Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 05 2016 at 08:39
A Person wrote:
I do not think it would be ego-centric to vote for a candidate that actually comes close to representing me. The "well we just gotta vote dem, the gop is worse!" line of logic has done nothing functionally but cushion our fall to the right. There are a lot of serious problems people in the US face, particularly minorities, and their situation will only get worse with more of the same from Clinton. I don't think it's folly, or selfish, or unreasonable that people have started to look elsewhere for a real sense of democracy.
I'm not attacking voting for Sanders in the primaries. Hell, I vote for Sanders. I don't even have anything to say about people who are not "progressive" or "liberal" and they prefer not to vote than to vote for Clinton.
But those who say that they have liberal or more so progressive values and don't want to see the US as a whole being dragged back to the past should think twice before putting their own sense of self-worth first and ignoring that a GOP president will get to nominate likely 2 Supreme Court justices and this country being how it is, basically altering the entire course of American society.
If the Supreme Court wasn't at stake it would still be awful to prefer a GOP presidency where labor, environment, and many other issues will go the wrong way for progressives. But even more so with the SC at stake.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 04 2016 at 19:39
I do not think it would be ego-centric to vote for a candidate that actually comes close to representing me. The "well we just gotta vote dem, the gop is worse!" line of logic has done nothing functionally but cushion our fall to the right. There are a lot of serious problems people in the US face, particularly minorities, and their situation will only get worse with more of the same from Clinton. I don't think it's folly, or selfish, or unreasonable that people have started to look elsewhere for a real sense of democracy.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 04 2016 at 19:32
The thing is, any Republican presidency (even a "moderate") terrifies me to a point not even close to what any Hillary or not-too-progressive candidate does.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 04 2016 at 19:29
I will answer with more detail tomorrow (with a phone it is unbearable) but quickly:
1. I didn't mention the word "spoiled" (though in some cases it could be inferred). Plenty of not-spoiled liberals are also voting with their egos when they join the #BernieOrBust thing.
2. Still, in case a Republican wins the White House (we can't discard anything at this point), the Supreme Court will be completely conservative and with time all gains in freedom for women, minorities, etc, will be eroded. And money in politics will be an even surer thing than now. Now, I'm not saying whoever Hillary would appoint would be oh so progressive, but at least I'm sure it works be Scalia # 2.
Helping the GOP (Cruz or Trump or even Kasich) get the possibility to nominate one and maybe more Supreme Court justices will destroy a lot of what said idealism is supposedly about.
A "screw the country if Sanders doesn't get the nomination" is not idealism, it's just ego-centrism with good make-up.
That's been the other line.
Sanders supporters who may not support Clinton are "entitled". I've seen several articles along this line, we're spoiled...we can afford a Trump Presidency. Or "screw the country!"
I will personally wait and see how things are looking come election time. My vote will depend on
1: How polling from NJ looks. If it looks like the Dem will win easily, as if often the case, I'll vote Green. If it's close, I'll vote Dem. Yeah people in swing states don't have this luxury but hey, people tell us to quit moaning about the system so I might as well use the system in place to my advantage
2: How polling looks in general
3: The Repub nominee. With a brokered convention looking likely, let's see. I know the Dems secretly WANT Trump since he's a guaranteed loss, but if its contested, who knows what will happen. Cruz is also hated by the party and unelectable, I am very sure the GOP doesn't want him.
If they make it Kasich, polling has shown he's consistently beat Clinton and he doesn't have many of the issues Trump and Cruz do. So we shall see.
I would also like to say, my family, like tens of millions, have seen a steady decline in well being from 2001, basically, to today. We were lucky to have a parent who was becoming a fairly big name manager at a payroll company in the late 90s...so we did very well at that time, many many families did not have that luxury.
Despite going from 1 job family to 4, cutting out pretty much all not necessary spending, and negotiating bills to ease the burden a bit....we're somehow doing worse today than 15 years ago.
I take some offense to being "spoiled" and can afford to go against the Dems. Seems to me we already can't afford the status quo, and the situation is much worse for many many other Americans. Is Clinton better than the Reps? Yes, (though I can see trump abandoning all his policies since he'll do anything for power and really is a not so secret liberal) but if I back Clinton I want to see the Dems then embrace the progressive movement.
If we back the party, and moment they win it's back to the same, back to ignoring the progressive movement and takes 0 attempt to make hard changes.... That'd be Clinton, then Obama then Clinton II. 3 strikes and you're out. If the party doesn't adapt..they're out.
She and others in the party have been quick to adopt Sanders-esque language or show "Hey hey we really do support this!" Is there validity to it? Time will tell...given many of her $ ties and actions as Secretary of State I find it hard to believe she wont continue supporting trade deals, wall st coddling, war hawkishness etc etc but hopefully there can be a wave of progressives who enter Congress, the left tea party, to balance this
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 04 2016 at 16:58
Some people can't afford to be idealistic.
Helping the GOP (Cruz or Trump or even Kasich) get the possibility to nominate one and maybe more Supreme Court justices will destroy a lot of what said idealism is supposedly about.
A "screw the country if Sanders doesn't get the nomination" is not idealism, it's just ego-centrism with good make-up.
Related to Clinton (aka corruption) and government in general: This may be relevant to libertarianism.
Anyone reading these Panama Papers? Seems the conspiracy theorists or crazy liberals were right, there really is quite a global web of wealthy/gov/business links all over the world, hiding $ and influencing things.
I hear more info is coming out, I will be shocked if no Americans are involved.
I understand it would be very bold, and ballsy, to hit US officials/businesses/people so I am not sure it will happen, but I think we all kinda know the situation.
I have no idea if the Clinton Foundation is involved with any of this stuff, and if so if they would dare release info on it, but there has been very some very shady stuff from that organization. More I hear about other stories like the Clinton's role in Haiti, just it makes me very ill. I understand politics aint perfect, never clean, and I have a tolerance for things, but just I don't know if I can stomach all this.
Well I thank you for that, because despite basically being a Green Partier (or on the formerly progressive fringe wings of the Democratic Party) I have always supported and voted Dems and always back the nominee whoever it is.
Clinton is the first time I am seriously considering changing my mind.
I think the Clinton campaign/its surrogates and the DNC have not been very welcoming to youth because of comments like how females, who support Sanders, are either in it for boys or have that special place in hell for them, or the constant mentioning of "unrealistic" "too dream like" DWS's comments about how the Super Delegate system is designed to thwart populist candidates, and so many big name articles I see (we all know sorry to say: many major media sources obviously back her) talk about how the youth are just entitled whiners, how we're dumb for not wanting to back Clinton. Just IDK, it all has been very divisive.
Perhaps I can't talk as a white person, but I've also found the constant "Bernie only wins white places" a tad insulting, especially as he's done increasingly better in that area. This again is a bit of a slap to younger voters who have been more supportive of Sanders even among non white groups.
I agree the process has been helpful and it could be constructive to the Democratic Party, IF they handle it well. This is not just another campaign: Yell, fight, when it's over shake hands and be buds. This is kind of like the left's Ron Paul movement, so the Dems really need to tread carefully. I think a big help would be officially adopting some of Sanders' ideas and assuming she wins the nomination, he is made a cabinet member, like Obama did in 08.
We shall see if this changes, last I heard Sanders may be given a spot to talk at the DNC. No mention of a cabinet position. It may just be too early, but if they deny this movement the party will lose long run.
Sanders is a chance to bring back many working class voters who have abandoned the party over time, fire up the youth like Obama did and draw Independents and totally new people into the party. I fear Clinton won't do this, and now that's it's far more possible Trump doesn't get the nomination...Dems should be worried. If there's a brokered convention and they give it to Kasich, or a well liked GOP darkhorse, Clinton may not fare so well.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 03 2016 at 13:36
micky wrote:
It isn't like the Dems took it alway from him or railroaded him by changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Nah, that was what affected Lessig, who suspended his campaign after the DNC changed the rules for who was allowed in a debate right before. It also recently happened to a Green party candidate in Maryland, who was invited to a debate twice, before they decided she was not allowed.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 03 2016 at 13:21
and just how have they sh*t on the younger folk.. serious question. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming that sentiment is fueled by temper trantrums of not having your choice be the presumtive nominee. I don't see how the youth have been sh*t on, their choice simply appears is not going to be the nominee. Two enter, one wins one loses. It isn't like the Dems took it alway from him or railroaded him by changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Personally I thought the whole process has actually been quite healthy and constructive. Sanders has energized a lot of voters and got a lot of issues out that might not have otherwise. Clinton ignores both at her peril. I doubt she will, she is many things, but stupid or not politically savy are not among them.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
On the issue of Wall Street its not just "I dont like that" there is very real concern about her ties.
The "too big to fail" banks are bigger.
So when the next crisis comes, will she just bail em all out no (real) strings attached again? Will there be, yet again, 0 investigation into fraud? Hundreds of people were arrested under Reagan/Bush I for their roles in the S&L scandal. Our last one? 0 Will she actually break them up and push for hard, binding regulations?
Given her $ ties, history, style and connections I think I know the answer.
The Green Party fell off the planet because of the famous "Nader gave us Bush" line.
I'm seeing it already now. "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" how "Selfish/entitled/irresponsible of Sanders fans who say they wont vote Democrat" etc etc
It's already starting up online, if it was a few election cycles ago I might find some prudence in that line of thought, but at this point I'm past trying to force change by forcing people to vote for party sanctioned politicians.
It is not a question of 'forcing'. Just a matter of perhaps getting you all to THINK before voting.
no one really likes Hillary.. I want her and that ass of hers badly but sure don't have her high up on likeability but the other choice is a 100 times worse. A democratic house divided.. is a losing house. It was in 2000 as it was for the GOP in '92. Perhaps this year she can still win but only because most have sense enough to know that no matter what you think of Hillary and her stance on Wall Street she is not a complete lunatic or completely unsuited to be president.
Well, we all already know that. It's the standard line and to be honest, it's getting a tad insulting to our intelligence. I already feel the Democratic Party is squandering a good opportunity to expand their base and reform their image... and the way they have generally shat on the younger folk this cycle...not doing themselves much favor.
Of course Clinton is the lesser evil, she will basically maintain the status quo which is of course better than the GOP all that stuff, but at some point have to also think about: Is it worth going lesser evil? Keep holding our nose to avoid the even smellier one, when there are nice smelling alternatives? Can we risk for the THIRD time in our lifetimes a phony Democratic Presidency that either has 0 interest in the people (Clinton's) or is too timid/means well but believes the same financial/market gurus that own the Party (Obama)?
All I know is Clinton should win the election, Bernie supporters that were already Dems will back her, those who are "new" to this were never gunna vote Dem anyway so it's no loss. Assuming Trump or Cruz get the nomination, she will win easily. The real issue is long term, like I said above the Dems continue to eat their own tail to save themselves, and benefit from the fact the GOP has slid into total insanity. We're lucky in a way those 2 are the frontrunners, against a more appealing/less insane GOPer Clinton may be weaker.
Long story short: She is the issue, the one with the personalty/record/electability problems and if everyone plays nice and backs her, which I expect will happen, and by some chance she loses....Sanders supporters will be livid as hell
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 03 2016 at 11:31
well.. that is exactly what it is man. It is a culture war. Us (progressives) against them (neatherthals).
in that prism of reality.. I vote as much against candidates as I ever have for any candidate. Yes it is sad.. I can't tell you how much I'd love to support a candidate. Truly like and support all they are, not just the lip service they provide. Perhaps I'm too cynical perhaps I'm dead on 100% right but I do know which candidates do and do not stand with my believes in social matters. I have always voted Democratic and always will.. even if I agree strongly with a lot of what Sanders says.. or Nader before him. The fact is the system is obviously geared to 2 candidates. One liberal/moderate and one increasingly right wing wacko.
Easy vote... against the right as much as for the right and yes.. a 3rd party left wing vote is as much a vote for the right as it against the mainstream left/centrist candidate. For that we were given Bush. .and 8 years of disaster and war.
Edited by micky - April 03 2016 at 11:33
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 03 2016 at 11:20
micky wrote:
A Person wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
The Green Party fell off the planet because of the famous "Nader gave us Bush" line.
I'm seeing it already now. "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" how "Selfish/entitled/irresponsible of Sanders fans who say they wont vote Democrat" etc etc
It's already starting up online, if it was a few election cycles ago I might find some prudence in that line of thought, but at this point I'm past trying to force change by forcing people to vote for party sanctioned politicians.
It is not a question of 'forcing'. Just a matter of perhaps getting you all to THINK before voting.
no one really likes Hillary.. I want her and that ass of hers badly but sure don't have her high up on likeability but the other choice is a 100 times worse. A democratic house divided.. is a losing house. It was in 2000 as it was for the GOP in '92. Perhaps this year she can still win but only because most have sense enough to know that no matter what you think of Hillary and her stance on Wall Street she is not a complete lunatic or completely unsuited to be president.
Force is the wrong word perhaps, but there is a strong "either us or them" message that is preached from the Democratic and Republican parties, and is enforced by mainstream media paying little to no attention to other parties.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 03 2016 at 10:58
A Person wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
The Green Party fell off the planet because of the famous "Nader gave us Bush" line.
I'm seeing it already now. "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" how "Selfish/entitled/irresponsible of Sanders fans who say they wont vote Democrat" etc etc
It's already starting up online, if it was a few election cycles ago I might find some prudence in that line of thought, but at this point I'm past trying to force change by forcing people to vote for party sanctioned politicians.
It is not a question of 'forcing'. Just a matter of perhaps getting you all to THINK before voting.
no one really likes Hillary.. I want her and that ass of hers badly but sure don't have her high up on likeability but the other choice is a 100 times worse. A democratic house divided.. is a losing house. It was in 2000 as it was for the GOP in '92. Perhaps this year she can still win but only because most have sense enough to know that no matter what you think of Hillary and her stance on Wall Street she is not a complete lunatic or completely unsuited to be president.
Edited by micky - April 03 2016 at 10:59
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 02 2016 at 15:47
JJLehto wrote:
The Green Party fell off the planet because of the famous "Nader gave us Bush" line.
I'm seeing it already now. "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" how "Selfish/entitled/irresponsible of Sanders fans who say they wont vote Democrat" etc etc
It's already starting up online, if it was a few election cycles ago I might find some prudence in that line of thought, but at this point I'm past trying to force change by forcing people to vote for party sanctioned politicians.
Yeah, no surprise the Green Party had such success after the Clinton (aka Republican lite/Reaganomics) Presidency and drift of the party...and after the next Democratic administration also 180'd on several promises and has generally pursued the same stuff...no surprise there is yet another leftist insurgency.
The Green Party fell off the planet because of the famous "Nader gave us Bush" line.
I'm seeing it already now. "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" how "Selfish/entitled/irresponsible of Sanders fans who say they wont vote Democrat" etc etc
Same for the right, the libertarian party had some big success in 2012 obviously fueled by Ron Paul + anger at the GOP
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options
A Person wrote:
I'll hit those later. 
