Search this Topic:
Jun 30 17 3:10 PM
Guess what? Clinton lost. She lost because not enough people were willing to hold their noses and vote for her, despite the utterly horrible opponent she had.
Pragmatically speaking, that should tell you that Clinton was not a good candidate. But if you're an idealist, then you would ignore reality and cling to "if she had won" and damn the evidence. "Very true! As a matter of fact, I don't believe that Sanders' views are really "idealistic" or unreasonable in any way. It's not even "socialism" as defined everywhere except for America, he is really only suggesting a socially responsible capitalism and a fair amount of economic and social justice. I don't find any of it to be radical or idealistic. Nor do I find a single payer system to be such a radical idea, considering that every other normal country (even some with right-wing governments) has approved of it.
On the other hand, I do find the idea of arresting people for smoking pot to be very radical and insane. I think that people who believe that we can win the "war on drugs" and bring peace to the middle east by constantly starting wars and putting our nose into their business...are too idealistic, and in a very bad way. I believe that calling Black kids "super predators" is not normal or moderate, nor is arresting them for drugs dis proportionally. I believe that corporate welfare is a VERY radical and questionable idea. I think voting for the war in Iraq is a...very radical and idealistic idea, assuming you are stupid enough to believe the shit George W. Bush said, to begin with.
So in the end of the day, if we are really intellectually honest, who is the moderate and who is the radical here? Who is the idealist and who is the pragmatist?
Jun 30 17 3:14 PM
Have you seen the film Get Out?
Those white folk would have voted for a third term for Obama as well.
Jun 30 17 5:26 PM
Jun 30 17 5:56 PM
Jul 1 17 3:36 AM
If potential voters do not vote (or not vote pragmatically) , then they do fail both the party and the USA.
I have yet to hear a good reason to be opposed to Hillary other than the bigoted bullshit Spankie and the rest of his wretched ilk gives.
Maybe calling stupid fuckers stupid fuckers might be what it takes to finally wake them up,your way didn't work.
Jul 1 17 5:13 AM
Jul 1 17 5:23 AM
TimeHasCome wrote:When you ignore that your choice is so unpopular among people or that there's so much going on that can bring her down, and still nominate her over a much more popular choice, because it absolutely HAS to be Hillary Clinton and nobody else...you are an idealist.
Jul 1 17 1:49 PM
SAINT BERNARD ALERT!
What have I said here that was wrong? Please explain. I'm not suggesting Bernie is near a "saint" or perfection, I'm only suggesting that what his political views are very reasonable and logical, even if one doesn't always agree with him, including myself.
"Have you seen the film Get Out?"
Jul 1 17 1:55 PM
Jul 1 17 2:10 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:"She got three million more votes than Trump did,"
Which is about as useful as lipstick on a pig in the American election. Trump won the game. Just like it wouldn't matter even if Bernie won more pledged delegates than Hillary. As long as that difference wasn't almost as big as the number of superdelegates, Hillary would've won no matter what, and we all know it, and I do think that it's unfair in BOTH cases, it would NOT be this way if I had my way, but that's the rules of the game, and it is the responsibility of the Democrats to win that game based on those rules, rather than lose and comfort themselves that if the rules were different they could've won.
"IMO she would have been a much better president than Trump or Sanders and that's what I vote on."
You are the idealist here. You voted for the person who had much less of a chance against Trump according to every poll because you sincerely love everything she stands for, you saw no other option but to risk everything with her, despite knowing all of the issues that were in the way, and you wouldn't compromise for the person who was more likely to win among independents, even though it was the more responsible choice for the left in the long run, no matter if one prefers Hillary or Sanders, we all agree that either one is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Trump, right?
People who vote on the cult of personality is why the USA is going down the shitter."
Uh huh, that's a WRONG attitude to have, bro! You don't sit an whine about that, you learn to play the game and give them what they want! We gave them Obama, who absolutely had that "cult of personality", and guess what, it worked, not just once but twice! You need to nominate a person who can really get a crowd, not somebody who barely has any charm, gets serious seizures and has to get carried away into the car, much less out-perform Donald Trump as an entertainer.
Obama, on the other hand, was very quick with humor, very entertaining, charming, physically fit and an exceptionally great speaker. He was running against MUCH more experienced and tough opponents both times, but they were also boring old white people with no sense of humor, much charm or an exceptional stage presence.
"Don't believe the hype"-Chuck D, you and Gonzo believe the hype.
If potential voters do not vote (or not vote pragmatically) , then they do fail both the party and the USA."
The potential voters have no obligation to any political party or even be involved in politics at all. It is the party's obligation to appeal to the voters in such way that they have enough of them to win the game, not the other way around.
No proof Sanders "would have won Trump", again ,you're entitled to your opinions ,but not to make up your own facts (leave that to Spankie). "
Then you can't argue that Bernie supporters and Stein put Trump into the white house, because if you think that Trump would've beat Bernie too, then what good are those numbers anyways? You can't have it both ways! You have to decide which one is it, or else the math doesn't add up
"I would argue we have made more inroads on racism than on sexism (and you forget Obama is half-white) "
He identifies himself as a Black person, and considering his mother was a big fan of communism and non-white Muslim men, his white side would do worse among the right-wingers than his black side!
White women in America were never enslaved. They were never abused the way Blacks were, or hated the way Blacks are. You can't even compare the two situations.
",and you yourself said that Hillary was unpopular amongst your generation (and younger) because she reminded them of a English teacher they did not like,again ,to elect office holders that on that IMO means too much of this society is decadent and ignorant ,and that isn't good."
May be so, but we still have to play that game and figure out how to win. We can't just do whatever we want and then get mad at them because we lose. We have to somehow inspire them to vote for Democrats!
I have yet to hear a good reason to be opposed to Hillary other than the bigoted bullshit Spankie and the rest of his wretched ilk gives."
There are plenty, but it's irrelevant. I'll give you the most important one...she lost to Trump.
We do not know if Biden or Sanders would have beaten Trump(though Biden probably had the best chance),like Spankie ,you're making up shit to suit your agenda."
You said yourself that Bernie supporters who stayed home or voted for Stein are the ones who put Trump into office. If Bernie would've lost too, how can you possibly put all of that responsibility on them?
Maybe calling stupid fuckers stupid fuckers might be what it takes to finally wake them up,your way didn't work."
My way? They never gave it a chance. My way would be putting somebody like Sanders who will get them to vote Democrats, that's my way, so until we try it, you can't say it don't work!
Jul 1 17 2:11 PM
Jul 1 17 2:26 PM
Jul 1 17 2:33 PM
Jul 1 17 2:36 PM
Jul 1 17 2:52 PM
GonzoTheGreat2 wrote:TimeHasCome wrote:When you ignore that your choice is so unpopular among people or that there's so much going on that can bring her down, and still nominate her over a much more popular choice, because it absolutely HAS to be Hillary Clinton and nobody else...you are an idealist.
Which may not be a bad thing to be. But denying that truth to yourself and others is not a smart approach in such a case.
So the Democrats should accept that they went into the elections with a "Clinton or bust" approach and a high likelihood of getting that second outcome.
Or they should admit to themselves that they seriously messed up. Sure, the Republicans also did lots of bad things; but they are right wing extremists, such things are to be expected from them. The mess the Democrats was made had been avoidable but they chose not to avoid it.
Jul 1 17 2:55 PM
charvakan wrote:I get a kick out of these too-good-to-join-a-party dilettantes who want to act "independent" until it's time to choose a party's candidate, and then all of a sudden they think they should have a say. Sorry, but that's stupid. You want to decide who runs as a Democrat? Then JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Unfortunately, all primaries in Virginia are open, because no voter chooses a party affiliation when registering. So we get crossovers who want to nominate the worst candidate of the opposing party, and "independents" who lose interest the day after the primary if their guy didn't win. Closed primaries make the most sense.
Jul 1 17 3:02 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:"For starters , your remark that Sanders is not idealistic ,yes, all you've done is pop up Sanders as the mans who would have saved America ,and in any case,you've ben barking up the wrong tree."
Saved America? I don't know about all that, but he would've certainly made your life a lot better in America, unless you are in the 2%, then it would be worse.
Sanders lost ,he lost fair and square"
Many liberals and conservatives find that statement debatable, at the very least.
" IMO caucuses (which he knew how to work and Hillary didn't) shouldn't be allowed"
Wrong! Closed primaries should be outlawed! Otherwise, the nomination election is just partisan Democrats jerkin' off! Let EVERYBODY have a word, including independents!
" yet I didn't say "ban the caucuses", and I don't know of any other Hillary supporter who did either, because those were the rules when the game began ,IMO it helped Trump defeat the party when Sanders wanted to change the rules before the game was over, as he did in regards to superdelegates , etc."
How?! Sanders didn't change anything in regards to superdelegates, although they NEED TO BE REMOVED! Why should the vote of some assholes with a political job should matter more than ours? But whatever, even if Sanders beat Hillary with pledged delegates, the superdelegates were there to MAKE SURE that Hillary would win no matter what! Debbie Shultz didn't even need to cheat, because Bernie would have to beat Hillary by such a landslide to avoid the superdelegates forcing her on us, that it would've been nearly impossible to begin with. The system is fucked up and was designed to make it very easy for Hillary to beat Bernie. She did and now the country has Trump because of it. Great job...NOT!
I call him Saint Bernard because his supporters are like Trump supporters, they see no flaws in him. you refuse to even concede that the Jane Sanders allegations could have hurt him if he got the nomination."
Jane Sanders wasn't running for president. There are many allegations about Bill Clinton too, were you worried about them? Were you worried about him not being able to keep his dick in his pants? I wasn't! I was worried about Hillary Clinton, because she was the one running. Besides, Trump didn't know all of that at the time, the info wasn't out, therefore, it's irrelevant what's going on with her now, and it's very much a non-issue anyways, no more than Bill Clinton's sex life.
In any case,Sanders didn't get the nomination,and his winning the election is not certain as you always claim, for the tenth millionth time : IMO if Sanders had won the nomination, he would have gotten the same thing Hillary did, popular vote win and electoral vote loss."
Only in your fantasy! In the real world, the polls showed him beating Trump by 15-20%! As opposed to the weak 3-6% they were giving Hillary, at best. Any honest person will admit, even many of my Republican and conservative friends do, that if Sanders was nominated, not only he would be President, but it would've been essentially OVER for the GOP. That doesn't make Bernie a "saint", that just means that he didn't suck so bad that he would lose to Trump, that's all!
Jul 1 17 3:10 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:"No,I voted for the person who I felt was most qualified and competent for the job,I think Sanders had major failings in foreign policy."
I voted the person who I felt was most qualified and competent too, and I think Hillary had more than major failings in foreign policy and other issues. However, my choice was the one that had more chances of winning, while you were simply going by your own taste and ignoring the risks and the fact that your choice was very disliked among American people. I respect you for doing what you felt was right in your heart, but please don't call us "pure idealists", either!
"God help us if we vote for reasons other than qualification or competence, that is why we now have a buffoon in the White House,no wonder this country is going down the shitter, and that pisses me off because I love this country and I have no respect for what Trump and the rest of his wretched ilk are doing to it."
God help us all if we give Grammy and other awards based on hot young looks, stage presence and popularity among dumbass tone deaf teenagers, as opposed to real talent! I know bar musicians who are way more talented than Britney Spears, Rhianna and Taylor Swift, and I'm sure so do you. But they aren't pop stars, they are working their asses off for $50-100 a night, while pop stars who can barely sing or play are making millions and millions! Guess what, bro, life isn't fair! But the record companies obviously know what sells and what doesn't, so of course they are going to go with stage presence and sex appeal over actual musical talent and virtuoso musicianship. Same with politics, you want to go with not just what you like, but with what will sell. Hillary just doesn't sell, while Bernie knows how to own the crowd, he just does! If you don't, you will be another bitter person complaining of losing and blaming the world for being bad and stupid, it's always the easy way out, but it doesn't change the end results.
I think potential voters have an obligation to themselves ,and in not using their vote wisely ,they are failing themselves, the problem is they are not only hurting themselves, they are hurting me, and you too."
They are doing what they think is right, and they believed Hillary was not the right choice for this country. We can love them or hate them, but that's just how they feel. Therefore, we need to put something different on that hook so that those people will bite it, or else we won't win the election. We can't force anybody to have the exact same political taste that we have.
White women in America were never enslaved?LOL!I guess you never heard of Involuntary Servitude?In fact,Eurpoean women in the U.S. under that often were allowed to have sexual relations with slaves on plantations because their status was so similar ,and that's not to mention the most obvious subjugation for women (who couldn[t evne vote back then ,freed balcks could.
You're the one who needs some education broi"
Oh c'mon, you know exactly what I meant, of course White women were treated like less than equal, however, what they were going through was still NOTHING compared to what Blacks were going through, not even close! A very small % of women were victims to involuntary servitude, while nearly all Blacks who came to America were slaves. I've never heard of any woman in America that was lynched simply because she was a woman. I've never heard of a white woman in America that was told to go to the back of the bus because she's a woman. Also, half of this country went to war with the other half because they couldn't imagine a world where Blacks would not be owned by them and would have more or less the same legal rights. Would they start a civil war over voting rights for women?
Not to take anything from the sexist abuse that women in America have suffered and still suffer, and it's absolutely despicable, I agree, but it's also absolutely NOTHING compared to what Blacks were going through.
Jul 1 17 4:04 PM
Jul 2 17 7:24 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.