices. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for anything.

[PowerToThePeople]

160. I see you changed your avatar

From Hillary to Roosevelt.

I wonder why? She is nothing like him. Possibly to conceal your motivations for this loyalty oath crap?

You will not scare me into casting a vote for someone I feel is bad for the Nation.

Not as bad no longer works.

Time for some fucking good.

[merrily]

199. The whole point of using the name "New Democrats" was to signify a distinct difference between

Democrats after 1985 and Democrats like FDR (New Deal) and Johnson (Great Society/War on Poverty). The difference intended to be denoted sure wasn't about wars abroad!

Good catch on the avatar change. That's pretty funny.

[randome]

163. Those who want to so easily quit the 'revolution' should read your post and also consider this:

It isn't just about one person's principles or sense of ethics. We're a rather large 'village'. If nothing else, help out the rest of us by voting for the eventual nominee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[INdemo]

176. So then you would vote for Bernie Sanders then if Hillary loses?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

180. I will vote for the most progressive candidate on my ballot.

[Katashi_itto]

200. Loyalty Pledge. Trashing

[one_voice]

204. Locking..

Doesn't meet SoP for GDP.

Statement of Purpose

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.