Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
No, I'm getting tired of this kind of scary hyperbole stories.
Every election, there's always a crisis of the moment. Every election, people say if the other side wins its doom and gloom. Except it never really happens. Sometimes stuff gets worse, sometimes it gets better, it all comes out in the wash. This election really is no different. The environment will likely keep going however it's going no matter what anyone here does because of entities like China. It concerns me yes, but I'm not going to pretend like coal plants are literally going to start popping up everywhere because Republicans took the White House. Wow
So yes, letting Democrats lose this election if we don't have Bernie as our candidate is a risk I'm willing to take. The one benefit of a republican president, is that it energizes the democratic base. It lights a fire under people's @$$es and gets them to DEMAND something better, and that's how we ended up with a powerful campaign like Obama's in 2008. Bush was so bad that people became motivated for change in ways I have never seen. But it makes me mad I spent so much time promoting Obama and volunteering for his campaign and calling up people and in the end we never got the kind of changes we needed. I will not make that same mistake again.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nod I will do all I can to help him get elected, but only for him. For anyone else, I will not waste my breath. Hillary's powerful brand doesn't need someone like me anyway.
Regardless, I live in Florida, which has been solid blue the past two elections, so it won't matter much.
So the fact that a Republican President could potentially nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice in that 4 years doesn't bother you at all?
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
W. Bush's term was not ok, it was a disaster and an international embarrassment - which we're still not fully recovered from on multiple levels. I'd rather not risk having a repeat performance. It might not destroy America, but it'll entrench the country further in horrible aspects that'll take longer to get rid of and open us up to another financial collapse as well as remind the world that we're harboring war criminals at the highest level, who are given rewards for their service rather than locked up in prisons. And he is a moderate compared to many of the jokers in the Republican primary - like Donald Trump (who Cheney endorses btw).
Harry Dresden on
+6
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
W. Bush's term was not ok, it was a disaster and an international embarrassment - which we're still not fully recovered from on multiple levels. I'd rather not risk having a repeat performance. It might not destroy America, but it'll entrench the country further in horrible aspects that'll take longer to get rid of and open us up to another financial collapse as well as remind the world that we're harboring war criminals at the highest level, who are given rewards for their service rather than locked up in prisons. And he is a moderate compared to many of the jokers in the Republican primary - like Donald Trump (who Cheney endorses btw).
Obama did nothing to prevent a financial collapse. Clinton won't either. Only Bernie is interested in making the kind of changes that would address that issue (and IMO this is the single most important issue facing America).
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
EDIT: Like, Seriously. Status Quo will suck. But the alternative is not "Send us into the hands of the crazed shitweasels capable of instituting policies that will linger for decades."
Case in Point: See myriad US Policies since Reagan.
Also, Re: Reagan, the longevity of decisions made by Republican presidents: Justice Antonin Scalia.
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
It is easy to brush off diarrheac shit raining down when you are not the one the diarrheac shit is falling on.
The consequences of Elections do not end with the term.
Reagan is regarded as having devastated mental health care in the United States in ways we still have not repaired.
Scalia was appointed during his term and still will be on the bench for probably another 15 to 20 years. His decisions on the bench will likely take just as long to deal with and there is no guarantee they'll actually get fixed.
Even Democratic presidents "moderate" positions such as DOMA and DADT took years to fix
Let's not do this fucking stick and carrot routine with the electorate. There are those of us who would not like to suffer major life setbacks to prove a point even we believe in, when the mass populace has shown time and time again they are not apt to learn the lessons you wish to impart with them.
Like, not to detract from this being the Sanders thread, but there is a dude running in the Republican Primary who wants the head of FedEx to fix America's Immigration issues, because FedEx can track packages.
Please do not play Electoral Russian-fucking-Roulette, especially not with everyone else's fucking head.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
No, I'm getting tired of this kind of scary hyperbole stories.
Every election, there's always a crisis of the moment. Every election, people say if the other side wins its doom and gloom. Except it never really happens. Sometimes stuff gets worse, sometimes it gets better, it all comes out in the wash. This election really is no different. The environment will likely keep going however it's going no matter what anyone here does because of entities like China. It concerns me yes, but I'm not going to pretend like coal plants are literally going to start popping up everywhere because Republicans took the White House. Wow
So yes, letting Democrats lose this election if we don't have Bernie as our candidate is a risk I'm willing to take. The one benefit of a republican president, is that it energizes the democratic base. It lights a fire under people's @$$es and gets them to DEMAND something better, and that's how we ended up with a powerful campaign like Obama's in 2008. Bush was so bad that people became motivated for change in ways I have never seen. But it makes me mad I spent so much time promoting Obama and volunteering for his campaign and calling up people and in the end we never got the kind of changes we needed. I will not make that same mistake again.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nod I will do all I can to help him get elected, but only for him. For anyone else, I will not waste my breath. Hillary's powerful brand doesn't need someone like me anyway.
Regardless, I live in Florida, which has been solid blue the past two elections, so it won't matter much.
It will not
It seriously seriously will not.
Also If you want to cite bush, here, wikipedia, but here you go:
Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants. These numbers are all estimates.
There is your price for the W Bush presidency leading way to Obama. The literal deaths of hundreds of thousands. Not counting our own casualties:
For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely. A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014.[1] Regarding the Iraqis (see Tables section below), however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less precise and less consistent. Estimates of casualty levels are available from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, and from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media.
Currently, the GOP is riling for military intervention again in the Middle East against ISIS and Iran for their Foreign Policy. The lead in their primary right now is a shitbag racist pedling and fanning the flames of xenophobia within the base and his fellow runners. The conservative legal wonks are eager and have outright started talking about their desire to return us to Lochner-style workers' rights.
You desire to punish the country for the democratic party not picking the more liberal candidate [AND AGAIN I AM VOTING FOR SANDERS TOO, SERIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE SAME DESIRE TO HAVE HIM THE NOMINEE] as a method to induce that result the next time around is short sighted, foolhardy, irresponsible, immature and dangerous. Especially when the damage that will be done in the interim may not be guaranteed to be fixed by that next liberal president.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.
Yes, several years later with hindsight she can say that it was a mistake. After proper political triangulation.
Know who didn't support the war? Even with all the hype and political showboating? Even though it couldn't have hurt him at all politically since it was the "patriotic" thing to do? Oh, right, Sanders.
It's funny because it's true. She's still a hawk. Has been since Kosovo or possibly before. Probably always will be as long as it's politically safe.
I think I'd vote Trump because at least he's awful up front.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.
Yes, several years later with hindsight she can say that it was a mistake. After proper political triangulation.
Know who didn't support the war? Even with all the hype and political showboating? Even though it couldn't have hurt him at all politically since it was the "patriotic" thing to do? Oh, right, Sanders.
It's funny because it's true. She's still a hawk. Has been since Kosovo or possibly before. Probably always will be as long as it's politically safe.
I think I'd vote Trump because at least he's awful up front.
I think you are ranting like a silly goose at this point.
Cause when you say "I think I'd vote Trump" what you are really saying is "I'm just spouting bullshit and not interested in an actual debate or any of the candidates actual positions".
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
If you live in a solidly blue state, you probably have the luxury of a protest vote. Go nuts.
But if your state is contested, this course of action is extremely irresponsible.
Even 4 years of Republican rule would be devastating for the country. Look at how bad them controlling both houses of congress is right now, then imagine that there was no veto pen stopping the crazy from spouting into the world.
Voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee is irresponsible in the current environment. I deeply wish it were not so, but this is how our system works right now.
Also the environment doesn't have 4 years. We can just about scrape by with our current weak regulations and gamble on technological progress to save us, but if we have 4 years of backsliding (as we would under a Republican) with coal plants popping up and emissions treaties being removed then we are doomed. As in, starving and burning and drowning levels of doomed. Voting for anyone who wont at least hold the line on the environment is voting to die.
No, I'm getting tired of this kind of scary hyperbole stories.
Every election, there's always a crisis of the moment. Every election, people say if the other side wins its doom and gloom. Except it never really happens. Sometimes stuff gets worse, sometimes it gets better, it all comes out in the wash. This election really is no different. The environment will likely keep going however it's going no matter what anyone here does because of entities like China. It concerns me yes, but I'm not going to pretend like coal plants are literally going to start popping up everywhere because Republicans took the White House. Wow
So yes, letting Democrats lose this election if we don't have Bernie as our candidate is a risk I'm willing to take. The one benefit of a republican president, is that it energizes the democratic base. It lights a fire under people's @$$es and gets them to DEMAND something better, and that's how we ended up with a powerful campaign like Obama's in 2008. Bush was so bad that people became motivated for change in ways I have never seen. But it makes me mad I spent so much time promoting Obama and volunteering for his campaign and calling up people and in the end we never got the kind of changes we needed. I will not make that same mistake again.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nod I will do all I can to help him get elected, but only for him. For anyone else, I will not waste my breath. Hillary's powerful brand doesn't need someone like me anyway.
Regardless, I live in Florida, which has been solid blue the past two elections, so it won't matter much.
I would strongly suggest you look in to what changes you thing "we" needed.
Cause brosef, Obama was great outside of, like, rich white peeps.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.
Yes, several years later with hindsight she can say that it was a mistake. After proper political triangulation.
Know who didn't support the war? Even with all the hype and political showboating? Even though it couldn't have hurt him at all politically since it was the "patriotic" thing to do? Oh, right, Sanders.
It's funny because it's true. She's still a hawk. Has been since Kosovo or possibly before. Probably always will be as long as it's politically safe.
I think I'd vote Trump because at least he's awful up front.
So she's not allowed to change her mind and learn from her mistakes? Even if she is just doing it because of "triangulation," it pretty much means she still won't do it cause the only people that want another war are Republicans. Most people, especially her base, are against another war.
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
Do take a look at what happened in Europe after Alan Greenspan (building on what Bill Clinton started) and years of right-wing deregulation of the financial world created the 2008 collapse.
I'm going to say that I'd vote for the dishonest warhawk over the honest warhawk who wants to round up immigrants and force one of our neighboring nations to build a giant goddamn wall across the border and whose solution to manufacturing in the country is literally "Move production from plant to plant across the United States until you have sufficiently broken labor to the cheapest price you can buy"
Seriously for the love of god people, again, Voting Sanders over here, but Hillary goddamn Clinton is a better choice than any of the Clown Car brigade if that is the choice put in front of you.
That is why we have primaries. That is why we work to staff the political machines with the people whose values match those we are seeking to pursue.
The solution to "Well, the democratic party nominated a moderate, what do we do to move them left?" Is not "Vote For the Republican or through inaction allow them to win the position that lets them sign bills into laws and appoint the judiciary and maybe next time those fuckers will know what it is we want from them."
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.
Yes, several years later with hindsight she can say that it was a mistake. After proper political triangulation.
Know who didn't support the war? Even with all the hype and political showboating? Even though it couldn't have hurt him at all politically since it was the "patriotic" thing to do? Oh, right, Sanders.
It's funny because it's true. She's still a hawk. Has been since Kosovo or possibly before. Probably always will be as long as it's politically safe.
I think I'd vote Trump because at least he's awful up front.
I think you are ranting like a silly goose at this point.
Cause when you say "I think I'd vote Trump" what you are really saying is "I'm just spouting bullshit and not interested in an actual debate or any of the candidates actual positions".
I think you like to trot out the, "actual position." thing as some kind of dishonest position. Her actual, vetted, voting position is as stated. In every situation she's been in power that has been her position. Always.
Anyone can spout a quick sentence that sounds good when it won't matter to them or their position one way or another. It strikes me as incredibly goosey to go, "hey their entire voting history says one thing bbbbut they said something else while ramping up for a campaign!"
Yeah, right, I'm sure they did. I bet for real that she'll just turn it all around after a couple of decades of being a consistently hawkish.
Yep.
I guess that's the other thing I value. Actual consistency in word and action. Some proof of actually having character. I mean Sanders says something and whoops, couple decades of actually supporting those positions! It's s almost like he believes in the things he says, instead of just trying to win a position.
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
Do take a look at what happened in Europe after Alan Greenspan (building on what Bill Clinton started) and years of right-wing deregulation of the financial world created the 2008 collapse.
The 2008 collapse was not created due to deregulation. It was a lack of regulation. Those are different things. Even if commercial banking was seperate from investment banking, the collapse would have happened.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
"The world won't end" is not a great endorsement.
I'm not endorsing them. I'm just saying the choice between a democrat and the end of America and the world is a false dichotomy.
+2
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Sanders and Clinton both need great VP picks. They are not spring chickens.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Bush had 8 years and he wrecked the fucking country.
Not to mention the thousands who lost their lives under his leadership. And the thousands more who wound up no longer being whole, whether physically or mentally.
And Hillary the Warhawk Clinton would do something different? Last I checked she supported that war. Seems to want to glass the region still, even.
Yes.
You'd have to have never been paying attention to think otherwise.
Yes, several years later with hindsight she can say that it was a mistake. After proper political triangulation.
Know who didn't support the war? Even with all the hype and political showboating? Even though it couldn't have hurt him at all politically since it was the "patriotic" thing to do? Oh, right, Sanders.
It's funny because it's true. She's still a hawk. Has been since Kosovo or possibly before. Probably always will be as long as it's politically safe.
I think I'd vote Trump because at least he's awful up front.
I think you are ranting like a silly goose at this point.
Cause when you say "I think I'd vote Trump" what you are really saying is "I'm just spouting bullshit and not interested in an actual debate or any of the candidates actual positions".
I think you like to trot out the, "actual position." thing as some kind of dishonest position. Her actual, vetted, voting position is as stated. In every situation she's been in power that has been her position. Always.
Anyone can spout a quick sentence that sounds good when it won't matter to them or their position one way or another. It strikes me as incredibly goosey to go, "hey their entire voting history says one thing bbbbut they said something else while ramping up for a campaign!"
Yeah, right, I'm sure they did. I bet for real that she'll just turn it all around after a couple of decades of being a consistently hawkish.
Yep.
I guess that's the other thing I value. Actual consistency in word and action. Some proof of actually having character. I mean Sanders says something and whoops, couple decades of actually supporting those positions! It's s almost like he believes in the things he says, instead of just trying to win a position.
This is a big thing for me. Clinton can say anything at this point but it doesn't matter because I don't believe anything she says is really what she believes.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
I think the hyperbole is getting a little bit ridiculous. The world isn't going to end if a republican is elected president. More wealth will be transferred to the top, there will be more cuts to social programs and the safety net, and certain freedoms and rights (like abortion) will likely be curtailed. These are bad things. But the country will still be here at the end of the hypothetical GOP president's 4 or 8 years. It will be a little more conservative and a little worse in many ways, but it will still be doing ok.
"The world won't end" is not a great endorsement.
I'm not endorsing them. I'm just saying the choice between a democrat and the end of America and the world is a false dichotomy.
For a lot of people it's a choice between needless war, wondering where the next meal comes from, and destruction of the environment. So it's still a choice that has a major impact for many of us. I want Sanders the most but I'm not going to opt for the horrors of a Republican president if he isn't the Dem candidate.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
And if those things happened, what would the reaction of the liberal base be? Would they become more radicalized, or succumb to apathy?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
And if those things happened, what would the reaction of the liberal base be? Would they become more radicalized, or succumb to apathy?
So you are willing to let things backslide to a point where hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans could lose their lives or livelihoods due to lack of proper medical coverage, doubling down on the right of religious persecution... so that the next election goes better for your team?
No. Stop. Bad thought.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
And if those things happened, what would the reaction of the liberal base be? Would they become more radicalized, or succumb to apathy?
It doesn't matter because those things happening amount to an unacceptable level of collateral damage. Even if it riled the base up and Bernie 2.0 was elected immediately, we could have those awful Justices that Trump appointed for another 20-30 years. You don't get to just overturn a SCOTUS decision because people are really wanting to be very liberal now, honest.
Accelerationism sucks, plain and simple. Vote for Bernie in the primary and then vote D Nov. 2016, but don't whinge about burning it all down and rising from the ashes because that wouldn't actually happen.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
Um, is there some basis for that? I don't think the other outcomes are all that likely, but I can at least see an argument that they might happen. Rounding up TG folks and sending them to reeducation camps is not far removed from the U.N. sending in the black helicopters.
Account not recoverable. So long.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
Um, is there some basis for that? I don't think the other outcomes are all that likely, but I can at least see an argument that they might happen. Rounding up TG folks and sending them to reeducation camps is not far removed from the U.N. sending in the black helicopters.
Texas has pushed for reparative therapy legislation for TG populations, yes.
In the case of someone under 18, the parents can simply say "we are gonna have these people cure the demon in you" and there is nothing you can do about it. Same with "pray away the gay" camps.
Which is kind of fucked up, and something that hopefully shouldn't pass the sniff test of the higher courts. But if the court demographics are 7-2 conservative leaning, then who the fuck knows.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Like what do you think the chances of people deciding super-liberalism is the solution in the event of accelerationist wet dreams coming true rather than just decades of going in the wrong direction? Is it better than 50% (I doubt it!)? Because if not you're putting the fate of the entire nation and even the world up against a coin toss. That's a pretty irresponsible thing to do just because your Berniecorn candidate didn't end up winning one primary.
Like what do you think the chances of people deciding super-liberalism is the solution in the event of accelerationist wet dreams coming true rather than just decades of going in the wrong direction? Is it better than 50% (I doubt it!)? Because if not you're putting the fate of the entire nation and even the world up against a coin toss. That's a pretty irresponsible thing to do just because your Berniecorn candidate didn't end up winning one primary.
As much as I would rather see Sanders in the White House instead of Clinton, I agree with this sentiment. Clinton still hasn't convinced me that her ideas aren't leading the party in the wrong direction, but "live to fight another day" applies within the Democratic organization, too. Vote her in if need be and pressure her farther to the left while she's in office, then be ready to approach the party with a stronger progressive base in 2020/2024. It's not perfect, but nothing in politics ever is.
I just don't understand why more Democrats don't support Bernie if all these things are true and are at stake.
To me, support of Bernie Sanders is a litmus test for who is a true Democrat and who's more of a centrist, Independent, etc.
Well, for one, there's that pesky thing about him not being, you know, a member of the Democratic Party. And that's not just something academic - there are serious questions about his ability to get on the ballot for the primary in a number of states.
There's also the fact that politics is very much a team sport. I'm a little tired of the brass ring gooseshit that I see among the left leaning set in the US. You want to move politics to the left? Then I recommend you take a long, hard look at what the other side did - they didn't just focus on the top, but from the bottom instead, starting with local races and building up from there. That's where you need to be focused if you really want to get that needle shifting.
That gets into a dangerous line of thinking comparable to the current shitshow on the GOP side of things, where everything seems to be about purity tests, from the Norquist Pledge on down.
Expecting a president to magically move the country hard left with a right majority Senate (and arguably SCOTUS) is just kind of silly. And if that IS the endgame, how in the world do you expect a centrist (at best) democrat like Hillary to accomplish that feat?
Simple, Hillary won't. She will keep the system in check and be the closest to an Obama in office unless Biden moves in.
This is why I will be writing in Bernie Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination.
The fact is, if Hillary wins we're likely stuck with her for 8 years, and the country will not move left of center.
Personally I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, I'd rather let evil win and let people realize they need to start voting for people like Bernie. That's how you make progress.
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
Um, is there some basis for that? I don't think the other outcomes are all that likely, but I can at least see an argument that they might happen. Rounding up TG folks and sending them to reeducation camps is not far removed from the U.N. sending in the black helicopters.
I just don't understand why more Democrats don't support Bernie if all these things are true and are at stake.
To me, support of Bernie Sanders is a litmus test for who is a true Democrat and who's more of a centrist, Independent, etc.
Purity tests are anathema for the Democratic party. Democrats are not homogenous and I wouldn't want them to be. You want fascism which is where the teapers are pulling the Republicans. It's gross.
When/if Bernie doesn't get the nom I expect he will be gracious and attempt to put the party whole. He will do this because he believes in what he says. He knows the Republicans as is are counter to almost everything he has worked for.
Posts
So the fact that a Republican President could potentially nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice in that 4 years doesn't bother you at all?
W. Bush's term was not ok, it was a disaster and an international embarrassment - which we're still not fully recovered from on multiple levels. I'd rather not risk having a repeat performance. It might not destroy America, but it'll entrench the country further in horrible aspects that'll take longer to get rid of and open us up to another financial collapse as well as remind the world that we're harboring war criminals at the highest level, who are given rewards for their service rather than locked up in prisons. And he is a moderate compared to many of the jokers in the Republican primary - like Donald Trump (who Cheney endorses btw).
Obama did nothing to prevent a financial collapse. Clinton won't either. Only Bernie is interested in making the kind of changes that would address that issue (and IMO this is the single most important issue facing America).
As a trangender person and fellow Sanders supporter whose ability to work/live/etc. will likely be impacted by the next several years worth of Supreme Court Decisions, with a major figure of the liberal bloc of SCOTUS getting along in years, I would very very very very kindly ask that you reconsider this idea and point you to the current shitscape seen with the bench's current make up of 4 conservative justices, four liberal justices and Anthony The Human Quarter.
EDIT: Like, Seriously. Status Quo will suck. But the alternative is not "Send us into the hands of the crazed shitweasels capable of instituting policies that will linger for decades."
Case in Point: See myriad US Policies since Reagan.
Also, Re: Reagan, the longevity of decisions made by Republican presidents: Justice Antonin Scalia.
It is easy to brush off diarrheac shit raining down when you are not the one the diarrheac shit is falling on.
The consequences of Elections do not end with the term.
Reagan is regarded as having devastated mental health care in the United States in ways we still have not repaired.
Scalia was appointed during his term and still will be on the bench for probably another 15 to 20 years. His decisions on the bench will likely take just as long to deal with and there is no guarantee they'll actually get fixed.
Even Democratic presidents "moderate" positions such as DOMA and DADT took years to fix
Let's not do this fucking stick and carrot routine with the electorate. There are those of us who would not like to suffer major life setbacks to prove a point even we believe in, when the mass populace has shown time and time again they are not apt to learn the lessons you wish to impart with them.
Please do not play Electoral Russian-fucking-Roulette, especially not with everyone else's fucking head.
It will not
It seriously seriously will not.
Also If you want to cite bush, here, wikipedia, but here you go:
There is your price for the W Bush presidency leading way to Obama. The literal deaths of hundreds of thousands. Not counting our own casualties:
Currently, the GOP is riling for military intervention again in the Middle East against ISIS and Iran for their Foreign Policy. The lead in their primary right now is a shitbag racist pedling and fanning the flames of xenophobia within the base and his fellow runners. The conservative legal wonks are eager and have outright started talking about their desire to return us to Lochner-style workers' rights.
You desire to punish the country for the democratic party not picking the more liberal candidate [AND AGAIN I AM VOTING FOR SANDERS TOO, SERIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE SAME DESIRE TO HAVE HIM THE NOMINEE] as a method to induce that result the next time around is short sighted, foolhardy, irresponsible, immature and dangerous. Especially when the damage that will be done in the interim may not be guaranteed to be fixed by that next liberal president.
Yes, several years later with hindsight she can say that it was a mistake. After proper political triangulation.
Know who didn't support the war? Even with all the hype and political showboating? Even though it couldn't have hurt him at all politically since it was the "patriotic" thing to do? Oh, right, Sanders.
It's funny because it's true. She's still a hawk. Has been since Kosovo or possibly before. Probably always will be as long as it's politically safe.
I think I'd vote Trump because at least he's awful up front.
I think you are ranting like a silly goose at this point.
Cause when you say "I think I'd vote Trump" what you are really saying is "I'm just spouting bullshit and not interested in an actual debate or any of the candidates actual positions".
Obama's been pretty great for them too, actually.
So she's not allowed to change her mind and learn from her mistakes? Even if she is just doing it because of "triangulation," it pretty much means she still won't do it cause the only people that want another war are Republicans. Most people, especially her base, are against another war.
PSN: jrrl_absent
That's how we got our ruling party.
Take it from us, do not do this.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Do take a look at what happened in Europe after Alan Greenspan (building on what Bill Clinton started) and years of right-wing deregulation of the financial world created the 2008 collapse.
Seriously for the love of god people, again, Voting Sanders over here, but Hillary goddamn Clinton is a better choice than any of the Clown Car brigade if that is the choice put in front of you.
We want actual liberal policies in the nation.
That is why we have primaries. That is why we work to staff the political machines with the people whose values match those we are seeking to pursue.
The solution to "Well, the democratic party nominated a moderate, what do we do to move them left?" Is not "Vote For the Republican or through inaction allow them to win the position that lets them sign bills into laws and appoint the judiciary and maybe next time those fuckers will know what it is we want from them."
"The world won't end" is not a great endorsement.
I think you like to trot out the, "actual position." thing as some kind of dishonest position. Her actual, vetted, voting position is as stated. In every situation she's been in power that has been her position. Always.
Anyone can spout a quick sentence that sounds good when it won't matter to them or their position one way or another. It strikes me as incredibly goosey to go, "hey their entire voting history says one thing bbbbut they said something else while ramping up for a campaign!"
Yeah, right, I'm sure they did. I bet for real that she'll just turn it all around after a couple of decades of being a consistently hawkish.
Yep.
I guess that's the other thing I value. Actual consistency in word and action. Some proof of actually having character. I mean Sanders says something and whoops, couple decades of actually supporting those positions! It's s almost like he believes in the things he says, instead of just trying to win a position.
The 2008 collapse was not created due to deregulation. It was a lack of regulation. Those are different things. Even if commercial banking was seperate from investment banking, the collapse would have happened.
I'm not endorsing them. I'm just saying the choice between a democrat and the end of America and the world is a false dichotomy.
This is a big thing for me. Clinton can say anything at this point but it doesn't matter because I don't believe anything she says is really what she believes.
Ok you see this? Please tell me what Supreme Court decisions you are afraid of that are going to prevent you from being able to work or even live.
And I won't accept any answer that doesn't end with you being permanently unemployed, or dead and buried/cremated. Because that's what you said, that you won't be able to work or live.
Bonus points if the decision actually has anything to do with the fact you're transgendered.
For a lot of people it's a choice between needless war, wondering where the next meal comes from, and destruction of the environment. So it's still a choice that has a major impact for many of us. I want Sanders the most but I'm not going to opt for the horrors of a Republican president if he isn't the Dem candidate.
Decisions that could occur: It's okay to discriminate against TG folk for any reason, it's okay to discriminate against TG folk for religious reasons, it's okay to send TG folk to "reeducation" facilities against their will.
These are all things that can happen now, are likely to come up in SCOTUS in the next decade or so, and are only TG related. Nevermind the host of other important decisions that can occur.
And if those things happened, what would the reaction of the liberal base be? Would they become more radicalized, or succumb to apathy?
So you are willing to let things backslide to a point where hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans could lose their lives or livelihoods due to lack of proper medical coverage, doubling down on the right of religious persecution... so that the next election goes better for your team?
No. Stop. Bad thought.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It doesn't matter because those things happening amount to an unacceptable level of collateral damage. Even if it riled the base up and Bernie 2.0 was elected immediately, we could have those awful Justices that Trump appointed for another 20-30 years. You don't get to just overturn a SCOTUS decision because people are really wanting to be very liberal now, honest.
Accelerationism sucks, plain and simple. Vote for Bernie in the primary and then vote D Nov. 2016, but don't whinge about burning it all down and rising from the ashes because that wouldn't actually happen.
Um, is there some basis for that? I don't think the other outcomes are all that likely, but I can at least see an argument that they might happen. Rounding up TG folks and sending them to reeducation camps is not far removed from the U.N. sending in the black helicopters.
Texas has pushed for reparative therapy legislation for TG populations, yes.
In the case of someone under 18, the parents can simply say "we are gonna have these people cure the demon in you" and there is nothing you can do about it. Same with "pray away the gay" camps.
Which is kind of fucked up, and something that hopefully shouldn't pass the sniff test of the higher courts. But if the court demographics are 7-2 conservative leaning, then who the fuck knows.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
To me, support of Bernie Sanders is a litmus test for who is a true Democrat and who's more of a centrist, Independent, etc.
As much as I would rather see Sanders in the White House instead of Clinton, I agree with this sentiment. Clinton still hasn't convinced me that her ideas aren't leading the party in the wrong direction, but "live to fight another day" applies within the Democratic organization, too. Vote her in if need be and pressure her farther to the left while she's in office, then be ready to approach the party with a stronger progressive base in 2020/2024. It's not perfect, but nothing in politics ever is.
PSN: PLD_Xavier | NNID: Xavier1216
Well, for one, there's that pesky thing about him not being, you know, a member of the Democratic Party. And that's not just something academic - there are serious questions about his ability to get on the ballot for the primary in a number of states.
There's also the fact that politics is very much a team sport. I'm a little tired of the brass ring gooseshit that I see among the left leaning set in the US. You want to move politics to the left? Then I recommend you take a long, hard look at what the other side did - they didn't just focus on the top, but from the bottom instead, starting with local races and building up from there. That's where you need to be focused if you really want to get that needle shifting.
I'm talking about the "pray away the gay" places
Purity tests are anathema for the Democratic party. Democrats are not homogenous and I wouldn't want them to be. You want fascism which is where the teapers are pulling the Republicans. It's gross.
When/if Bernie doesn't get the nom I expect he will be gracious and attempt to put the party whole. He will do this because he believes in what he says. He knows the Republicans as is are counter to almost everything he has worked for.