Author Topic: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?  (Read 13593 times)

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2016, 03:50:26 PM »
As for the implications of why you can't speak to sex/race issues, Clinton can do it because she has represented a diverse state and has worked closely on women's and minority issues.

You're really going to make me say it, aren't you? Fine. Everybody get out your flamethrowers; it's time for a Jack-roast!

Hillary can do it because she's a woman and therefore is viewed by women and minorities as "one of us" who has lived the oppression and therefore proverbially, inherently "gets it." For white heterosexual men, that status is impossible to achieve; we are always the enemy, or at best interlopers butting into affairs we cannot possibly understand. Even though I am sure that I get it, some actual minority will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong and irredeemably prejudiced by my White Male Privilege, and to please stop patronizing them.
Well, like I said, you are allowing fear to prevent you from acting instead of electing to learn and try harder. Yeah, you may come across as patronizing, but if you don't take the time to learn why, then,  you are .

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2016, 04:17:37 PM »
Well, like I said, you are allowing fear to prevent you from acting instead of electing to learn and try harder.

What makes you think I haven't tried? You assume I haven't tried. (FYI, that assumption is wrong.)

Yeah, you may come across as patronizing, but if you don't take the time to learn why, then,  you are .

...And there it is.

I could spend an infinite amount of time "learning why," and somebody would still tell me I haven't "tried" hard enough.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2016, 04:51:51 PM »
Well, like I said, you are allowing fear to prevent you from acting instead of electing to learn and try harder.

What makes you think I haven't tried? You assume I haven't tried. (FYI, that assumption is wrong.)

Yeah, you may come across as patronizing, but if you don't take the time to learn why, then,  you are .

...And there it is.

I could spend an infinite amount of time "learning why," and somebody would still tell me I haven't "tried" hard enough.
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had tried in good faith. You started this with the assumption that you could never be seen as having a perspective that allows your views to be seen as valid. There will always be people who try to invalidate your efforts. Success involves not quitting.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2016, 05:03:46 PM »
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had tried in good faith. You started this with the assumption that you could never be seen as having a perspective that allows your views to be seen as valid. There will always be people who try to invalidate your efforts. Success involves not quitting.

In my experience an overwhelming percentage of people openly mock and shoot down anyone who is "privileged" whenever they make any statement on issues related to this. In a similar way to what you are doing, really.

It's kind of ironic, the more willing someone is to try to bridge that gap the more resistance that person encounters.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2016, 05:35:28 PM »
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had tried in good faith. You started this with the assumption that you could never be seen as having a perspective that allows your views to be seen as valid. There will always be people who try to invalidate your efforts. Success involves not quitting.

In my experience an overwhelming percentage of people openly mock and shoot down anyone who is "privileged" whenever they make any statement on issues related to this. In a similar way to what you are doing, really.

It's kind of ironic, the more willing someone is to try to bridge that gap the more resistance that person encounters.
I suspect that rather than"an overwhelming percentage", it's a small but noisy group, most of the time.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2016, 05:22:14 AM »
In my opinion Hillary is fundamentally a dishonest person.  Scandal can't follow someone for 30 years without some of it being true.  AND, she has already been president for 8 years.
Trump is an idiot.
Bernie is probably the most honest but all his "free" stuff turned a lot of people off. 

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2016, 06:04:29 AM »
1. Its Clinton or Trump. Voting for a third party candidate is essentially the same as not voting.

No it isn't. If everybody quit believing that self-fulfilling bullshit, Trump's campaign would completely collapse and Gary Johnson would come in second behind Clinton. In fact, I think that tired meme is probably about the only thing stopping the majority of the Republican politicians from massively defecting to the Libertarian Party at this point. If that were to happen, IMO Johnson would have a real chance of coming first!

3. Clinton has embraced Bernie's issues and has moved a lot closer to him than vice versa.

LOL, that's a lie*. Clinton doesn't have the slightest intention of paying anything more than lip service to Bernie's issues. Once she gets into office, she'll be all corporate, all the time (including flopping back to support the TPP).

5. Even if you think Clinton is not sincere, the actual record of accomplishments and issues that Hillary has championed for decades has been a progressive one.

First of all, I care about integrity first and platform second (as long as the platform has at least some redeeming qualities; i.e. excluding someone 100% terrible like Cruz), which is why I'd rather have Gary Johnson or Jill Stein than Clinton even if their platforms have some flaws.

Second, what actual record? Granted, Hillary is good on gender issues and racial issues (from the point of view that likes interventionist policies like affirmative action even though they tend to backfire), but she's terrible on civil liberties such as privacy and free speech (and guns), corporate finance, trade, and copyright (granted, it seems like every national politician is terrible on copyright, but still...). It's also a little bit of "guilt by association" -- which is hard to avoid, given her lack of actions of any kind as a senator -- but despite of Bill Clinton's reputation as an ally of black people, the legacy of his actual policies was terrible for them, and I expect more of the same from Hillary. In particular, his 1994 crime bill supercharged the "prison pipeline" and his HUD easy-housing policies "helped" many unqualified borrowers (many of whom were black) screw themselves over by telling them they could afford to be homeowners when the subsequent collapse proved otherwise. I don't know what "sounds good in theory" destructive policies Clinton will support (other than the TPP), but I am confident she will support them.

(* to be clear: not dramaman's lie, Clinton's lie.)

You may well be right about the bolded points and the your description as a whole.  Indeed, I mostly agree, with some caveats about the housing issue, and a hesitation about judging whether Clinton policies were overall good or bad for blacks.  But blacks had a huge income increase in the 1990s, with median real income rising almost 50% for women and 30% for men, unlike any other decade since the 1960s. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time.2C_by_ethnicity_and_sex 

Was that income gain unrelated to the Clinton administration?

« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 06:27:07 AM by Bicycle_B »

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2016, 06:17:04 AM »
Really concerned about TPP and free trade in general.  I think fixing this one issue (ok, this one plus Citizens United) would go a long way towards helping out the middle class.  Annnnd, not having cheap smart phones and clothes and plastic junk would go a long way towards learning how to take care of what we have and not producing so much garbage.

That being said, I'm a Berner who will likely vote for Clinton.  The fact that he endorsed her said a lot.  He didn't have to.  So if he thinks its the right thing to do, ok.

I'm a Bernie supporter who will be voting for Hillary, and you mostly summed up my thoughts nicely. But there is one more thing. I'm very worried about the loss of minority rights under a Trump presidency, and of reproductive rights via a conservative supreme court nomination. All the Bernie supporters who have told me they are willing to watch the country burn for 4 years because it will bring about a progressive revolution faster aren't the ones in danger of having their rights curtailed during that time period (and beyond, as supreme court nominations last decades). As a woman of color, and someone who is sympathetic to the plight of other minority groups, it's not a trade I'm willing to make.

Backing SilveradoBojangles!  (As a white male ally, fwiw)

fa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2016, 07:05:19 AM »
@dramaman

Your OP and follow up postings make me seriously doubt that you were a genuine Bernie supporter and are now pinching your nose to vote for Hillary.  The time and effort you put into promoting Hillary makes we think that you simply are a volunteer or paid staffer of the Hillary campaign.  Could there be any truth to this?  If not, what exactly motivates you to claim to be a former Bernie supporter, while fervently defending Hillary?  Something is not quite right here.  I wonder if others have noticed this also.

As far as Hillary vs. Trump, who cares.  This is an election of ultimates.  Hillary is the ultimate establishment candidate and Trump is the ultimate corporate candidate.  Either way corporate interests will win again in November.  In that sense the result of the election is already known.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #59 on: August 05, 2016, 07:25:49 AM »
Your OP and follow up postings make me seriously doubt that you were a genuine Bernie supporter and are now pinching your nose to vote for Hillary.  The time and effort you put into promoting Hillary makes we think that you simply are a volunteer or paid staffer of the Hillary campaign.  Could there be any truth to this?  If not, what exactly motivates you to claim to be a former Bernie supporter, while fervently defending Hillary?  Something is not quite right here.  I wonder if others have noticed this also.

What the hell? I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but I'm fully backing Hillary now that she is the nominee. Why should a Bernie supporter be required to "pinch their nose" to vote for Hillary?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #60 on: August 05, 2016, 07:45:57 AM »
@dramaman

Your OP and follow up postings make me seriously doubt that you were a genuine Bernie supporter and are now pinching your nose to vote for Hillary.  The time and effort you put into promoting Hillary makes we think that you simply are a volunteer or paid staffer of the Hillary campaign.  Could there be any truth to this?  If not, what exactly motivates you to claim to be a former Bernie supporter, while fervently defending Hillary?  Something is not quite right here.  I wonder if others have noticed this also.

As far as Hillary vs. Trump, who cares.  This is an election of ultimates.  Hillary is the ultimate establishment candidate and Trump is the ultimate corporate candidate.  Either way corporate interests will win again in November.  In that sense the result of the election is already known.

My apologies if I ever gave the impression that I supported Bernie over Hillary in the primaries/caucuses. I never meant to communicate that understanding. Despite his growing popularity in the last 18 months and the appeal of his message, I've always been skeptical that a candidate who had officially declared himself as a socialist would ever be able to win the general election, which as a pragmatist has been my main goal so as to continue the progressive gains under Obama and not lose what could be potentially multiple Supreme Court seats to conservative justices.

I started this thread not as a Bernie supporter who had come to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but rather a Hillary supporter who was attempting to understand why a Bernie supporter would NOT hold his/her nose and vote for Hillary. Plus, I thought I would lead to some interesting discussions in the same manner as the Why Trump thread.

As for me being a paid Hillary staffer, an unpaid campaign volunteer, or in ANY way connected to the Clinton campaign, DNC or any politically connected organization or business with any interest in the outcome or having connections to anyone in that capacity such as a spouse, friend or even as distantly related as second cousin twice removed.... that is not the case. Of course, that is what you would expect me to say if I were lying or if I somehow left a loophole in this non-disclaimer to justify what you think is my being an obvious shill.

I'll just take it as a compliment that you think my contributions here have been worthy of being monetarily compensated. Maybe I'll send a bill to the Clinton campaign and see if I can get reimbursed for my time. ;)

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #61 on: August 05, 2016, 07:57:19 AM »
But blacks had a huge income increase in the 1990s, with median real income rising almost 50% for women and 30% for men, unlike any other decade since the 1960s. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time.2C_by_ethnicity_and_sex 

Was that income gain unrelated to the Clinton administration?

Unless you have some evidence and reasoning to suggest it is related (i.e., citing specific Clinton policy and explaining why it would intentionally create that result), the default assumption must be that it is not. There are lots of societal reasons that could explain that effect, mostly related to the effects of segregation slowly wearing off, without Clinton's involvement.

fa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #62 on: August 05, 2016, 10:23:08 AM »
@dramaman

Your OP and follow up postings make me seriously doubt that you were a genuine Bernie supporter and are now pinching your nose to vote for Hillary.  The time and effort you put into promoting Hillary makes we think that you simply are a volunteer or paid staffer of the Hillary campaign.  Could there be any truth to this?  If not, what exactly motivates you to claim to be a former Bernie supporter, while fervently defending Hillary?  Something is not quite right here.  I wonder if others have noticed this also.

As far as Hillary vs. Trump, who cares.  This is an election of ultimates.  Hillary is the ultimate establishment candidate and Trump is the ultimate corporate candidate.  Either way corporate interests will win again in November.  In that sense the result of the election is already known.

My apologies if I ever gave the impression that I supported Bernie over Hillary in the primaries/caucuses. I never meant to communicate that understanding. Despite his growing popularity in the last 18 months and the appeal of his message, I've always been skeptical that a candidate who had officially declared himself as a socialist would ever be able to win the general election, which as a pragmatist has been my main goal so as to continue the progressive gains under Obama and not lose what could be potentially multiple Supreme Court seats to conservative justices.

I started this thread not as a Bernie supporter who had come to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but rather a Hillary supporter who was attempting to understand why a Bernie supporter would NOT hold his/her nose and vote for Hillary. Plus, I thought I would lead to some interesting discussions in the same manner as the Why Trump thread.

As for me being a paid Hillary staffer, an unpaid campaign volunteer, or in ANY way connected to the Clinton campaign, DNC or any politically connected organization or business with any interest in the outcome or having connections to anyone in that capacity such as a spouse, friend or even as distantly related as second cousin twice removed.... that is not the case. Of course, that is what you would expect me to say if I were lying or if I somehow left a loophole in this non-disclaimer to justify what you think is my being an obvious shill.

I'll just take it as a compliment that you think my contributions here have been worthy of being monetarily compensated. Maybe I'll send a bill to the Clinton campaign and see if I can get reimbursed for my time. ;)

Your work should get paid!  I hope you get some money from the campaign.  Invest it and you will get to FIRE just a little faster.😀

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #63 on: August 05, 2016, 10:41:56 AM »
@dramaman

Your OP and follow up postings make me seriously doubt that you were a genuine Bernie supporter and are now pinching your nose to vote for Hillary.  The time and effort you put into promoting Hillary makes we think that you simply are a volunteer or paid staffer of the Hillary campaign.  Could there be any truth to this?  If not, what exactly motivates you to claim to be a former Bernie supporter, while fervently defending Hillary?  Something is not quite right here.  I wonder if others have noticed this also.

As far as Hillary vs. Trump, who cares.  This is an election of ultimates.  Hillary is the ultimate establishment candidate and Trump is the ultimate corporate candidate.  Either way corporate interests will win again in November.  In that sense the result of the election is already known.

My apologies if I ever gave the impression that I supported Bernie over Hillary in the primaries/caucuses. I never meant to communicate that understanding. Despite his growing popularity in the last 18 months and the appeal of his message, I've always been skeptical that a candidate who had officially declared himself as a socialist would ever be able to win the general election, which as a pragmatist has been my main goal so as to continue the progressive gains under Obama and not lose what could be potentially multiple Supreme Court seats to conservative justices.

I started this thread not as a Bernie supporter who had come to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but rather a Hillary supporter who was attempting to understand why a Bernie supporter would NOT hold his/her nose and vote for Hillary. Plus, I thought I would lead to some interesting discussions in the same manner as the Why Trump thread.

As for me being a paid Hillary staffer, an unpaid campaign volunteer, or in ANY way connected to the Clinton campaign, DNC or any politically connected organization or business with any interest in the outcome or having connections to anyone in that capacity such as a spouse, friend or even as distantly related as second cousin twice removed.... that is not the case. Of course, that is what you would expect me to say if I were lying or if I somehow left a loophole in this non-disclaimer to justify what you think is my being an obvious shill.

I'll just take it as a compliment that you think my contributions here have been worthy of being monetarily compensated. Maybe I'll send a bill to the Clinton campaign and see if I can get reimbursed for my time. ;)

Your work should get paid!  I hope you get some money from the campaign.  Invest it and you will get to FIRE just a little faster.😀

Ah wouldn't THAT be nice. The I could spend EVEN MORE time posting here. :)

rugorak

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #64 on: August 05, 2016, 11:38:38 AM »
Joining the conversation late.

The OP's attitude is one I have seen from a number of Hillary supporters. And I have a big problem with their whole thought process on the matter. So let me ask you, do you want to eat motor oil or fresh cow manure? Oh ignore that spinach. Everyone else wants motor oil or fresh cow manure. It is just wrong. If people want to vote third party trying to use fear to change their minds is as bad as Trump using fear of all Muslims or all immigrants.

Another issue is Hillary first made her name calling out a senator for incremental changes - http://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/486799201/taking-on-a-u-s-senator-as-a-student-propelled-clinton-into-the-spotlight
But suddenly now it is wrong to not want slow incremental changes? And sometimes fast big changes are better. If your car has an oil leak you can keep putting oil into it or just fix the dam leak. Same goes for government. Is the Affordable Care act better than where were were? Yes. But it has its own set of new problems specifically being the for profit insurance companies. Many of whom are pulling out of the system. Medicare for all would/could accomplish the same goal (health insurance for all) and reduce costs (especially if the stupid rule preventing the government from negotiating drug prices was removed). Honestly I think I would like the 1969 version of Hillary better than the 2016 version.

As for your point of Clinton getting more done behind the scenes, well talk to insiders in the government and they'll tell you it is more about political blackmail. The Clinton's have been in the game for years and have a crap load of dirt on a lot of people. Doesn't really give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about it.

I live in NY state so Hillary was my Senator. I voted for her the first time. Not the second time. She went against the will of the people in her own state who she was elected to represent. She voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, etc.

Now I will concede that the electoral college favors a 2 party system. And given that there is an extra consideration to be given when voting for president. Because if no single candidate gets enough electoral votes it goes to the House of Representatives. Which is crap. Honestly I want to see the constitution amended to make voting for president like most other offices in this country (and the rest of the democratic world). If no single candidate gets over 50% of the vote the top 2 go into a run off.

I did vote Libertarian the last 2 presidential elections. My issue with Obama is easily summed up with his authorization for drone killings of American citizens overseas with no trial. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=0
Clinton was in the cabinet at the time and probably had some say in the matter. Again another reason I don't like her.

Ultimately I probably will vote for Hillary (as much as I don't want to) because of the electoral college system and the fact I think Trump is a danger and the system is rigged for a 2 party system (not in any other conspiracy sort of way).

I will say that your approach isn't one I would recommend. Especially with the Bernie or bust crowd. You are using the same fear tactics that the Trump supporters are using. Fear is not the way to win hearts and minds. The Bernie or bust people are varied. But you primarily have those who just want something different, anything so they'll vote for Trump (seems contradictory to me), those who want different so will vote 3rd party (makes sense) and those who wanted the best candidate. You are going to have a hard time convincing the first 2 but the last can be convinced with logic. So talk about the electoral college. Talk about where Hillary and Bernie were on the same page and Trump is not. Even better talk about how if they elect those like minded to Bernie to the House and Senate with Hillary they have a shot of getting some of the things they wanted to get by electing Bernie. Clinton is a politicians politician. If the political wind is strong enough she'll go that way. The primary is over. But a new Congress starts a few weeks before the next president.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #65 on: August 05, 2016, 01:10:18 PM »
Joining the conversation late.

The OP's attitude is one I have seen from a number of Hillary supporters. And I have a big problem with their whole thought process on the matter. So let me ask you, do you want to eat motor oil or fresh cow manure? Oh ignore that spinach. Everyone else wants motor oil or fresh cow manure. It is just wrong. If people want to vote third party trying to use fear to change their minds is as bad as Trump using fear of all Muslims or all immigrants.

Another issue is Hillary first made her name calling out a senator for incremental changes - http://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/486799201/taking-on-a-u-s-senator-as-a-student-propelled-clinton-into-the-spotlight
But suddenly now it is wrong to not want slow incremental changes? And sometimes fast big changes are better. If your car has an oil leak you can keep putting oil into it or just fix the dam leak. Same goes for government. Is the Affordable Care act better than where were were? Yes. But it has its own set of new problems specifically being the for profit insurance companies. Many of whom are pulling out of the system. Medicare for all would/could accomplish the same goal (health insurance for all) and reduce costs (especially if the stupid rule preventing the government from negotiating drug prices was removed). Honestly I think I would like the 1969 version of Hillary better than the 2016 version.

As for your point of Clinton getting more done behind the scenes, well talk to insiders in the government and they'll tell you it is more about political blackmail. The Clinton's have been in the game for years and have a crap load of dirt on a lot of people. Doesn't really give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about it.

I live in NY state so Hillary was my Senator. I voted for her the first time. Not the second time. She went against the will of the people in her own state who she was elected to represent. She voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, etc.

Now I will concede that the electoral college favors a 2 party system. And given that there is an extra consideration to be given when voting for president. Because if no single candidate gets enough electoral votes it goes to the House of Representatives. Which is crap. Honestly I want to see the constitution amended to make voting for president like most other offices in this country (and the rest of the democratic world). If no single candidate gets over 50% of the vote the top 2 go into a run off.

I did vote Libertarian the last 2 presidential elections. My issue with Obama is easily summed up with his authorization for drone killings of American citizens overseas with no trial. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=0
Clinton was in the cabinet at the time and probably had some say in the matter. Again another reason I don't like her.

Ultimately I probably will vote for Hillary (as much as I don't want to) because of the electoral college system and the fact I think Trump is a danger and the system is rigged for a 2 party system (not in any other conspiracy sort of way).

I will say that your approach isn't one I would recommend. Especially with the Bernie or bust crowd. You are using the same fear tactics that the Trump supporters are using. Fear is not the way to win hearts and minds. The Bernie or bust people are varied. But you primarily have those who just want something different, anything so they'll vote for Trump (seems contradictory to me), those who want different so will vote 3rd party (makes sense) and those who wanted the best candidate. You are going to have a hard time convincing the first 2 but the last can be convinced with logic. So talk about the electoral college. Talk about where Hillary and Bernie were on the same page and Trump is not. Even better talk about how if they elect those like minded to Bernie to the House and Senate with Hillary they have a shot of getting some of the things they wanted to get by electing Bernie. Clinton is a politicians politician. If the political wind is strong enough she'll go that way. The primary is over. But a new Congress starts a few weeks before the next president.

I hadn't thought about Pro-Hillary arguments based on countering a Trump presidency as being fear-based, but I suppose that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm not entirely sure if you are criticizing such an approach for moral, ethical reasons or because you don't don't think that it is the right way to appeal to Bernie supporters.

For what it's worth, I was not calculatedly trying to use fear as a motivator, though I suppose how one could see it otherwise. For me it was a real assessment of what I see as a defacto binary choice come this November. Trump or Clinton. Trump does scare me. In the past, I've viewed the candidates in a somewhat stoically optimistic way. The US has survived multiple bad presidents in the past and we can survive another 4 to 8 years of another and no matter who wins, the nation keep progressing in a positive way. The worst a bad president can do is delay that progress.

I see Trump as potentially different. His manner and methods are those of a demogague and a Latin American populist strongman. He is potentially America's version of Putin (just not as intelligent). Given the power of the executive branch and a group of zealous followers who are willing to act as his agents outside of government, I worry that our entire democratic system could be put at risk.

Am I being paranoid? It's funny because I know some people have thought that of Obama over the years. Maybe it is just a matter of perspective. Obama had a lot of popular support and some folks even alluded to near messianic qualities,  but I don't recall Obama ever behaving in a way to encourage that beyond trying to inspire people with a positive message of 'Yes, we can'.

Beyond that background feeling of fear, I have tried to respond to people's criticisms of Hillary. In the heat of the primaries and caucuses they have been blown out of proportion.

Do I believe the charges that Clinton has ties to wall street? Yes. Does that mean that her speeches to the banks reveal some kind of hidden motives or agenda that would put put those banks ahead of regular people? I doubt they contain nothing more than the kind of pandering to someone who pays you big bucks. Still it would be embarrassing.

Is Clinton a hypocrite? Yes. Almost any politician who has been in the public arena as long as Hillary Clinton will have public statements that are at odds with one another.

The political blackmail charge? I don't know how to respond. How does one respond to rumor and allegation that really can't be proven one way or another? What I do believe is that politics is what those of us on the outside would consider dirty business and that a lot goes behind the scenes in terms of carrots and sticks to get people to do what you want. Are the Clintons remarkable in this fact? I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other. I suspect folks just assume whatever they are inclined to assume based upon their personal feelings about the Clintons.

Your analysis of the different types of Bernie supporters makes sense. I honestly really didn't try to break them down into categories and tailor appropriate category arguments. I just mentioned the arguments that made sense to me and wanted folks to contribute their own views and observations. In a way, this was for the benefit of my own understanding as much as anyone else.

fa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2016, 03:32:35 PM »
@dramaman

Even though I probably won't vote at all ( too much stench coming from the ballot this year), if I end up deciding to vote for Hillary,. I will need to keep my nose pinched very tightly.

Even though you support Hillary, I like your discussion style and rationale.  Very refreshing.  Maybe you should be on the ballot.  Anyway, thanks for keeping this discussion civil and interesting.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2016, 10:32:41 AM by fa »

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2016, 06:32:17 AM »
Thought this would make an interesting thread to parallel the Why Trump one.

For all the folks who supported Bernie and are absolutely loath to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, what is holding you back. I mean, I certainly understand the difference in Bernie being an outsider. Bernie promised revolution and promoted progressive issues that the Democrats have of late been reticent to embrace wholeheartedly. I understand the difference in emotional appeal. Bernie was exciting and dynamic while Hillary comes off as flat. I understand the anger that the DNC favored Hillary and at the very least arranged the debates to her benefit, if not more.

What I don't understand is why a tried and true Bernie or Bust supporter would not still vote for Clinton giving the following:

1. Its Clinton or Trump. Voting for a third party candidate is essentially the same as not voting.
2. Every vote that Clinton doesn't get empowers a Trump vote.
3. Clinton has embraced Bernie's issues and has moved a lot closer to him than vice versa.
4. Bernie has endorsed Clinton.
5. Even if you think Clinton is not sincere, the actual record of accomplishments and issues that Hillary has championed for decades has been a progressive one.
6. Trump would be FAR WORSE than Hillary. Not only witll four to eight years of Trump will not only accomplish nothing, it will actually SET BACK the timeline for accomplishing the goals that you and Bernie embrace.
7. Think about those voters who thought voting for Nader over Gore in 2000 was a good idea. Think most of them wished they could have recast their vote and undo eight years of W and the Iraq War?

Edit Note: I corrected #5 to include 'Even if you think Clinton is not sincere'

Hillary's war mongering alone should be enough to prevent anyone who doesn't approve of Bush/Hillary/Cheney foreign policy from voting for her. 

To say nothing of being a corporatist tool of Wall Street.  She'll side with Wall Street over Main Street every day.

Yes, Bernie sold out and "supported" Clinton.  All too common in American politics, unfortunately.  He had to look out of his own interests, because if he hadn't, he would have spent the next 4-years on the Senate Select Committee on Sewage and Hazardous Waste Disposal, or similar.

That doesn't mean we have to sell out and support her. 

Libertarian Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in every state.  Jill Stein of the Green Party will be on the ballot in most states.  Either is vastly better than Hillary or Trump.




mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2016, 09:35:02 AM »
In my opinion Hillary is fundamentally a dishonest person.  Scandal can't follow someone for 30 years without some of it being true.  AND, she has already been president for 8 years.
Trump is an idiot.
Bernie is probably the most honest but all his "free" stuff turned a lot of people off.

+1
✌️

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2016, 11:20:45 AM »

I see your characterization of Clinton's and Sanders's positions to be pretty valid, here, but I believe that in the US, there are societal inequalities that go beyond income inequality. I always had trouble with Sanders's unwillingness to address that.

I agree that income inequality is a major problem, but I think that a lot of prejudice and social inequality have to be addressed as well. I believe that this is where Clinton earned some progressive votes from Sanders.

Well, Hillary is from the South and Sanders is not.  So she will have seen, personally, how ugly and entrenched these societal inequalities are, to a greater extent than someone like Sanders.

????

Hillary is from Illinois (and supported Goldwater), then spent time in a private school in Massachusetts. Then another private school in Connecticut. Then she moved to California and Texas. Then to Arkansas to be on the board of Walmart and live in the governor's mansion. Then to the White House. Then to a tony New York neighborhood. How is that being from the south?

On the other hand, Bernie literally marched with MLK and was active in the civil rights movement and handcuffed himself to a black woman so that the cops had to take him away too.

So Bernie probably doesn't know anything about the problems we have in this country around race.

LadyStache in Baja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
    • My Casa Caoba: Making meaning in Mexico
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2016, 02:27:40 PM »

I see your characterization of Clinton's and Sanders's positions to be pretty valid, here, but I believe that in the US, there are societal inequalities that go beyond income inequality. I always had trouble with Sanders's unwillingness to address that.

I agree that income inequality is a major problem, but I think that a lot of prejudice and social inequality have to be addressed as well. I believe that this is where Clinton earned some progressive votes from Sanders.

Well, Hillary is from the South and Sanders is not.  So she will have seen, personally, how ugly and entrenched these societal inequalities are, to a greater extent than someone like Sanders.

????

Hillary is from Illinois (and supported Goldwater), then spent time in a private school in Massachusetts. Then another private school in Connecticut. Then she moved to California and Texas. Then to Arkansas to be on the board of Walmart and live in the governor's mansion. Then to the White House. Then to a tony New York neighborhood. How is that being from the south?

On the other hand, Bernie literally marched with MLK and was active in the civil rights movement and handcuffed himself to a black woman so that the cops had to take him away too.

So Bernie probably doesn't know anything about the problems we have in this country around race.

+1

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #71 on: August 08, 2016, 06:24:28 AM »
Thought this would make an interesting thread to parallel the Why Trump one.

For all the folks who supported Bernie and are absolutely loath to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, what is holding you back. I mean, I certainly understand the difference in Bernie being an outsider. Bernie promised revolution and promoted progressive issues that the Democrats have of late been reticent to embrace wholeheartedly. I understand the difference in emotional appeal. Bernie was exciting and dynamic while Hillary comes off as flat. I understand the anger that the DNC favored Hillary and at the very least arranged the debates to her benefit, if not more.

What I don't understand is why a tried and true Bernie or Bust supporter would not still vote for Clinton giving the following:

1. Its Clinton or Trump. Voting for a third party candidate is essentially the same as not voting.
2. Every vote that Clinton doesn't get empowers a Trump vote.
3. Clinton has embraced Bernie's issues and has moved a lot closer to him than vice versa.
4. Bernie has endorsed Clinton.
5. Even if you think Clinton is not sincere, the actual record of accomplishments and issues that Hillary has championed for decades has been a progressive one.
6. Trump would be FAR WORSE than Hillary. Not only witll four to eight years of Trump will not only accomplish nothing, it will actually SET BACK the timeline for accomplishing the goals that you and Bernie embrace.
7. Think about those voters who thought voting for Nader over Gore in 2000 was a good idea. Think most of them wished they could have recast their vote and undo eight years of W and the Iraq War?

Edit Note: I corrected #5 to include 'Even if you think Clinton is not sincere'

Hillary's war mongering alone should be enough to prevent anyone who doesn't approve of Bush/Hillary/Cheney foreign policy from voting for her. 

To say nothing of being a corporatist tool of Wall Street.  She'll side with Wall Street over Main Street every day.

Yes, Bernie sold out and "supported" Clinton.  All too common in American politics, unfortunately.  He had to look out of his own interests, because if he hadn't, he would have spent the next 4-years on the Senate Select Committee on Sewage and Hazardous Waste Disposal, or similar.

That doesn't mean we have to sell out and support her. 

Libertarian Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in every state.  Jill Stein of the Green Party will be on the ballot in most states.  Either is vastly better than Hillary or Trump.

Saying that Hillary is warmongering is pure hyperbole and cheapens the word.

If Hillary is unworthy because you think she is a corporatist tool who will always support Wall Street over main street, how can you believe that the candidate of a third party which is largely bankrolled by wealthy oligarchs and openly wants to remove any and all government regulations and controls on financial institutions and business in general - i.e. the Libertarian Party - be considered a better choice?

Regarding your calling Sanders a sell-out, I find it remarkable that some folks can turn on a dime from thinking that Bernie is the one honest candidate who can deliver us from corporatism and politics as usual to thinking that Bernie is now a sell-out just because he realizes that the President will be Trump or Clinton and believes that the issues he cares about will be better served under Clinton than under Trump. What you call a sell-out, I call a realist.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #72 on: August 08, 2016, 09:37:58 AM »
If Hillary is unworthy because you think she is a corporatist tool who will always support Wall Street over main street, how can you believe that the candidate of a third party which is largely bankrolled by wealthy oligarchs and openly wants to remove any and all government regulations and controls on financial institutions and business in general - i.e. the Libertarian Party - be considered a better choice?

Because not everybody is a single-issue voter. Johnson wouldn't be better than Clinton on regulating Wall-Street (but IMO, wouldn't be that much worse, either), but he'd be better than Clinton in other areas such as civil rights (especially related to drug policy).

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #73 on: August 08, 2016, 10:24:12 AM »
If Hillary is unworthy because you think she is a corporatist tool who will always support Wall Street over main street, how can you believe that the candidate of a third party which is largely bankrolled by wealthy oligarchs and openly wants to remove any and all government regulations and controls on financial institutions and business in general - i.e. the Libertarian Party - be considered a better choice?

Because not everybody is a single-issue voter. Johnson wouldn't be better than Clinton on regulating Wall-Street (but IMO, wouldn't be that much worse, either), but he'd be better than Clinton in other areas such as civil rights (especially related to drug policy).

It just seems to be kind of inconsistent for libertarian4321 to base 50% of his argument on Clinton's alleged corporatism and then go on to say that the Libertarian candidate is a better choice.

Now to be fair, the first 50% WAS aimed at Clinton's favoring foreign interventionism, to put it less crudely, and that IS an issue that someone could reasonably say the Libertarian party is an improvement over Clinton.

Still, if you are going to promote Green AND Libertarian parties as good alternatives to Clinton, it makes more sense to highlight those issues the two parties have in common (foreign policy - YES, Wall Street regulation - NO), and are consistent with the issues championed by Sanders.

To be honest, I question how much of a Sanders supporter libertarian4321 actually was given his screen-name and reasonably assumed libertarian bent. I can't imagine why a libertarian would want to support Sanders who wanted MORE government regulation and more taxes than even Clinton. That is simply anathema to the whole libertarian creed.


Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2016, 01:04:28 PM »
http://swarajyamag.com/world/im-a-democrat-and-im-voting-for-trump-lets-talk-about-it

yea.  Brilliant.  Did you happen to catch Trump's "economic" policy speech this morning?  Holy cow is that guy a egomaniac train wreck.   Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #76 on: August 09, 2016, 06:19:53 AM »
I hadn't thought about Pro-Hillary arguments based on countering a Trump presidency as being fear-based, but I suppose that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm not entirely sure if you are criticizing such an approach for moral, ethical reasons or because you don't don't think that it is the right way to appeal to Bernie supporters.

For what it's worth, I was not calculatedly trying to use fear as a motivator, though I suppose how one could see it otherwise. For me it was a real assessment of what I see as a defacto binary choice come this November. Trump or Clinton. Trump does scare me. In the past, I've viewed the candidates in a somewhat stoically optimistic way. The US has survived multiple bad presidents in the past and we can survive another 4 to 8 years of another and no matter who wins, the nation keep progressing in a positive way. The worst a bad president can do is delay that progress.

This.

I've seen countless articles pop up on Facebook and elsewhere about how not voting for Hillary is the same as voting for Trump, and how it's going to be the end of American democracy as we know it.

Really? Let's set aside the idea that voting for someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the same as voting for [insert your opponent, seriously, both sides are using this argument].

Should Trump get elected, he'll be extremely unpopular right off the bat. His support within the Republican party is tenuous at best, and the Democrats really, really oppose pretty much anything he says. How is a president going to make sweeping changes to the fabric of our country without the support of ANYONE in Congress? You've seen how hard it is for Obama to get anything done, and that was with the (mostly) full support of his own party.

I'm sorry, but if Hillary Clinton wants my vote, her campaign is going need to make a much more compelling affirmative argument. I'm not interested in voting for someone I don't actually want to see in office. I'm done with that shit.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #77 on: August 09, 2016, 12:35:11 PM »
I hadn't thought about Pro-Hillary arguments based on countering a Trump presidency as being fear-based, but I suppose that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm not entirely sure if you are criticizing such an approach for moral, ethical reasons or because you don't don't think that it is the right way to appeal to Bernie supporters.

For what it's worth, I was not calculatedly trying to use fear as a motivator, though I suppose how one could see it otherwise. For me it was a real assessment of what I see as a defacto binary choice come this November. Trump or Clinton. Trump does scare me. In the past, I've viewed the candidates in a somewhat stoically optimistic way. The US has survived multiple bad presidents in the past and we can survive another 4 to 8 years of another and no matter who wins, the nation keep progressing in a positive way. The worst a bad president can do is delay that progress.

This.

I've seen countless articles pop up on Facebook and elsewhere about how not voting for Hillary is the same as voting for Trump, and how it's going to be the end of American democracy as we know it.

Really? Let's set aside the idea that voting for someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the same as voting for [insert your opponent, seriously, both sides are using this argument].

Should Trump get elected, he'll be extremely unpopular right off the bat. His support within the Republican party is tenuous at best, and the Democrats really, really oppose pretty much anything he says. How is a president going to make sweeping changes to the fabric of our country without the support of ANYONE in Congress? You've seen how hard it is for Obama to get anything done, and that was with the (mostly) full support of his own party.

I'm sorry, but if Hillary Clinton wants my vote, her campaign is going need to make a much more compelling affirmative argument. I'm not interested in voting for someone I don't actually want to see in office. I'm done with that shit.

I there's a Republican Congress, Trump will just sign whatever they send up. He doesn't need to be popular or to have Congress like him. Trump would mean the House Republicans are in charge.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #78 on: August 09, 2016, 12:56:53 PM »
The election is over.  Trump has gone down in flames. 

For sure he will say it was rigged.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2016, 01:37:39 PM »
As for the implications of why you can't speak to sex/race issues, Clinton can do it because she has represented a diverse state and has worked closely on women's and minority issues.

You're really going to make me say it, aren't you? Fine. Everybody get out your flamethrowers; it's time for a Jack-roast!

Hillary can do it because she's a woman and therefore is viewed by women and minorities as "one of us" who has lived the oppression and therefore proverbially, inherently "gets it." For white heterosexual men, that status is impossible to achieve; we are always the enemy, or at best interlopers butting into affairs we cannot possibly understand. Even though I am sure that I get it, some actual minority will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong and irredeemably prejudiced by my White Male Privilege, and to please stop patronizing them.

Somewhat, yes, but Bill Clinton seemed to do a decent job of walking that line.
Well, and Bernie too.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2016, 01:59:54 PM »
As for the implications of why you can't speak to sex/race issues, Clinton can do it because she has represented a diverse state and has worked closely on women's and minority issues.

You're really going to make me say it, aren't you? Fine. Everybody get out your flamethrowers; it's time for a Jack-roast!

Hillary can do it because she's a woman and therefore is viewed by women and minorities as "one of us" who has lived the oppression and therefore proverbially, inherently "gets it." For white heterosexual men, that status is impossible to achieve; we are always the enemy, or at best interlopers butting into affairs we cannot possibly understand. Even though I am sure that I get it, some actual minority will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong and irredeemably prejudiced by my White Male Privilege, and to please stop patronizing them.

Somewhat, yes, but Bill Clinton seemed to do a decent job of walking that line.
Well, and Bernie too.

Sanders did about as great a job as it is possible to do, but had to defend himself from accusations of racism anyway (or at least "dismissivenes" -- same difference). It's a no-win scenario. People will invent the racism out of thin air and "prove" it by the simple fact that the accused is a white male and therefore must be racist. The only defense is to be immune by virtue of being a minority yourself.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2016, 02:54:13 PM »
As for the implications of why you can't speak to sex/race issues, Clinton can do it because she has represented a diverse state and has worked closely on women's and minority issues.

You're really going to make me say it, aren't you? Fine. Everybody get out your flamethrowers; it's time for a Jack-roast!

Hillary can do it because she's a woman and therefore is viewed by women and minorities as "one of us" who has lived the oppression and therefore proverbially, inherently "gets it." For white heterosexual men, that status is impossible to achieve; we are always the enemy, or at best interlopers butting into affairs we cannot possibly understand. Even though I am sure that I get it, some actual minority will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong and irredeemably prejudiced by my White Male Privilege, and to please stop patronizing them.

Somewhat, yes, but Bill Clinton seemed to do a decent job of walking that line.
Well, and Bernie too.

Sanders did about as great a job as it is possible to do, but had to defend himself from accusations of racism anyway (or at least "dismissivenes" -- same difference). It's a no-win scenario. People will invent the racism out of thin air and "prove" it by the simple fact that the accused is a white male and therefore must be racist. The only defense is to be immune by virtue of being a minority yourself.
This article does not say what you think it does. Sanders always pushed income inequality as the primary driver inequality in the US (as your link states). He got huffy with some protestors at his events (because he didn't like being interrupted) and then was asked if he was dismissive of their movement. This was because, while he has an impressive record on civil rights, he didn't make racial discrimination a major part of his campaign.

Bernie has a great record, but didn't do a great job on issues of race, early in the campaign.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2016, 04:01:45 PM »
Thought this would make an interesting thread to parallel the Why Trump one.

For all the folks who supported Bernie and are absolutely loath to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, what is holding you back. I mean, I certainly understand the difference in Bernie being an outsider. Bernie promised revolution and promoted progressive issues that the Democrats have of late been reticent to embrace wholeheartedly. I understand the difference in emotional appeal. Bernie was exciting and dynamic while Hillary comes off as flat. I understand the anger that the DNC favored Hillary and at the very least arranged the debates to her benefit, if not more.

What I don't understand is why a tried and true Bernie or Bust supporter would not still vote for Clinton giving the following:

1. Its Clinton or Trump. Voting for a third party candidate is essentially the same as not voting.
2. Every vote that Clinton doesn't get empowers a Trump vote.
3. Clinton has embraced Bernie's issues and has moved a lot closer to him than vice versa.
4. Bernie has endorsed Clinton.
5. Even if you think Clinton is not sincere, the actual record of accomplishments and issues that Hillary has championed for decades has been a progressive one.
6. Trump would be FAR WORSE than Hillary. Not only witll four to eight years of Trump will not only accomplish nothing, it will actually SET BACK the timeline for accomplishing the goals that you and Bernie embrace.
7. Think about those voters who thought voting for Nader over Gore in 2000 was a good idea. Think most of them wished they could have recast their vote and undo eight years of W and the Iraq War?

Edit Note: I corrected #5 to include 'Even if you think Clinton is not sincere'

Hillary's war mongering alone should be enough to prevent anyone who doesn't approve of Bush/Hillary/Cheney foreign policy from voting for her. 

To say nothing of being a corporatist tool of Wall Street.  She'll side with Wall Street over Main Street every day.

Yes, Bernie sold out and "supported" Clinton.  All too common in American politics, unfortunately.  He had to look out of his own interests, because if he hadn't, he would have spent the next 4-years on the Senate Select Committee on Sewage and Hazardous Waste Disposal, or similar.

That doesn't mean we have to sell out and support her. 

Libertarian Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in every state.  Jill Stein of the Green Party will be on the ballot in most states.  Either is vastly better than Hillary or Trump.

Saying that Hillary is warmongering is pure hyperbole and cheapens the word.

If Hillary is unworthy because you think she is a corporatist tool who will always support Wall Street over main street, how can you believe that the candidate of a third party which is largely bankrolled by wealthy oligarchs and openly wants to remove any and all government regulations and controls on financial institutions and business in general - i.e. the Libertarian Party - be considered a better choice?

Easy.  Because you are WRONG about where the Libertarian Party gets it's money, and where Libertarian candidates get their money. 

Far from "wealthy oligarchs," almost every dollar the Libertarian Party has comes from regular people.  Don't take my word for it, go to open secrets or similar.

All the big money donors donate to the Dems and Reps, not the Libertarians.

And if you want to talk about "wealthy oligarchs," NO CANDIDATE is more fully funded by those folks than Hillary Clinton.  It's quite perverse.  Bernie was right about that (before he sold out).  Even Trump can't match her when it comes to money from the top 0.01%.  Look at her top individual and corporate donors:  Hedge Fund managers, Investment bankers, Hedge fund managers, and more hedge fund managers.  The occasional rich lawyer/Hollywood type mixed in just to keep it light.

And I call Hillary Clinton a warmonger because that is exactly what she is (Bernie was right about that too, before he sold out).  When it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is DICK CHENEY IN A DRESS, without Cheney's charm.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War (and continued to support it).  She supported the war in Afghanistan.  She pushed for war in Libya.  She pushed for greater military involvement in Syria.  She's been a hawk toward Iran and N. Korea.  She's far more militarily aggressive than traditional warmongers (Republicans like Trump or Cruz).

If it walks like a duck...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0


« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 04:03:50 PM by libertarian4321 »

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2016, 04:07:03 PM »
FWIW, I'm a veteran, I'm not in favor of militaristic war hawks like Hillary Clinton.

That, probably more than any other issue, is a show stopper for me.  In case my vitriol toward Hillary, the wannabe warmonger in chief, wasn't obvious.  It's also the reason I never even considered voting for John McCain in 2008.  He, like Hillary and Dick Cheney, is a knee jerk "shoot first" warmonger.

I ended up voting for Obama because I believed him when he said he didn't believe in stupid wars.

Yeah, I know, I bought into his BS, although Obama certainly isn't the aggressive militarist that Hillary is.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 04:08:38 PM by libertarian4321 »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2016, 06:47:38 PM »
I there's a Republican Congress, Trump will just sign whatever they send up. He doesn't need to be popular or to have Congress like him. Trump would mean the House Republicans are in charge.

Oh I absolutely agree on that point, it's just that (while I disagree with lots of their ideas) a Republican Congress is very different than a pro-Trump Congress.

electriceagle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #85 on: August 09, 2016, 09:28:09 PM »
.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2016, 09:57:04 PM by electriceagle »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #86 on: August 10, 2016, 05:34:48 PM »
I hate conspiracy theories and as bad as people think Hillary is at covering her tracks she has managed to avoid presenting us with any damning evidence of malintent towards the US. So far, based on the evidence, it seems that any assumption of intent by her to harm the US is treading on a conspiracy theory.

If there were clear evidence of treason I believe she would be prosecuted as I don't think our country is so far gone that it wouldn't convict a high level individual. Unfortunately someone at Hillary's level of influence is just too hard to take down on charges of negligence and shady dealings with no clear intent. In the same way we haven't sent many bankers and business leaders go down for doing illegal shit to further their own gains. This is the camp Hillary belongs to.

In the short term(4-8 year presidency) I don't think she will irreparably harm us financially or lessen our security. At worst she will continue us on course which is ignores long term potential consequences for short term gain. These are mistakes which I believe could be fixed down the road by new and better leaders. Trump's erratic, irrational and ignorant behavior however I believe has the potential to do immediate short term harm to the US socially, financially and to our security.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2016, 04:46:06 PM »
I hate conspiracy theories and as bad as people think Hillary is at covering her tracks she has managed to avoid presenting us with any damning evidence of malintent towards the US. So far, based on the evidence, it seems that any assumption of intent by her to harm the US is treading on a conspiracy theory.

If there were clear evidence of treason I believe she would be prosecuted as I don't think our country is so far gone that it wouldn't convict a high level individual. Unfortunately someone at Hillary's level of influence is just too hard to take down on charges of negligence and shady dealings with no clear intent. In the same way we haven't sent many bankers and business leaders go down for doing illegal shit to further their own gains. This is the camp Hillary belongs to.

In the short term(4-8 year presidency) I don't think she will irreparably harm us financially or lessen our security. At worst she will continue us on course which is ignores long term potential consequences for short term gain. These are mistakes which I believe could be fixed down the road by new and better leaders. Trump's erratic, irrational and ignorant behavior however I believe has the potential to do immediate short term harm to the US socially, financially and to our security.

Yeah. There's no way Hillary Clinton is trying to harm the US or has any treasonous intent. Absolutely no way. What she does have is a strong self interest. So she could harm the US as a byproduct of pursuing her personal self interest (like nearly all politicians do in some capacity). But I think overall she would be a low impact and "fine" but not fantastic president. More just status quo.

fa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #88 on: August 12, 2016, 10:15:09 PM »

Yeah. There's no way Hillary Clinton is trying to harm the US or has any treasonous intent. Absolutely no way. What she does have is a strong self interest. So she could harm the US as a byproduct of pursuing her personal self interest (like nearly all politicians do in some capacity). But I think overall she would be a low impact and "fine" but not fantastic president. More just status quo.

Well, check this out: http://www.bls.gov/bls/cps_fact_sheets/lfp_mock.htm

The government itself shows that between the beginning of the Obama administration and six years into it, some 10 million Americans have simply given up looking for work.  This is the direct result of the anemic economic recovery of the last 8 years.  If you forget to count those 10 million, the unemployment rate looks really good.  For those people, "more just status quo" doesn't work so well.  If any of those had FIRE ambitions, they can probably forget them.  I think more of the same may not be the desired outcome.  Lots of those people are the forgotten blue collar workers that seem attracted to Trump.

As for treason, of course Hillary is not intending on committing treason for the purpose of committing treason.  Unless selling influence to foreigners via donations to the Clinton Foundation is treason?  But that is speculative at this point.  She does want unlimited amounts of power and money, and appears to be willing to break whatever laws she needs to break for her personal ambition.  That was as a senator and secretary of state.  Can't wait to see what she is willing to do for herself once she holds the highest office.

Don't get me wrong:  Trump is a despicable man who is probably about as ambitious as Hillary.  So November is really not all that much of choice.  More style than substance I would say.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #89 on: August 13, 2016, 06:43:14 AM »
Presidents don't have a very strong ability to create jobs. They have some influence, but it's mostly other factors. Obama made the aftermath of the recession less bad by doing some stimulus spending. But he was prevented from doing enough stimulus because of Congress. Europe didn't do any stimulus (actually did austerity) which is largely why their recovery has been terrible.

fa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #90 on: August 13, 2016, 09:12:57 AM »
Presidents don't have a very strong ability to create jobs. They have some influence, but it's mostly other factors. Obama made the aftermath of the recession less bad by doing some stimulus spending. But he was prevented from doing enough stimulus because of Congress. Europe didn't do any stimulus (actually did austerity) which is largely why their recovery has been terrible.

Federal spending hovered around 2.5 trillion $ under Bush, and has been around 3.5 trillion $ since Obama.  So over the last 7 years, the Federal government has roughly spent an extra 7 trillion $ (!!) than a similar period under Bush.  That is a mindblowing amount by anybody's standards.  I am not sure how much more the government needs to spend to get this unemployment situation under control, assuming more spending would fix the problem.  Makes you wonder where all this money actually went.   If 7 trlllion $ of extra government spending is the result of obstruction by Congress, I can't even fathom how deep the hole would have been with a cooperative Congress.

Obama inherited a terrible economic situation, and I get that he is your preferred choice.  However, the employment legacy he will leave, especially for the black community, is simply devastating.  There is some irony in this.  I just don't think that either Trump or Hillary really have any idea how to get more people to support themselves in the future.  Sadly, you are probably right about the continued status quo.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Bernie or Bust Supporters -- Why not Hillary?
« Reply #91 on: August 13, 2016, 04:32:06 PM »
Presidents don't have a very strong ability to create jobs. They have some influence, but it's mostly other factors. Obama made the aftermath of the recession less bad by doing some stimulus spending. But he was prevented from doing enough stimulus because of Congress. Europe didn't do any stimulus (actually did austerity) which is largely why their recovery has been terrible.

Federal spending hovered around 2.5 trillion $ under Bush, and has been around 3.5 trillion $ since Obama.  So over the last 7 years, the Federal government has roughly spent an extra 7 trillion $ (!!) than a similar period under Bush.  That is a mindblowing amount by anybody's standards.  I am not sure how much more the government needs to spend to get this unemployment situation under control, assuming more spending would fix the problem.  Makes you wonder where all this money actually went.   If 7 trlllion $ of extra government spending is the result of obstruction by Congress, I can't even fathom how deep the hole would have been with a cooperative Congress.

Obama inherited a terrible economic situation, and I get that he is your preferred choice.  However, the employment legacy he will leave, especially for the black community, is simply devastating.  There is some irony in this.  I just don't think that either Trump or Hillary really have any idea how to get more people to support themselves in the future.  Sadly, you are probably right about the continued status quo.

I'm not a big Obama fan. He's been good on some things and bad on others. I voted for him, but the alternatives were worse.

The difference in spending between the Bush era and the Obama era is almost entirely a function of 1) increased spending on healthcare (both because of cost inflation, the baby boomers hitting Medicare, and the ACA--but the ACA has offsetting revenues), 2) increased spending on the military (both increased active "defense" spending and spending on all the new veterans), and 3) increased Social Security outlays (again, baby boomers mostly). So other than the first year or so after the ARRA, it's not really stimulus spending. It's military and retirement spending (with some extra healthcare). And it's also mostly not anything to do with recent Congresses. They have some involvement with the military spending going up, but SS and MC are automatic.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!