Once Bernie Endorses Hillary, Bernie/Bust Types Must Cease and Desist

[ericson00]

tomorrow, once Bernie endorses Hillary, all those who still, until that point, thought "I can't vote for Hillary" have a choice to make, in service of their country. That choice is to:

a. vote and support Hillary, as in following the choice of their initial candidate
b. help lead this country to ruin by either staying home, voting Trump or 3rd party (which could either elect Trump or rob HRC of a mandate)

If you can't do a., you're pretty much have no place in the electorate.


Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the aid of their country and vote for Hillary Clinton.

[TheBlackAdder]

1. Another OP issuing an imperative.

[merrily]

9. It's every bit as impressive as it is binding.

Ah, the awesome grandeur and power of message board posts!

[billhicks76]

24. So Sick Of Rude Clinton Supporters

They do more damage than Hillary. Not doing her campaign any favors. The Bernie or Bust crowd does not really post on this site. They are over politics. We don't need to keep dwelling on this. Hopefully Hillary disavows the Bush family and mass incarceration. Now would be a great time for the later. Bernie doesn't care about Hillary's personal shortcomings. He just wants us to detour from the mess this country is in....a mess we are ALL responsible for.

[nolawarlock]

53. Clearly you haven't seen the Jerk Pining Ridiculist.

They are anything but "over politics."

[Squinch]

67. Clearly it was simply a strongly stated opinion. Unless people on the internet have a lot more

power over you than they do over me.

[840high]

2. I must do as I please.

[Magoo48]

86. What you said....

[Tal Vez]

3. We will learn whether Senator Sanders is a leader or if instead

he was just following a crowd. Does he have influence with his supporters?

I think that he is a genuine leader. I believe that a lot of people trust his judgment. But, we'll see.

[merrily]

11. Every leader either gets 100% obedience or isn't a leader at all, right?

No one has free will when a leader is on the scene!

[Tal Vez]

20. No, leadership, like just about everything else in this world,

is a continuum. Some leaders have a lot of influence with their supporters. And some don't. Some just serve as temporary mouthpieces for a crowd.

Again, I suspect that a lot of the people who supported Senator Sanders really do trust his judgement. I hope that I'm right about that.

[merrily]

31. Trusting someone's judgment doesn't necessarily mean trusting it in all things.

Before Sanders ran, all DU's left was ever told was that they expected 100% agreement with a politician, a pony and/or a unicorn which they should never expect to encounter in real life. As soon as he ran, those admonitions seemed to go right out the window. If I actually expected logic here, I suspect I'd be dizzy by now.

[Tal Vez]

38. I don't think that there is anyone who agrees with me about everything.

You are absolutely right. A person has to preserve his/her autonomy. A person has to make his/her own choices.

At the same time, I trust some politicians more than others. I trust both Sanders and Clinton in the sense that I am confident that both of them have political objectives that are similar to mine. I could support either one of them in November. I will be watching their joint appearance tomorrow. I believe that they will both be reminding me that they share many goals, many of my goals.

[Tal Vez]

27. I have no beef with Senator Sanders. I suspect that he and I share the same or similar opinions

on just about every issue that is important.

As for hate, I don't even hate Trump. I just don't have much respect for the way in which he is trying to manipulate a lot of very unhappy people. I think that he's a phony, but I don't hate him.

[merrily]

32. Who the hell respects attempts at manipulation?

Or disingenuousness?

[Tal Vez]

41. I don't think that anyone respects attempts at manipulation.

I sure don't. I just don't think that a lot of Trump supporters see Trump the way that I see him. I see him as more manipulative and dishonest than any presidential candidate in my lifetime with the possible exception of George Wallace. But, I don't think his supporters see him that way. I think that a lot of them really believe that he will do a lot of the crazy and impossible things that he promises to do.

[merrily]

45. And so subtle.

[merrily]

12. Oh, my.

[jalan48]

5. Thou Shalt is it?

[NWCorona]

6. "Must" lol

[highprincipleswork]

7. wish it was as cute as you make it sound.

[brooklynite]

8. REDDIT will go out of business...

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I don't think you understand reddit.

[progree]

10. If enough of us throw away our votes, it will simplify women's choices - a coat hangar or throwing

oneself down the stairs.

And as a bonus we will get another Scalia or two or three on the Supreme Court to entertain us with their rulings.

[merrily]

13. I don't think the SCOTUS is about to overrule Roe v. Wade.

The court has had a Republican majority for a long time and the Court has had an opportunity to overrule it.

Among many other things, overruling Roe v. Wade would make it a lot harder for Republicans to be elected.

[progree]

14. And for all that time, 4 justices have been dying to overturn it

One has died, leaving 3. But with 2 or 3 Scalia-like replacements, who knows.

As far as making it harder to elect Republicans -- it sure hasn't stopped them from putting as many restrictions on reproductive rights in darn near every state they control.

And it sure hasn't stopped them from putting anti-abortion language in their platform
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

There are a hell of a lot more issues at stake than the one i mention -- go look at Kansas.

[merrily]

23. So it would seem. But it has not been overturned.

I know there are a lot of issues. I replied to your post about the one raised in your post.

[progree]

26. "But it has not been overturned" - because there hasn't been 5 justices wanting to overturn it. Yet

[merrily]

36. Now, we've gone full circle.

[progree]

79. Explain

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 10:56 AM - Edit history (3)

[font color = blue]>>Now, we've gone full circle.<<[/font]

Huh?

There has never been 5 justices willing to overturn Roe V. Wade. Four yes, but not five.

There are now three. If enough of us throw away our vote, and Trump becomes president, there could easily be 5 or 6 willing to overturn it.

Not all Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices want to overturn Roe. Kennedy is the one example. Though he did vote for the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban. And maybe a President Trump will nominate only judicial versions of "moderate Republicans". But I don't think so. Do you?

As for hoping for a Democratic majority in the Senate, or at least a large enough Democratic minority to filibuster a judicial nominee, we've had that for several decades, and it didn't keep us from getting 4 anti-Roe Supreme Court judges.

[bettyellen]

102. Math can be challenging!

[Democat]

18. Are you willing to take that chance with women's rights?

I'm sure the women of America appreciate your non concern.

[merrily]

25. I posted about an issue; you posted about me--and based on nothing but your false assumption, too.

Your reply revealed lot more about you than it did about me.

[Democat]

51. You posted your opinion on an issue

My opinion is that your opinion is wrong and hurts women.

[merrily]

58. Yes, I posted my opinion about an issue and you posted your false opinion about me.

[Lord Magus]

39. It's been "settled" so long as Repukes don't install a bunch of new wingnuts on the court.

You think the Heritage Foundation's wish list of activist judges care about precedent?

[merrily]

83. Lots of wingnuts on the court since 1973--when a Republican majority court decided Roe v. Wade.

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, just like the Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress with Democrats in the majority in both houses and never since repealed.

[progree]

90. Not all Republican-nominated Supreme Court judges are anti-Roe. But 4 of them were

until Scalia's death. Now we're down to 3. Trump could easily nominate another two Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito.

[merrily]

93. If there were nine Republican appointees on the Court, I don't

think the court would overturn Roe. What part of Reply 13 was difficult?

[progree]

97. I do.

[font color = blue]>>What part of Reply 13 was difficult?<<[/font]

It wasn't anything difficult. It was simple illogic.

What part of #79 is difficult?

[DanTex]

55. Why not? They already have 4. RBG (83), Kennedy (79), or Breyer (77)

get replaced by a right-winger, and goodbye Roe v Wade.

[merrily]

59. UM, they just went DOWN to four. They've had more than four for a long time and

haven't done it. I gave what I see as one reason upthread.

BTW, I believe that Roe was decided when the majority of the Court had been nominated by Republican Presidents.

On edit. Yup. https://vox-nova.com/2008/05/21/are-liberal-judges-to-blame-for-roe-v-wade/

[DanTex]

61. Well, now they're down to 3. Kennedy is a swing vote, and has voted to protect abortion.

But if a Republican wins, they're back up to 4, and if one of those three I mentioned retires, which is likely given their ages, then it's goodbye Roe v Wade. The GOP isn't playing games, they actually want to see abortion criminalized. Did you miss the steady stream of anti-choice legislation in the past decade?

I find it funny that people apologizing for Bernie or Bust, or the Green party, or any other "leftist" pro-Trump movements always downplay actual risks, like losing the court for a generation, while playing up fictitious ones like obscure centrist think tanks.

[merrily]

70. Gee, you changed your mind from four to three pretty quickly.

Did you miss the difference between a Supreme Court decision and "anti-choice legislation," like the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which, as Nancy Pelosi reminded us not so long ago, is still the law of the land? (Congress has not taken up new voting rights fact finding, either.)

Oh, and I'm not apologizing for diddly squat or playing up anything fictitious.

[DanTex]

71. Yeah, forgot about Scalia. I'm sure you'd like to see an FBI investigation about my "lie".

The thing that is stopping the anti-choice legislation from becoming law is the court. One of the major goals of the GOP is to install right-wing judges that will allow that legislation to stand. This is obvious, and everyone knows it. Like I said, it's strange the knots that you have to tie yourself in in order to play down actual risks and play up fictitious ones.

[merrily]

73. "I'm sure you'd like to see an FBI investigation about my "lie". WTF?

If making up crap aboout me is the best you can do by way of good faith discussion of issues, I'm sure you'll understand if I pass.

[DanTex]

74. That was a joke. Duh.

[merrily]

75. Yet it seemed so much like a bs snarky pot shot, along with other ad homs in your Replies 61 & 71.

[Demsrule86]

62. With four judicial picks?

They will overthrow Roe...we dodged a bullet this year thanks to Kennedy. And it is not just Roe...imagine four picks for the GOP that will be on the court for 30 or even 40 years...might as well not bother to vote for a generation. It won't matter if we lose the courts. We will lose our Republic and any chance of saving it with progressive policy. And the policy...we still suffer because of things Reagan did. It is easier to stop bad stuff than to fix most things. The GOP will attack women, LGBT and any other minority. People will literally die. Social security and Medicare gone. And the environment would be a disaster. There are still wells polluted with Chromium in the metal plating industry more than 100 years ago in PA...that are still poisoned. The environment can not easily be cleaned up. We will watch our great lakes burn once more. Trump would be a disaster that likes of which we have never seen in this country...and then there is the nagging fears that he is the sort that runs once and then stays forever.

[merrily]

63. No, I don't think the SCOTUS will overrule Roe, no matter who nominates the next several justices.

I've already said why. However, yes, there are more issues than just Roe. I posted about Roe because I was replying to a post about Roe.

I am not going to reply to every specter you've raised in your post, but you've lumped in a lot that is Congressional. If Democrats in the Senate use the filibuster as they should, your parade of horribles cannot come to pass simply because there is a Republican President. And, if Democratic Senators don't use the filibuster, it won't be the fault of Republicans. As for the past horribles you cite, we've had New Democrat Presidents in office for sixteen out of the last 24 years.

I'm not saying Democratic Presidents are not better than Republican Presidents. They are, to a degree. However, candidly, I find your post of horribles more than a tad unreal.

[Demsrule86]

80. The Republicans will have a mandate

The Democrats will not be able to stop them. I fully expect them to use the nuclear option to get what they want through...Those who think it won't happen are wrong...just plain wrong. If we lose the presidency...we don't get the Senate and the House remains in Republican hands. One of the first things, will be getting a 5th justice which will end Roe V Wade...they many never officially overturn it but they will effectively end it...could have happened this year but we caught a break. Those who look at the courts and don't see the dangers are missing a truly terrifying situation. When Reagan was in ...we did not lose Congress for the full term of his presidency, and it was a different time ...no so many radicalized GOP types...and yet we still pay for Reagan's misguided policy today. It will be worse if Trump gets in...and there will be no stopping them. It will make the Bush years look like a walk in the park and may well end with a theocracy or even nuclear war. One thing is certain...any progressive revolution will not survive a Trump presidency.

[merrily]

84. I don't see a point in repeating ourselves.

[Johnny2X2X]

65. This post makes me ill

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Roe v Wade is gone should Trimp win, period. People just assume the rights they have today will be there tomorrow. People fought and died for this right and it's been hanging on by a thread for a decade. RHN and Beyer will retire, that's 3 Scalias that Trump will install. The country will be remade forever. health care gone. Roe v Wade gone. Gay marriage gone. Citizens United expanded. Gun control made weaker. Unions gone Etc. etc.

The moment is upon us. All the chips are on the table. For once that is absolutely true of a single election.

[merrily]

66. Your post 65 employs the same kinds of fallacies as my Reply 63 addressed.

"FOR ONCE," this is really, really the Presidential election that really, really could mean the end of the world as we know it, much like the last eight Presidential elections.

Crying "Wolf" every time needs to stop. So does boogie man or terrorist politicking. It's all gotten too old to work, at least not on DU.
Also, posters can't keep saying how powerless the President is--it's all about Congress--when it suits them to say that, then say the world is going to end unless we put this person or that in Oval Office. There are reasons to vote for Democratic Presidents. Let's stick with those.

[Adrahil]

112. But they HAVE allowed laws to make it increasingly harder to exercise that right.

Only this latest ruling reverses that trend. If you don;t think the GOP would insist on justices who would get the creeping prohibition back on track, you're not paying attention.

[merrily]

114. That's your opinion. I have a different one.

[Adrahil]

115. I have noticed a few folks...

Attempting to justify an NeverHillary position by trying to convince themselves that Trump's SCotUS appointments wouldn't be so bad.

[merrily]

116. Perhaps you can link to me to those posts?

Or, as it seems to be the case, are we simply pretending that saying I don't think the SCOTUS will overrule Roe = saying Trump would make okay SCOTUS nominations?

Cause if we aren't pretending that, your remark about the people you allegedly noticed making those posts seems like a real non sequitur.

Annnnyyyyway, links?

[Avalon Sparks]

49. Repugs vote on single issues like this....

Fringe issue, wedge issue......... I'm so past caring about any of them.

Funny how I thought Dems were different.

[progree]

77. I mentioned 2 issues - reproductive rights and the Supreme Court as examples

I have many many more where that came from. My concern about the Supreme Court is a whole host of rulings, not just reproductive choice. Like Citizens United for example.

But yes, if the only difference between the two parties was reproductive choice, that would be enough to get me out to the polls.

[merrily]

87. Since the Supreme Court has the final say on reproductive rights, reproductive rights is subsumed

under the Supreme Court issue.

[progree]

89. No, the Supreme Court does a lot more than rule on reproductive rights

I'm concerned about more than reproductive rights. I'm concerned about a whole lot of issues that the Supreme Court rules on, not just reproductive rights. And that's what I brought up in #10.

The Supreme Court rules on darn near every issue that matters.

So no, your "I replied to your post about the one raised in your post" is false. There were two issues -- abortion rights in particular, and the Supreme Court and all the issues their rulings affect in general.

Thanks for letting me clarify to everyone except obviously you.

[merrily]

91. Um, yes, but that is does not mean reproductive rights is an issue that is different from the

Supreme Court.

As for the rest of your post, you're right. I have no clue what you are trying to say, especially the gibberish you pretend is something I posted. Have a great day, though.

[progree]

96. Ummm, and you talk about gibberish, LOL

[font color = blue]>>I have no clue what you are trying to say, especially the gibberish you pretend is something I posted.[/font]

The gibberish that I pretended is something you posted is not a pretense. It comes from your #23:

[font color = blue]>>23. ... I know there are a lot of issues. I replied to your post about the one raised in your post.[/font]

Nice try.

[karmaqueen]

15. We need to come together for so many reasons.

One of my biggest worries is there will be no wilderness left if Trump gets in there. They think it would be fine & dandy to have golf courses at the National Parks... There are so many very important reasons to pull together to keep a little sanity in our Country.

[pnwmom]

17. They want the states to be able to sell national forests for short term, one time profits.

What a terrible thing to do to our national legacy.

[bluestateguy]

16. I'll just say this

Whenever I have voted for someone in a primary, and they lost, I have always followed their lead and endorsed the party nominee.

[MADem]

19. People will do what they want.

That said, they can't claim to be "supporters" of a candidate if they don't follow their candidate's lead, and vote the way the person they support asks them to do.

If they disregard the exhortations of the one they purport to support, they aren't supporting that person at all. In fact, they are working AGAINST the goals of that individual.

In that regard, the rubber does, indeed, meet the road and the wheat is separated from the chaff.

[billhicks76]

29. People Will Vote For Hillary

Maybe they are holding their noses more because of the way Clinton supporters treat them. Winning isn't enough? They gotta talk bs and create straw man arguments? If there really do end up being any Bernie or Bust types then it's Clinton supporters JOB to win them over. So far going a bad job.

[MADem]

107. Here's hoping that people who are supporters of all Democratic primary candidates will do just that.

That said, I believe "Busters" -- the few there might be out there -- were more about thwarting the Clinton candidacy than actually supporting any Democrat. They're not a large crowd at all, those Busters, but they make a loud noise which makes them seem more prevalent than they actually are.

As for people ill-treating each other, there's plenty of that to go around. Hopefully it will stop soon.

[billhicks76]

30. Are They That Clueless?

Or just make it a full time job instigating?

[SheilaT]

44. My best guess is that clueless.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I bet this OP is gonna convince a whole lot of em!

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I have no problem voting for the Democratic nominee, and I suspect Sanders will endorse her

personally, that's my take.

but it's not my job to lecture anyone, and if I was honestly going to try to win over supporters, this is exactly how NOT to do it.

Still, people shouldn't confuse deliberate pot-stirring, lame grudge matches, trying to get folks worked up and general drama farming on DU with actual political reality.

This kind of stuff makes me laugh, that's about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I hear issuing ultimatums is a good way to win friends and allies.

OR instead of making demands you could just let those of us that worked hard to support Bernie listen to the man, look at Trump and do the math ourselves.

It's not a difficult equation.

OR, if you want to back people into corners and make them feel like the enemy, and double down on their position/refuse to budge on principle, sure, by all means, keep making posts like yours.

[workinclasszero]

40. Dead Ender Sarandon....

"Trump will bring the revolution"

[Feeling the Bern]

42. That's all good and fine, but my screen name stays put.

[AgingAmerican]

46. Um..

You're trippin'...primaries are over dude.

[Lunabell]

47. LOL

You so craze!

[Avalon Sparks]

48. I see a few posts like this OP on my Facebook feed

In response to article after article on the POTUS candidates.

I don't think the OP would like the responses very much......

Just saying what it's like in the non-DU world....

Considering that I believe almost 100% of our political leaders are bought and paid for, I think our country passed ruined long ago.

[AntiBank]

81. +1000

[the_sly_pig]

50. You're not the boss of me...

Of course Hillary is going to win... The rest of the world probably wouldn't tolerate a Trump presidency. Global folk won't abide having a moron in charge of ICBMs. Being a Gloaty McGloaterton isn't helpful.

I'll be voting for Hillary, but Bernie is a true liberal. It's a shame the Democratic Party has moved right.

[hobbit709]

52. Who died and named you God-Emperor of the Universe?

[Android3.14]

54. Unless the person is a conscientious objector

[FSogol]

56. or Republican.

[Android3.14]

117. Or an elf.

[liberal N proud]

57. I don't see what the hard core Bernie supporters hope to gain by holding out

When so much is at stake in this election, there is no reason to be petty about the outcome of the primaries.

[rjsquirrel]

60. Let's see if we can JUST stir a little harder

and get the shit to float to the top!!!

Kudos to Bernie and his supporters for a hell of a race and I look forward to our coalition to defeat Trump. Your goals and values certainly live on.

Vote your conscience is the only imperative, just make sure your conscience considers all the angles.

[NorthCarolina]

69. They are simply provoking in an attempt to collect more hidden posts.

It's provoke-alert-provoke-alert. That should tell you a little bit about the mindset of some of the folks on this site.

[Wayburn]

64. Why? Because you say so?

I can continue to support Bernie as long as I want to.

[babylonsister]

68. And who are you to tell anyone what to do?

Seriously, get a life.

[TheCowsCameHome]

72. Well, just listen to you,

all preachy and uppity telling the rest of us what to do on this lovely summer morning.

[hobbit709]

104. It's a wonder some people don't get nosebleeds on those high horses.

[bemildred]

76. Or what? nt

[pangaia]

78. Sounds like you are threatening me and a lot of other people.

[morningfog]

82. No one "must" do anything.

[AntiBank]

85. de recced

People don't respond well to authoritarian ultimatums.

[TheCowsCameHome]

88. "Heel, you damn peons, heel!"

Great way to piss off the folks you're trying to attract, dude.

[Orsino]

92. I acknowledge only the responsibility to make my party's nominee the best she can be.

That does indeed include supporting her election bid, but it's not unconditional love. I intend to lobby her and Dems at every level, because the greatest responsibility is theirs. It's what they signed up for.

[mcar]

94. K&R

[cosmicone]

95. I would have preferred the words "reconsider" and "reflect"

rather than cease and desist.

I'm sure an overwhelmingly vast majority of them are just like Hillary supporters but want a quicker path to the goals. I'm sure they can reflect and reconsider if a slower path is better than no path at all.

[Lil Missy]

98. This is not helpful.

[HERVEPA]

99. Actually, it is now the time for scertain blowhards to stuff it.

[NWCorona]

100. So were your impressed with West's work on the committee?

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

[apcalc]

101. I do agree. We cannot afford Trump.

[peace13]

103. I guess I don't understand your point.

I feel like the Bernie folks have pretty much gone super secret underground around here. What is the need to make this announcement? To my mind it is clearly divisive. Once again it is up to Hillary to convince people to back her.

In 2008 my family hosted one of the first House Party for Obama's in our county. In a room full of my friends the young man 'leader of the local Dems', opens the gathering with the words, 'How many of you were Hillary supporters?" The air was sucked out of the room. I could see the faces of my guests go pale. I will tell you the same thing I told him. We are here to focus on getting our candidate elected and that kind of talk only serves to divide. Let's move forward!

[aikoaiko]

105. You are really terrible at this sort of post.

If you want more Bernie supporters to vote for HRC then I urge you to not make anymore OPs about it.

[bullwinkle428]

106. Didn't Skinner say this weeks ago, albeit in a much more diplomatic way?

[zonkers]

113. You mean less like a total blowhard, passive aggressively stirring the water for no good reason?

Yeah, he did. After a while, though it just gets comical.

[coco77]

108. Make me...

And I am not a Bernie or Bust person.

[Blue_Tires]

109. +1000

[ericson00]

118. why thank you!

[Bluenorthwest]

110. This sort of thing is detrimental to the election of the Democratic Nominee

Primary politics is not the same as General Election politics, as Trump is going to learn the hard way, and it's time for DU to reject the nasty and aim at November like a Party.

[runaway hero]

111. The worst. Just the worst.