|
I am a bernie supporter, and I'll vote Hillary in the election barring some event like her eating babies or something.
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Let we forget, hillaryis44 are now trump supporters and endorsed Romney in 2012. I have no doubt in my mind that a goodly chunk of Bernie supporters hate Clinton just as much as those regressive shitheads hated Obama.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Honestly, the one thing I admired the most about Bernie was his method of campaign financing through small donors. It feels like how politics should be done. Frankly, I am amazed it could get him as far as getting to the super-delegate brick wall. That at least signals that there is hope for the system yet.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Honestly, the one thing I admired the most about Bernie was his method of campaign financing through small donors. It feels like how politics should be done. Frankly, I am amazed it could get him as far as getting to the super-delegate brick wall. That at least signals that there is hope for the system yet. It works well at the highest level, but the model falls apart when you take it further down the ticket. Small donors would have to pick and choose, or give $27 to about 8 other people in addition to the person who really gets you invested. Realistically, they'd just focus on whoever they liked the most and everybody else would be scrounging for money wherever they can, and then you get corruption charges
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
I'm not trying to "TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE GUYS!" with Hillary V. Bernie, but I have indeed noticed some nastiness coming from Hillary supporters, her staff and some in the media towards Sanders supporters. I've seen attitudes telling us to pretty much "gently caress off" and "get in line" behind the democratic nominee simply because "party loyalty" and "WE CAN'T HAVE TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE GUYS!!" (This is the same poo poo Republicans do btw). The Bernie Bros. thing I think has been over blown and there has indeed not been any sort of coverage coming from Hillary supporters who do indeed the same thing quite often to Sanders, and his supporters. It was something clearly invented by her and her staff to smear Bernie Sanders, his supporters and to start some sort of assbackwards meme. (Case in point? http://berniebrowho.tumblr.com/ http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-facebook-groups-trolled/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-bros-phenomenon-recalls-the-obama-boys-of-08-ibtimes/) If Hillary is not in line with one's principles? One should not be "forced" to vote for her simply because "ZOMG TRUMP!". If you live in a Hard Red or Hard Blue state? Vote for whomever the hell you want because your vote is going to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If you live in my home state or florida, etc? Well...we have some thinking to do because well...we may HAVE to vote for her whether we believe in her or not. I'm not thrilled with the entire attitude emanating from that side of the DNC. Frankly I'm not worried either way because I think Hillary sincerely has the election pretty much because she's going to be running for Obama's 3rd term IMO. So why the hell are people worried about getting my vote by proxy? She should have to earn it in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
It feels raw but this is absolutely nothing compared to how bitter and mean 2008 got. Remember that both sides feel like they're on the defensive and being told they're wrong for voting how they feel is correct because both sides are hammering home our candidate cannot possibly lose/our candidate got screwed Things will get really boring between the DNC/RNC and the first debates and people will lose steam
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:And in no way am I saying we need to accept the corruption of our political system, it's just you cannot say you won't vote for someone when they are the only thing that is literally stopping a horrible dark age from coming. Seriously, if Trump wins, I will blame every single person who said "no Sanders, no vote". If trump wins blame the people who voted for trump; a decision not vote is an entirely legitimate way to voice your noncommitment to either candidate, even if most of the people who do so don't give it that much thought.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
It'd honestly be pretty funny if news ratings actually go down because the talks between Hillary V Trump/Cruz aren't as much of a spectacle as what led to it. The mad media blitz to bring up the summer blockbuster of the US election that then no one cares about because they already got their show from the hype-train leading to it and two horses are just boring.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Boring? Hillary v Trump is going to be ugly. The media will be ecstatic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Alright, if it's Ted loving Cruz at the GOP Nominee? I'll actually donate money to her campaign in addition to voting for her. I hate Ted Cruz that much. I want that man to be hosting a Sunday evening show on Fox News within 2 years (which promptly gets cancelled within 2 weeks). Trump V. Clinton makes things a bit more murky due to the fact that as a Rust Belt resident? What the Clinton's did with enacting NAFTA was likely the final crushing blow for killing off our neck of the woods after years of Reaganomics. Sorry, I'm not very happy with what they did and how they've done a lot of policies that favor banks, etc. I may vote for Jill Stein if that is indeed the case out of protest.But if she loses to Trump? Yeah, that's on her and the policies that democrats like her enacted.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Two words to reflect on: Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
I don't know, there is a good but not 100% chance that mid season apathy could set in because we already know most of the material each player will likely fire at the other and unless something truly dire happens, we already know how each ending would play out if it happened. Unless the RNC really rat fucks someone, the RNC nukes their candidates into a ruthless free-for-all because STOP TRUMP or some Trump/Hillary true believers draw literal first blood I don't see how the Presidential could be uglier than the Primary.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:I don't know, there is a good but not 100% chance that mid season apathy could set in because we already know most of the material each player will likely fire at the other and unless something truly dire happens, we already know how each ending would play out if it happened. Unless the RNC really rat fucks someone or some Trump/Hillary true believers draw literal first blood I don't see how the Presidential could be uglier than the Primary. Trump hasn't actually been attacked from the left, and really not from the right either to be honest. Clinton's a known quantity of course but Trump's still got a lot of storms to weather that I think will be entertaining And if Cruz worms his way in or - should we be so blessed - if he goes 3rd party, forget about it. Instant classic
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Two words to reflect on: Supreme Court. Again I'm not concerned because we're talking about fiction right now. There's no way in hell that anyone but Hillary is going to take the Oath of Office come January. If the election is remotely close come November? I'll rethink my thought process in regards to it. But I would be STUNNED if that was the case.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Since you're willing to reconsider your positions if things get hairy, might I encourage you to reconsider your protest vote if they do not? Vermin Supreme can likely be written in, and instead of being an anti-GMO anti-vaxxer, he promises everybody a pony which is at least 100-200 pounds of meat, to say nothing of the broth and offal options to get nutrition out of the non-muscle weight of the animal
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Honestly I don't know why Hillary sincerely doesn't go more towards the Left at this point and just co-opt much of Bernie's campaign. I know she's done it a few times here and there, but not to the extent where I think she could. I realize why she won't (because corporate donors), but at this point she has free reign to suggest whatever left wing/socialist thing out there with out any sort of fear of repercussion. This isn't 2008 or 2012. Whomever the hell she faces? She has such an advantage over them that she can do whatever the gently caress she wants. The damage that is occurring to the GOP/Conservative movement is so significant that the gate is WIDE loving OPEN. If she went full "gently caress IT" mode? I'd be overjoyed by that development. If anything? Bernie just showed that there's wide enough support from the base and from the country itself for a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Honestly I don't know why Hillary sincerely doesn't go more towards the Left at this point and just co-opt much of Bernie's campaign. I know she's done it a few times here and there, but not to the extent where I think she could. I think she remembers going hard left and it burning her HARD back with Hillarycare, and after that took a more pragmatic approach. To be fair, it's served her well, and while I think she's flexible enough to take a leftward risk, she may not be willing to do it before she's elected for fear of driving disillusioned GOP voters to the polls. Hillary going even a little bit commie heals the GOP right now. Maybe that's just my anxiety being projected though. This is the woman who said she's proudest of making enemies of the Republicans in that early debate. I have no doubt that she's going to make them squeal in every way she can. She's just spent so much time dealing with the trading of political capital to make anything happen at all that I have no idea the lens she views the world through. The way I see it, she may not have always been on board with some stuff, but she's embraced a lot of the most leftward positions in the last 8+ years like LGBT and Voter Rights and she loathes Citizen's United, and I'm more worried about future trajectory than past mistakes. Plus you know, she's 70 and already enormously accomplished and views her and her husband's legacy as saving the Democratic Party from Reaganism. I doubt she is going to do anything to ruin that like run right of the current Democratic base on anything, if only because it would fracture the party and her legacy along with it. She's far from perfect, but so is Sanders. So was Obama. Perfect candidates don't exist and if one showed up, I'd be deeply suspicious of them. I live in Indiana and on Tuesday I'm voting for her. I spent months as a hardcore Bernout but I converted for a variety of reasons. I felt he was flawed but the best kind of flawed, until he gave me a reason not to think that anymore. I was one of the ones who was honestly happy with either from the start though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Alright, if it's Ted loving Cruz at the GOP Nominee? I'll actually donate money to her campaign in addition to voting for her. I hate Ted Cruz that much. I want that man to be hosting a Sunday evening show on Fox News within 2 years (which promptly gets cancelled within 2 weeks). Never vote green.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Trump hasn't actually been attacked from the left, and really not from the right either to be honest. Clinton's a known quantity of course but Trump's still got a lot of storms to weather that I think will be entertaining TvH would mostly depend on if Trump could Trump just walking out or avoiding debates like a little baby again because now two women are being mean to him on TV. But yeah, the biggest things that would make the news write itself is if Cruz somehow convinces the party to eat itself and give him yet another shot at power. That's when the right media could likely just implode from not knowing what to do or which narrative to take. Epic High Five posted:I think she remembers going hard left and it burning her HARD back with Hillarycare, and after that took a more pragmatic approach. To be fair, it's served her well, and while I think she's flexible enough to take a leftward risk, she may not be willing to do it before she's elected for fear of driving disillusioned GOP voters to the polls. Hillary going even a little bit commie heals the GOP right now. Maybe that's just my anxiety being projected though. It all depends on if the GOP doesn't successfully kill itself and allow her to be as left as possible because the RNC still hasn't made an official pick and none of the warring personalities will let the other take power from them to be something to reach her. It all depends on how the RNC rolls and fucks itself.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Trump potentially swinging left of Hillary on a bunch of policies could very well be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Trump potentially swinging left of Hillary on a bunch of policies could very well be hilarious. He'll still be under attack from the majority of GOP congressmen, who will be desperate to put air between themselves and the loud, despised orange man. Any leftward lurch he did would have him being attacked from the right, and every time that has happened so far he's pivoted back instantly even when it made no sense to do so. Crabtree posted:TvH would mostly depend on if Trump could Trump just walking out or avoiding debates like a little baby again because now two women are being mean to him on TV. But yeah, the biggest things that would make the news write itself is if Cruz somehow convinces the party to eat itself and give him yet another shot at power. That's when the right media could likely just implode from not knowing what to do or which narrative to take. I think the GOP staying fractured and unhappy about the tent collapsing around them after the election or not will be the big determiner of how far left she goes. To be honest I see her using her first 100 days to twist arms and knives to get appointments through and tar and feather some people, then like a boring politician mostly worried about a long term vision, I expect her to set things up for the 2018 election. That means lots of pushes to strike down voter suppression, granting voting rights back to felons who have served their time, that sort of thing Now if the GOP implodes at the RNC and then someone implodes AGAIN after the election (it's possible, remember that Hillary is disliked even more than Obama among Republicans), oh lordy everything is off the table and heads are going to roll. The left needs a big public moral victory like that, but not at the expense of galvanizing the GOP into becoming cohesive again
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
I believe Hillary will not advocate any kind of leftist policy and will be similar to her husband in policy. You better support Bruning because if you don't you'll get Hitler? Oops, happened anyway!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
One of the things that I look forward to in a Clinton presidency is her deep experience in dealing with GOP nonsense. This is a person who's been dealing with their disingenuous bullshit and scalp-hunting for 30 years, the better part of her adult life. Yeah, she's probably not going to be as left as I'd like, but she's also not going to get clowned searching for non-existent bipartisanship like first term Obama was. As for her governance, you remember how much DnD was bellyaching about Terry McAuliffe back during the VA election? How he was a corporatist stooge and Clinton Democrat who would give away everything to Walmart or some poo poo? I know that I'm not the only one who's been pleasantly surprised by how decent he's turned out to be.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Alright, if it's Ted loving Cruz at the GOP Nominee? I'll actually donate money to her campaign in addition to voting for her. I hate Ted Cruz that much. I want that man to be hosting a Sunday evening show on Fox News within 2 years (which promptly gets cancelled within 2 weeks). as a racial minority who could have been beaten up at a trump rally, i'm pretty sure that the white nationalist endorsed by the likes of david duke and don black is much, much worse than hillary
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I believe Hillary will not advocate any kind of leftist policy and will be similar to her husband in policy. So she'll raise taxes, fight for improved health care, push civil rights legislation and an aggressively pro-civil right Justice Department, roll forward with increased environmental protections and appoint people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court? just like Hitler did
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Never vote green. I've heard a bunch of stuff about how the Green Party is anti-vax and anti-GMO but I'm not seeing anything official from them about that. Is it just the base of that party that are turds or what?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Never vote green. I have a friend who supports Stein. I like to constantly remind him of that deaths/kwh chart, that global warming is already causing chaos, that Germany shutdown their nuclear plants to burn mother loving peat, and that Jill Stein want's to bury every radioactive substance in the world in a big pit and pretend it doesn't exist because gently caress the future.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I believe Hillary will not advocate any kind of leftist policy and will be similar to her husband in policy. This is the poo poo I was talking about. "Politician did X! That means they're a captain planet villain with no redeeming value! Ignore any positive legislation they've backed or gotten passed; they signed a trade deal that I don't agree with.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I realize why she won't (because corporate donors) This article convinced me it's not that, it's because she's actually worried about losing the general election. https://weeklysift.com/2016/04/18/do-we-still-have-to-worry-about-the-mcgovern-problem/ The Clinton Strategy seems to be to make sure there's certain issues you're unassailable on from a specific set of attacks. Things like "too weak to keep us safe!" Honestly, come October I think there's going to be quite a few people here totally incredulous over how close the election is. (Assuming the GOP convention doesn't blow up and splinter into multiple candidates, which I wouldn't bet on one way or the other.)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
TVs Patrick Duffy posted:I've heard a bunch of stuff about how the Green Party is anti-vax and anti-GMO but I'm not seeing anything official from them about that. Is it just the base of that party that are turds or what? Section III posted:We call for the cessation of development of fuels produced with polluting, energy-intensive processes or from unsustainable or toxic feed stocks, such as genetically-engineered crops, coal and waste streams contaminated with persistent toxics. Section III posted:Applying the Precautionary Principle to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we support a moratorium until safety can be demonstrated by independent (non-corporate funded), long-term tests for food safety, genetic drift, resistance, soil health, effects on non-target organisms, and cumulative interactions. Section II posted:Greens support a wide-range of health care services, not just traditional medicine which too often emphasizes "a medical arms race" that relies upon high-tech intervention, surgical techniques and costly pharmaceuticals. Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
TVs Patrick Duffy posted:I've heard a bunch of stuff about how the Green Party is anti-vax and anti-GMO but I'm not seeing anything official from them about that. Is it just the base of that party that are turds or what? They give sanctuary to strange ideas on homeopathy. Also their anti nuclear bias is bad for the environment they claim to love.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Most presidential races, in the modern era of polling, are close enough that the media can keep the horserace narrative going, but if Trump ends up polling below 40% against Hillary how do y'all think the media would treat it? Would they run more anti-Hillary stories in an attempt to even it out, or would they focus on other issues such as SCOTUS and Congress?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:If the private sector is so intrinsically better and efficient at everything, why is there a whole god drat motherfucking industry who makes hundreds of millions of year selling their efficiency/teamwork/coaching/whatever bullshit to the private sector? Wouldn't the counter to this be that this is the free market making itself even more efficient? The people that know how to reach peak efficiency have gone into business to help other businesses reach it as well, thus making them a profit and increasing efficiency throughout the market. I don't think any of that is really true, but that seems like an easy rhetorical argument to spit out Of course, if you could show that the efficiency industry was worthless, then it shows inefficiency in the free market because companies are throwing money away for no gain.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Most presidential races, in the modern era of polling, are close enough that the media can keep the horserace narrative going, but if Trump ends up polling below 40% against Hillary how do y'all think the media would treat it? Probably shift to stories about what the aftermath will look like and how the GOP is going to move past it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Wouldn't the counter to this be that this is the free market making itself even more efficient? That doesn't work because these people believe that, by nature, private sector is efficient. Therefore, it should not need to be told how to be more efficient.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Yeah, this isn't hosed upquote:It turns out that anti-LGBT activists are right that men are taking advantage of a transgender-inclusive policy at Target to go into women’s restrooms — and those men are anti-LGBT activists. In an interview this morning with “Breitbart News Daily,” the American Family Association’s director of governmental affairs, Sandy Rios, said that activists have been “testing” Target’s policy by sending men into women’s rooms at the retail chain.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Holy balls, Andrew Sullivan's recent piece at NYmag. It's a treasure trove of turgid pedantry, complete lack of self-awareness, woe-is-us alarmism and dodging any moral or social responsibility for the things he decries. I'd post quotes but I'm late enough for class at it is. Will add more later if other don't. It's a doozy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Probably shift to stories about what the aftermath will look like and how the GOP is going to move past it. Ha, more like talk about "skewed" polls and pretend its still a dead heat.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
"if we don't have laws preventing people from making GBS threads on floors, people will poo poo on floors. allow me to demonstrate *shits on floor* see how easy that was? who can prevent perverts and lunatics from making GBS threads on floors?"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Most presidential races, in the modern era of polling, are close enough that the media can keep the horserace narrative going, but if Trump ends up polling below 40% against Hillary how do y'all think the media would treat it? They'll just stretch poo poo to the breaking point (that EV landscape map from a few days ago) or give equal weight to super lovely or weird polls with a ton of big outliers (Rasmussen last week) They're still pushing the narrative that the Dem primary isn't already over lol
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:24
|
|