2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI do not understand how a progressive could oppose the Democratic nominee
No matter what you think of Bernie or Hillary, the fact is that on crucial issues that affect millions of people, they are vastly superior to the Republicans candidates:
- Gays who want to live openly
- Non-resident immigrants who want to remain in the US
- Women who have reason to have abortion
- Minorities and women who seek equal access to good jobs and good pay
- Blacks who seek redress on police abuse and government disinterest in their plight
- Children who grow up in poverty
- Individuals who are paid minimum wage
- Students in need of college aid and debt relief
- People who fear the affects of climate change
- Individuals who require food stamps
- People who want and need the security of health care
- Seniors who depend on Social Security and Medicare
- and so on
Now, okay, if you're a straight white middle class male, maybe none of the above issues really matter, or maybe you are worried about tax hikes and losing your special privileges in a more equal playing field. But, really, are there progressives who are so selfish?
Those of you who would risk a Trump or Cruz because you don't like the Democratic nominee, I think lack empathy. Try for a moment to understand what the people above will actually experience if the Republicans win the White House, if they choose the next Supreme Court Justice, if they control the House and Senate.
I think voting on principle alone is a luxury of the bourgeoisie and the well-to-do, an unethical, unempathic luxury.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Because their preferred candidate is only 100x less odious than the Republican nominee.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)cut food stamps.
I don't have time to go down the line of all your issues, but this is WHY we are against another third way "democrat" as president.
They're acting as repubs in office on many issues that are hurting our country.
Democrats need to BE Democrats, not just try to sound like it when running for office.
TM99
(8,352 posts)was Clinton a leader on any of these issues. Additionally on several of these she has supported odious positions that have harmed the very demographics you are discussing here.
We don't lack empathy. We cared for these groups when Clinton was anti-LGBT, pushing welfare reform, calling AA kids superpredators, pushing for $12.00 minimum wage, and lobbying for health insurance instead of health care.
And no, voting on principle is what adults do in a democracy. We vote for the candidate and the party that fits our political philosophy. We choose the best candidate for the job and reject the one that ultimately we think sucks.
So really, you can stop lecturing us and calling us names as we were not the ones being less than 'progressive' in our positions for decades and today like the New Dem Clintons!
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)I do know that under Democrats we have gotten more gay rights (Bill Clinton was the first president to openly seek out gay support, invite gays to the White House, appoint gays to high positions, and tried to admit gays into the military until Democratic conservatives forced him to accept Don't Ask/Don't Tell; Hillary Clinton's remarks were part of a joint effort by AA leaders and the Clintons to address gangs, she was not calling AA kids superpredators (but it was as bad a choice of words as Bernie' ghetto remarks); a $12 minimum wage is far better than the minimum wage Republicans wants; and health insurance was all we got because Republicans were united in opposition and Obama was forced to negotiate with the Blue Dog Democrats).
But, no, the black community didn't care when Clinton was anti-LGBT. That's bullshit. They started to change their tune only after Obama spoke up. The black community in polling and votes opposed gay marriage and equal rights for gays. But, the Democratic Party, in fact the establishment Democratic Party, helped move the black community (and many others) towards greater acceptance of gays. The Democratic Party relative to the rest of the country has been reasonably good on these issues since the 1930s.
But, again, my point is that whether the nominee is Hillary or Bernie, there are real consequences to real people if the Republicans get elected.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)You are right. You don't know my situation. I am bi-racial. My parents marched for civil rights with John Lewis and MLK in the 1960's. My youngest sister had to wait decades because the Clinton's supported DOMA.
And it is bullshit that Clinton tried to get gays into the military. Sam Nunn who pushed for DADT was his fucking mentor in the DLC.
No, it was not about gangs. I was there as a therapists in the 1990's. The 'superpredator' was a discredited myth with racist undertones that the Gores and the Clintons not only bought into but pushed.
If you start at $12.00 for the minimum wage, we will get less in negotiations with the GOP.
You spout nothing but Clinton approved talking-points with no actual truth as to what really has occurred. I always vote progressive. If the Democratic Party does not put one on the ballot for whatever reason, so be it. I still vote.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Clinton tried to get gays into the military, and Nunn warned him that would not happen. Then Nunn threatened to outright exclude gays from the military, forcing Clinton to accept Don't Ask/Don't Tell. Not only do I remember the facts, but I'm gay, and the reason many gays support Hillary is because in the 1990s, the Clintons were comparatively forward thinking and helping gays make progress. Bernie always had the right point of view, but was inconsequential on gay rights.
DOMA was a battle of the right wing, which was trying for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but instead they passed DOMA and right-wing states amended their constitutions. Again, Bernie was irrelevant to that battle, regardless of what he believed. Here's a good article on DOMA. I was involved in the gay rights struggle during that era so know it well.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act
The Hillary superpredator quote referred specifically to gangs and the crime bill had quite a bit of broad support because of gang problems.
As far as the minimum wage goes, you do realize that Obama hasn't had any luck negotiating with the Republicans, and your point that if Obama asked for $15/hr. instead of $10/hr., he would make more progress strikes me as a little silly.
Actually I'm a Sanders supporter (by a hair) -- gave him money and voted for him. But, I do realize that the Clintons were in the middle of the fray, while Sanders was basically on the side lines for most of his career representing a state that has virtually no blacks and is overwhelmingly liberal. But, like any politician, he compromised on issues of importance to his state, like the stealth bomber and gun rights. The Clintons represented more diverse groups so ended up compromising more.
TM99
(8,352 posts)There are many gays who believe the lies the Clintons have built around them on this issue. I lived this as well. I was in the military. I was married to a bi-sexual woman.
There was no constitutional amendment in the works. DOMA was not a pre-emptive action that after the fact you can mythologize.
And no superpredators were not about gangs and yes, the crime bill did because there is a lot of racism and acceptance of bullshit in this country. There are no such things as superpredators in or outside of gangs. If you believe that, you are simply buying into a 30 year old fully discredited myth. You are accepting pseudo-science.
And that last paragraph is utter bullshit. Sanders supported far more than his small state. He is one of the only congressman to stand up and attack DOMA. No one else did. The Clintons supported it. Clinton was still pandering to the religious right saying that marriage is for a man and woman. Sanders never ever said or did anything that was even remotely like that. His work with veterans crosses state, racial, and gender lines. They triangulate and you mistake that for 'compromise'.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Sanders always had good views, but he never entered the fray. He merely voted right and expressed the right views. He did not negotiate compromises and push for anything. Given that he was a Congressperson, he probably couldn't do all that much, but I have never come across his name in a gay history, a feminist history, or a civil rights history. The Clintons played a controversial role, but they did dare to bring gay rights to the presidential level. They lost as much as they won, but groups like HRC, the largest gay rights group, supports Hillary for good reason.
DOMA passed both houses of Congress with veto proof majorities. Clinton called the legislation divisive and gay-baiting, and claimed he approved it since a veto would be overridden and he wanted to defuse the momentum for a proposed Constitutional Amendment. Given the Clinton's comparatively progressive stand on gay rights at the time, the gay community understood his motivations.
Sanders was against DOMA, but he was Mr. Irrelevant. He took no risk there. On issues where he had to take a risk, given the state he represented, he was like any other politician -- he supported the stealth bomber (good for Vermont) and supported many gun rights (given that Vermont was rural). Yes, Sanders has always had great views, but he seems to enter the fray every 50 years.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Sanders was not irrelevant supporting the denationalization of homosexuality as mayor of Vermont. Sanders was not irrelevant speaking out for gays in the military as a congressman. Sanders was not irrelevant being chained to a black woman while protesting against housing segregation in Chicago in the 1960's. Where the fuck were the Clintons during any of those same times? They were focusing on themselves.
The Clintons are no one's friends and care about no one but themselves, their wealth, and their political power. You might accept that but I and millions of others do not.
You lies and spin are intolerable. You have earned your place in the good old ignore list.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Fortunately, my ballot comes with more than 2 options if necessary.
However, to diminish your fear, I can guarantee that the chances of my single vote determining the outcome of the election is nil.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)You beat me lol i echo your sentiments
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Are there only two possible choices? That seems to be what's implied. Seems like Progressives should vote for the most Progressive candidate in November.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Onlooker
(5,636 posts)I'm responding to your point that we should vote for the most progressive candidate in November. Will you vote for Hillary or Jill Stein? Will you vote for Bernie or Jill Stein? Jill is the most progressive candidate as my link shows:
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-44/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Jill-Stein
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Because we're dead either way. Nobody represents us. When the system is killing people you love and there is no way within the system to fix it, then people tend to get a little emotional and they look for ways to fuck shit up.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I think many of us feel the same. I know I will only vote for a real Democrat. I've changed my mind. The hate here is rabid. I will NOT compromise my vote. Who is with me?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)because of how the current system is set up.
You can put a certain amount of states in the R column right now, and same on the D side.
The "swing states" decide an election.
I live in CT. If I never voted in the prez race every again, it will likely not matter. The D is going to get CTs ECs with or without my vote.
So, I will continue to vote for the Prez candidate that best resembles my views. I plan on voting for Ds in other races because those races are less predictable to some degree.
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)...that there doesn't seem much difference between the two, particularly when you look at what the entrenched Congress critters vote for and against (yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are few). They're all paid by the same people (and I don't mean our tax dollars), and have to keep their handlers happy.
So everything on your list could be completely ignored or gutted by any or all of them, if doing so meant they get enough money from their handlers to run for reelection. When it's almost impossible to tell the difference anymore, that's when a progressive can consider not supporting the Democratic nominee.
That's why I support Bernie. Until the scourge of money is out of our campaign finance system, nothing will change. And the lesser of two evils is not good enough anymore.
JEB
(4,748 posts)If we don't vote on principle, then what do we base our vote? The candidate who raises the most money from corporations? The one who scares us least? The one liable to do the least damage? I know fear is one helluva motivator, but this voter is all feared out.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)classes. Would she be better than a Republicon, sure but she will still continue the policies that have decimated the 99%. How many of our numbers were killed or wounded in the IWar? How many more wars will she wage? I am afraid that if we don't get change soon, we will pass the tipping point of no return and all become paupers. She favors the Wall Street banksters that ripped us off for $5 trillion dollars in 2008. It will happen again unless we get change. How many of our children could get health care for that $5 trillion? A vote for Clinton is a vote for a Goldman-Sachs presidency.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)But thanks for the scolding!
Coincidence
(98 posts)The fear mongering narrative that the stakes have never been higher and we surely face imminent doom if liberals throw an ideological tantrum by refusing to vote for whichever neocon turd the establishment has coronated this cycle is wearing very thin. It's liberals who keep buying this bullshit who have enabled the DNC to continue its 30 year march to the right.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Too many 3rd way, repuke-lite types have taken over and corrupted the Democratic Party.
For that reason, some of us refuse to vote for a faux progressive who says she's centrist here, progressive there and yet by votes and policy might as well be republican
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)and do a better job. It's Bernie of course, but I'll vote for entitled one if she gets the nod.
Then I'll hope to hell she wins because she is hated by so many in this country.
We keep getting these candidates that are boring and unlikable and losing like Kerry,Gore, etc.
We get Obama and he is likable and funny and he wins twice.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
trash thread.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)If that bites them in the ass then that is not the fault of those who they told to piss off.
