Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

laripu

Some Sanders supporters acting like left wing tea party.

Recommended Posts

And Bernies supporters should probably read this.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-sanders-2016-becoming-nader-2000-213893

 

Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the nominee, and his supporters need to start dealing with that fact.

 

Hillary still needs Bernie's voters to win. She won't get them if Hillary supporters keep making allusions to the Nader presidential run. Unlike Bernie, Nader ran in the general election ... There is no comparison, with all due respect to Bill Scher's warped opinion.

 

Not you, me or the queen's butler has any idea what Trump will do as president. But everyone has a best guess.

 

So how do Bernies supporters think the next 30 years of their life is going to be if they don't support Hillary, and Donald Trump gets to shape the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court?

 

 

Bernie's supporters might well be unemployed or flipping burgers, working for less than minimum wage and struggling to make ends meet for the next 30 years whether they get Hillary or Trump for president. With Hillary, there may at least be some hope. I'm prepared to go for hope again .... Just like last time. But I'm getting kinda tired of watching Plutocracy take over government.

 

Winning back congress is of the utmost importance for avoiding the appointment of ultra-far right judges. The Republican dominated congress we have now appears to have an absolute lock on who gets appointed.

 

They better understand that if that happens, it doesn't matter if they get the guy they want the next time.

 

 

And Clinton supporters "better understand" that they have to make some concessions to Bernie at the convention in order to get his voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren't being insulted and I didn't call you names. That's some complex you got going there.

 

It's either your way or the highway. Got it.

 

One of two people will be President of the United States on January 20, 2017.

 

Donald J. Trump or Hillary R. Clinton.

 

There is no third choice.

 

If your vote isn't going to be for Clinton, then it will be for Trump no matter who else you cast it for.

 

That's how the cycle keeps repeating itself.

 

No, I don't have a complex. You were, and are, thew one who uses words like "sit at home with the attitude of the child" "your way or the highway", and insinuating I don't understand how the system works, insinuating that I am not serious, and insinuating that I actually sit at home and don't vote for midterm elections.

 

Again, I would appreciate this discussion without this judgmental bullshit.

 

There IS a third choice. There ARE other choices. Part of the reason we keep the cycle we have is because people don't believe that we CAN have someone outside of the parties the media chooses for us.

 

And no, my choice is NOT for Trump. In fact, one of the reasons I am so upset with Hillary and SOME of her supporters is that, instead of holding Hillary accountable for being so very unpalatable to so many, instead a big number of her supporters decide to blame ME for not wanting to vote for either of the pair.

 

Whether it is for Jill Stein or a write-in of Bernie, I am actually, for once, voting FOR someone. That's the hugs difference.

 

I have spent most of my life voting AGAINST someone else.

 

That hasn't helped at all.

 

I don't see a good future with EITHER Trump or Clinton. I don't see EITHER as better. To me, it's just a choice between one sort of awful or another sort.

 

If you don't find Hillary awful, fine, more power to you. I'm glad you find someone who inspires you.

 

But don't blame ME for her loss if she doesn't win.

 

I plan on voting for who *I* believe will do the best job, and I am happy to agree to disagree. If my chosen candidate loses to Trump, I'll put the blame where it belongs: on the people who are actually voting for the whackjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary still needs Bernie's voters to win.

There's some evidence that in open primaries, a third of the independents voting for Sanders will vote for Trump in the general election.

 

This puts into question how much actual support Sanders has among Democrats, or even among liberals. Certainly, in the open primaries, his delegate count and popular vote should be seen as overblown by at least a few percent, and maybe up to 10%.

 

Why would Independents who intend to view for Trump, vote for Bernie Sanders in an open Democratic primary? Here are some reasons: 1) they're anti-establishment in general and both Trump and Sanders fit that bill, 2) they want to throw the Democratic Party into disarray, because they really do support Trump, or 3) Trump paid them to do it.

 

Politics is a dirty business. People who think Clinton is dishonest and Sanders is pure are wrong. Sanders is a politician, that is, a person who gets where they're going by exploiting other people's opinions. He's every bit as dirty as any other pol, and no purer than Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doesn't change the political reality that Clinton will have to make concessions to Sanders to get his voters.

Clinton has already moved left under pressure from Sanders and she will have to move more:

http://www.thenation.com/article/to-win-in-november-hillary-clinton-will-need-bernie-sanderss-voters/

As for Sanders, he has every right, as Hillary Clinton said in 2008, to make sure the “people who voted for me [are] respected and heard.” Especially when he keeps winning the battle of ideas. Only last week Clinton abandoned her longstanding opposition to expanding Medicare—and called for Obama to drop plans to push through the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the lame-duck session of Congress. Does anyone seriously believe either of those shifts would have happened if Sanders had quit?

 

 

Reading the article, Some is the operative word her ... Meaning little and inconclusive. The state of West Virginia is political oddball.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-voters-boost-sanders-west-virginia

- snip -

Unlike in perhaps every other state, Clinton’s connection to Obama seems to contaminate her.

- snip -

Many attributed the outcome to West Virginia voters’ discomfort with Obama’s race. The state is one of the whitest in the country.

- snip -

 

While it seems clear that many West Virginians voted for Bernie just to damage Hillary and might keep their word and vote for Trump in the fall.

A third of those who voted in West Virginia’s Democratic primary say they plan to back Trump in November, according to NBC News exit polls.

This phenomenon, although it exists elsewhere, applies to WV the most and is far less significant in other states.

 

The main reason for the vote seem clear from the article - To Damage Clinton by voting for Bernie. If Trump paid any voters, there's no suggestion of it in the article and no evidence yet. WV is not an example of any typical state.

 

Bottom line: Hillary still needs Bernie's voters to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some evidence that in open primaries, a third of the independents voting for Sanders will vote for Trump in the general election.

 

This puts into question how much actual support Sanders has among Democrats, or even among liberals. Certainly, in the open primaries, his delegate count and popular vote should be seen as overblown by at least a few percent, and maybe up to 10%.

 

Why would Independents who intend to view for Trump, vote for Bernie Sanders in an open Democratic primary? Here are some reasons: 1) they're anti-establishment in general and both Trump and Sanders fit that bill, 2) they want to throw the Democratic Party into disarray, because they really do support Trump, or 3) Trump paid them to do it.

 

Politics is a dirty business. People who think Clinton is dishonest and Sanders is pure are wrong. Sanders is a politician, that is, a person who gets where they're going by exploiting other people's opinions. He's every bit as dirty as any other pol, and no purer than Clinton.

Exactly, and as you can see in this thread, the worst possible thing for the Liberals is starting to happen. They are fighting with eachother, like the Republicans are.

 

The best possible scenario for Trump.

 

Sooner or later, the simple math is going to catch up to the Bernie supporters.

 

He simply doesn't have the delegates. For right or for wrong reasons.

 

Then the simple reality that we all are together in the fight against Trump winning.

 

I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell last night as he explained the context of Sanders continuing his campaign until California, and it made sense. He wants to give all of those who have raised money, and supported his campaign the chance to cast their vote for him.

 

I get that.

 

Just as long as he and his supporters understand, that this is costing the Democrat nominee both time and money that should be spent running against Trump. And that they had better damn well get unified, and come out in force for the Democratic nominee to win the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as long as he and his supporters understand, that this is costing the Democrat nominee both time and money that should be spent running against Trump. And that they had better damn well get unified, and come out in force for the Democratic nominee to win the election.

 

Seems like as much as Hillary supporters protest against Bernie supporters right to stay in the race all the way to the convention, they are just as guilty of perpetuating the bickering, like sore winners. We are not the Republican Party, to immediately march in lockstep behind the chosen leader. There is time to unify after the Democratic convention. If Clinton treats Sanders with respect, most Bernie supporters will go over to Hillary after the convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems like as much as Hillary supporters protest against Bernie supporters right to stay in the race all the way to the convention, they are just as guilty of perpetuating the bickering, like sore winners. We are not the Republican Party, to march in lockstep behind the chosen leader. There is time to unify after the Democratic convention. If Clinton treats Sanders with respect, most Bernie supporters will go over to Clinton after the convention.

Yeah got it. I'm sure they will. If they don't and Trump wins, Bernie will go down in history as another Ralph Nader.

 

Nobody is protesting Bernies right to stay in the race. Which is an interesting use of words. This isn't a race. It's a foregone conclusion.

 

You must have missed the first part of my reply to hurriedly get to the last, to make your point. Clinton is now 90 delegates away from clinching the nomination, and she will clinch it. I take it you do live in the real world and know Clinton will be the nominee and not Bernie right?

 

Just in case you forgot what the real fight is about, let me leave this little reminder...

There has always been a partisan divide in America because it is normal in a representative democracy. However, since the election of an African American man as President, the partisan divide is one group adhering to the nation’s founding document as the law of the land and another that opposes everything the Constitution, and America, stands for. Conservatives like to claim all they want to do is “take ‘their’ country back,” but the place they want the country “back to” never existed in America.

This absurd ‘take their country back’ mentality is particularly true among Texas Republicans. In what was reported as a nasty floor fight over secession at the Texas GOP convention over the weekend, one pro-secessionist speaker claimed that the “federal government has buried states’ rights at the bottom of a landfill under the bodies of murdered babies” – a remark that drew wild applause. Another secessionist proponent cited the absurd anti-transgender toilet war and proclaimed “Washington will allow pervert men into women’s bathrooms. Who better to represent the will of Texas than Texas? I say secede now” to even more crazy-wild applause and cheers.

A reporter for the Texas Observer said one “official looking” character confided to him that “the only solution to the current situation is for Texas to threaten to secede. Then Washington will take us seriously and start cleaning up its act.”

When a Texan says he wants Washington to “start cleaning up its act,” he means making Texas Republicans the federal government. What that likely entails is abolishing the Constitution save the Second and Tenth Amendments, enforcing evangelical Christianity as the state religion, banning people of color from America, and repealing each and every piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted over the course of the nation’s existence. In fact, after the raging floor scream-fest over secession, Texas Republicans set their platform that fundamentally does everything mentioned above.

These Texas Republicans are nearly impossible to call Americans, if for no other reason than they cannot fathom the nation is under purview of the United States Constitution. For example, just a few of the “official” Texas GOP’s planks demonstrate their lust to become a theocratic nation of white people.

The Houston Press reported that Republican 26-page platformwas approved unanimously by every Republican state delegate.” Under the heading “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life, and Promoting Health,” the religious part of the platform highlights how state GOP lawmakers will act to deny equal rights for the LGBT community and abolish abortion.

Yes, it is true that abortion has been a legal medical procedure in America since the 1970s, and until recently that “legal medical procedure” was protected by federal laws and a landmark Supreme Court ruling. It is noteworthy, as well, that it was a ruling founded on the document Texas Republicans refuse to acknowledge is the law of the land, the United States Constitution. The Constitution is in conflict with evangelicals and the Vatican concept of equality, and maybe more importantly, it does something evangelical Republicans will not tolerate; it protects women’s right to control their own bodies and reproductive health.

However, as one might expect from Texas Republicans, to punctuate their disdain for the Constitution, rule of law, and the Supreme Court, the most religious part of the platform stated emphatically that Texas legislators will enact legislation officially refusing (nullifying) to acknowledge federal laws and Supreme Court rulings. Not because they are un-American or unconstitutional, but because the religious right doesn’t agree with anything unrelated to their bastardized version of Christianity.

For example, in the section of the platform founded on “Americanized Christianity,” the Republicans stated:

We call upon the Texas Legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children; and ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life. We support the elimination of the use of public funding and facilities to advocate, perform, or support elective abortions, embryonic stem cell research, research on fetal tissue, or human cloning.

Texas Republicans wouldn’t be Texas Republicans unless they officially stated their contempt for the LGBT community. The Republicans claimed the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional; apparently because it conflicts with the document evangelicals believe is the constitution; the Christian Bible.

The platform demanded that the “Governor and other elected officials of the state of Texas assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.” Still adhering to theocracy, the platform states that any sexual education for students must consist solely of “Abstinence until marriage. And not include policies and curriculum that teach alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, transgender and other non-traditional lifestyles as normal.”

Texas evangelicals will teach and define what is “normal,” and part and parcel of what Republicans regard is normal is forcing every American to adhere to their version of “an American identity.”

One of the more nefarious sections of the Republican platform demands that racial and ethnic groups abandon their various cultural identities and embrace what Texas Republicans dictate is “the American identity.” Specifically, the platform says, “We favor strengthening our common American identity, which includes the assimilation of racial and ethnic groups. We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within one year to quickly assimilate and succeed in American society.”

The only thing the platform does not demand is that racial and ethnic groups “transition to Caucasian” or get out of the Texas Republicans’ America; it is likely why Texans love Donald Trump.

It is getting to the point that maybe the government should let Texas secede; they (Texas Republicans) certainly do not belong in a nation, or with a society, that they have no respect for. What is telling is that nearly everything in the Texas GOP platform is embraced by Republicans across the nation and in Washington.

In fact, the preponderance of neo-conservatives oppose accepting anything about America whether it is cultural and racial diversity or the Constitution and Founding Fathers intent to prevent a nation of laws founded on the Christian religion. The Texas Republicans even bitched and moaned about the Constitution prohibiting mandatory prayer in schools, and it likely is another reason a fairly large number of the Republican delegation demanded that secession be placed at the top of the platform.

Decent Americans have had just about enough of these sick malcontent Texas-type conservatives that have no use for America, people who aren’t evangelical fanatics, or citizens who happen to be an ethnic minority. They certainly have no use for the Constitution and it is primarily because it protects the rights of women and gays and forbids theocracy as the law of the land. What is not surprising is that like the majority of Republicans, Texas Republicans are more than willing to pass legislation taking away constitutional rights of any group that does not fit into their concept of “the American identity.”

That fact should terrify each and every citizen in every state because if Republicans ever gain control of all three branches of government, that nasty Texas GOP platform will be the law of the land and anyone who thinks that is not enough to work tirelessly to defeat Republicans in November is most certainly a Texas Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like as much as Hillary supporters protest against Bernie supporters right to stay in the race all the way to the convention, they are just as guilty of perpetuating the bickering, like sore winners. We are not the Republican Party, to march in lockstep behind the chosen leader. There is time to unify after the Democratic convention. If Clinton treats Sanders with respect, most Bernie supporters will go over to Clinton after the convention.

Bludog, you just said in ONE paragraph what I was typing in 6-7 paragraphs. Brevity has never been my friend. :lol: Then my post mysteriously disappeared as I was typing (likely user error as I'm using a small laptop). The Bernie supporters that are voting for Trump are doing it out of protest. They don't particularly like Trump. This is a "protest" vote against how Bernie and his supporters have been treated thus far. This is important: not all Bernie supporters are taking this route. Myself, I can't cast a vote for Trump....but some others are taking that path.

 

There ARE Bernie supporters that are willing to consider Clinton. Whether they vote for her or not depends on how Sanders and his campaign are treated from here forward. Millions of Independents joined (or re-joined) the Democratic party to vote for Bernie Sanders. Many left the Democrats in the past due to dissatisfaction with the party. Hillary's campaign can either find a reason for them to stay....or she can alienate them. The condescending, "get on board; you're ruining things" tone emanating from the DNC and Clinton campaign is not going to win over anyone. In fact, they'll all move in other directions.

 

At least 45% of the left supported Sanders in the primaries. Perhaps it's time for the Clinton campaign to bring some of Bernie's issues onto her platform, along with a little appreciation for growing the party by millions of voters. Hillary is a centrist. If she wants to win over Bernie supporters, she needs to MOVE LEFT and remain so, at least on a few issues. Otherwise, Clinton can continue on without us....at her peril. Loyalty is earned, not given up blindly (or out of fear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, when this primary season began, I had already determined that I would not vote for Hillary regardless of who else was running. I considered O'Malley, hoped that Biden would run, and saw Bernie as a great candidate who would likely be considered as "too left" for the average voter.

 

If Biden had chosen to run, I would have supported him as passionately as I'm supporting Bernie. I just feel that Hillary is a terrible candidate and would be a pro-war, pro-corporation president. Bernie's campaign hasn't created my opinion on Hillary; my opinion was already there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems like as much as Hillary supporters protest against Bernie supporters right to stay in the race all the way to the convention, they are just as guilty of perpetuating the bickering, like sore winners. We are not the Republican Party, to immediately march in lockstep behind the chosen leader. There is time to unify after the Democratic convention. If Clinton treats Sanders with respect, most Bernie supporters will go over to Hillary after the convention.

 

Just to set the record straight, Clinton supporters not protesting Sanders' right to stay in the race. (Just because someone has the right to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea,or that it accords with their stated goals.)

 

What Clinton supporters are seeing is that Clinton is the inevitable nominee at end of the race. Accordingly, they are expressing the desire for the most efficient way of marshaling party resources to make a Democratic win more likely. To this end, all interested parties could be focusing on highlighting the positive aspects of the eventual nominee to the American people, while highlighting the negative aspects of the Republican nominee.

 

The Clinton campaign is doing just that.

 

The Sanders campaign is still in fight mode, highlighting Sanders positive aspects while highlighting Clinton's negative aspects. That's counterproductive to the goal of a Democratic win. It exemplifies and therefore encourages an intractable "my way or the highway" attitude. That counterproductive attitude was also expressed by some Clinton supporters in 2008, the PUMA group. Remember PUMA? - Party Unity My Ass. They were so het up, not even the Clintons' active campaigning for Obama could cool them off.

 

We've already seen, on this forum, some on the left who are so anti-Clinton that they won't vote for her. It's their right. But it's not necessarily a good idea.

 

My wife, to be neighborly, sometimes takes care of the 18-month baby next door. He's a cute little boy, not yet verbal, not yet able to reason or be reasoned with. He wanted his fancy cup and curly straw, that my wife had bought him, and wanted it now. Because she was washing it out, it didn't come fast enough, so when he got it, he angrily threw it on the floor, because being non-verbal, that was the only way he had of expressing his displeasure. The result was that my wife took away the cup, took away the straw and let him pout. She's raised two boys, and knows exactly what to do. Next time, he didn't make such a fuss, and waited more patiently.

 

He's smarter than some of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah got it. I'm sure they will. If they don't and Trump wins, Bernie will go down in history as another Ralph Nader.

 

Completely wrong. In 2000, the year he was accused of being a spoiler, Nader ran in the general election. Sanders will not be running in the general election in 2016. There is no comparison.

 

By making blown-up accusations and false comparisons like the one trying to smear Sanders by comparing him to Nader, Hillary supporters perpetuate unnecessary bickering. Winners usually gain respect and support by being graceful in victory. Many Hillary supporters have chosen the self-defeating path of attempting to pick on the Bernie's decision to stay in the race. Yes race, because there are political advantages for not giving up. Sanders is winning the battle of ideas. Sanders has forced Hillary to the left on Medicare and the TPP. He can force her further left yet.

 

By acting as such poor winners, Hillary supporters are losing primary votes and shooting themselves in the foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000#The_.22spoiler.22_controversy

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[18] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida."[7]

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case you forgot what the real fight is about, let me leave this little reminder...

There has always been a partisan divide in America because it is normal in a representative democracy. However, since the election of an African American man as President, the partisan divide is one group adhering to the nation’s founding document as the law of the land and another that opposes everything the Constitution, and America, stands for. Conservatives like to claim all they want to do is “take ‘their’ country back,” but the place they want the country “back to” never existed in America.

This absurd ‘take their country back’ mentality is particularly true among Texas Republicans. In what was reported as a nasty floor fight over secession at the Texas GOP convention over the weekend, one pro-secessionist speaker claimed that the “federal government has buried states’ rights at the bottom of a landfill under the bodies of murdered babies” – a remark that drew wild applause. Another secessionist proponent cited the absurd anti-transgender toilet war and proclaimed “Washington will allow pervert men into women’s bathrooms. Who better to represent the will of Texas than Texas? I say secede now” to even more crazy-wild applause and cheers.

A reporter for the Texas Observer said one “official looking” character confided to him that “the only solution to the current situation is for Texas to threaten to secede. Then Washington will take us seriously and start cleaning up its act.”

When a Texan says he wants Washington to “start cleaning up its act,” he means making Texas Republicans the federal government. What that likely entails is abolishing the Constitution save the Second and Tenth Amendments, enforcing evangelical Christianity as the state religion, banning people of color from America, and repealing each and every piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted over the course of the nation’s existence. In fact, after the raging floor scream-fest over secession, Texas Republicans set their platform that fundamentally does everything mentioned above.

These Texas Republicans are nearly impossible to call Americans, if for no other reason than they cannot fathom the nation is under purview of the United States Constitution. For example, just a few of the “official” Texas GOP’s planks demonstrate their lust to become a theocratic nation of white people.

The Houston Press reported that Republican 26-page platformwas approved unanimously by every Republican state delegate.” Under the heading “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life, and Promoting Health,” the religious part of the platform highlights how state GOP lawmakers will act to deny equal rights for the LGBT community and abolish abortion.

Yes, it is true that abortion has been a legal medical procedure in America since the 1970s, and until recently that “legal medical procedure” was protected by federal laws and a landmark Supreme Court ruling. It is noteworthy, as well, that it was a ruling founded on the document Texas Republicans refuse to acknowledge is the law of the land, the United States Constitution. The Constitution is in conflict with evangelicals and the Vatican concept of equality, and maybe more importantly, it does something evangelical Republicans will not tolerate; it protects women’s right to control their own bodies and reproductive health.

However, as one might expect from Texas Republicans, to punctuate their disdain for the Constitution, rule of law, and the Supreme Court, the most religious part of the platform stated emphatically that Texas legislators will enact legislation officially refusing (nullifying) to acknowledge federal laws and Supreme Court rulings. Not because they are un-American or unconstitutional, but because the religious right doesn’t agree with anything unrelated to their bastardized version of Christianity.

For example, in the section of the platform founded on “Americanized Christianity,” the Republicans stated:

 

We call upon the Texas Legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children; and ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life. We support the elimination of the use of public funding and facilities to advocate, perform, or support elective abortions, embryonic stem cell research, research on fetal tissue, or human cloning.

Texas Republicans wouldn’t be Texas Republicans unless they officially stated their contempt for the LGBT community. The Republicans claimed the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional; apparently because it conflicts with the document evangelicals believe is the constitution; the Christian Bible.

The platform demanded that the “Governor and other elected officials of the state of Texas assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.” Still adhering to theocracy, the platform states that any sexual education for students must consist solely of “Abstinence until marriage. And not include policies and curriculum that teach alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, transgender and other non-traditional lifestyles as normal.”

Texas evangelicals will teach and define what is “normal,” and part and parcel of what Republicans regard is normal is forcing every American to adhere to their version of “an American identity.”

One of the more nefarious sections of the Republican platform demands that racial and ethnic groups abandon their various cultural identities and embrace what Texas Republicans dictate is “the American identity.” Specifically, the platform says, “We favor strengthening our common American identity, which includes the assimilation of racial and ethnic groups. We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within one year to quickly assimilate and succeed in American society.”

The only thing the platform does not demand is that racial and ethnic groups “transition to Caucasian” or get out of the Texas Republicans’ America; it is likely why Texans love Donald Trump.

It is getting to the point that maybe the government should let Texas secede; they (Texas Republicans) certainly do not belong in a nation, or with a society, that they have no respect for. What is telling is that nearly everything in the Texas GOP platform is embraced by Republicans across the nation and in Washington.

In fact, the preponderance of neo-conservatives oppose accepting anything about America whether it is cultural and racial diversity or the Constitution and Founding Fathers intent to prevent a nation of laws founded on the Christian religion. The Texas Republicans even bitched and moaned about the Constitution prohibiting mandatory prayer in schools, and it likely is another reason a fairly large number of the Republican delegation demanded that secession be placed at the top of the platform.

Decent Americans have had just about enough of these sick malcontent Texas-type conservatives that have no use for America, people who aren’t evangelical fanatics, or citizens who happen to be an ethnic minority. They certainly have no use for the Constitution and it is primarily because it protects the rights of women and gays and forbids theocracy as the law of the land. What is not surprising is that like the majority of Republicans, Texas Republicans are more than willing to pass legislation taking away constitutional rights of any group that does not fit into their concept of “the American identity.”

That fact should terrify each and every citizen in every state because if Republicans ever gain control of all three branches of government, that nasty Texas GOP platform will be the law of the land and anyone who thinks that is not enough to work tirelessly to defeat Republicans in November is most certainly a Texas Republican.

 

Sounds like an argument for taking away American civil liberties after a terrorist attack,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because comparing adults to toddlers when there's a disagreement is somehow NOT detrimental to party unity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to set the record straight, Clinton supporters not protesting Sanders' right to stay in the race. (Just because someone has the right to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea,or that it accords with their stated goals.)

 

What Clinton supporters are seeing is that Clinton is the inevitable nominee at end of the race. Accordingly, they are expressing the desire for the most efficient way of marshaling party resources to make a Democratic win more likely. To this end, all interested parties could be focusing on highlighting the positive aspects of the eventual nominee to the American people, while highlighting the negative aspects of the Republican nominee.

 

The Clinton campaign is doing just that.

 

The Sanders campaign is still in fight mode, highlighting Sanders positive aspects while highlighting Clinton's negative aspects. That's counterproductive to the goal of a Democratic win. It exemplifies and therefore encourages an intractable "my way or the highway" attitude. That counterproductive attitude was also expressed by some Clinton supporters in 2008, the PUMA group. Remember PUMA? - Party Unity My Ass. They were so het up, not even the Clintons' active campaigning for Obama could cool them off.

 

We've already seen, on this forum, some on the left who are so anti-Clinton that they won't vote for her. It's their right. But it's not necessarily a good idea.

 

 

Those already ideologically aligned with Hillary are happy with her positions on the issues. They don't see why she should move left. So they feel Bernie should drop his agenda and throw support to Hillary NOW to better ensure Trump's demolition. Those aligned with Bernie are unhappy with Hillary's positions on many issues. Hillary has already been forced left on the TPP and medicare. Since most Bernie supporters recognize that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, they want to bring her farther over to their side before it's too late. That can only be accomplished if Bernie stays in, up to the Democratic convention. Bernie's supporters are taking a gamble that Hillary will be able to trounce Trump after the conventions are over. They must, if they are to support her more enthusiastically.

 

 

My wife, to be neighborly, sometimes takes care of the 18-month baby next door. He's a cute little boy, not yet verbal, not yet able to reason or be reasoned with. He wanted his fancy cup and curly straw, that my wife had bought him, and wanted it now. Because she was washing it out, it didn't come fast enough, so when he got it, he angrily threw it on the floor, because being non-verbal, that was the only way he had of expressing his displeasure. The result was that my wife took away the cup, took away the straw and let him pout. She's raised two boys, and knows exactly what to do. Next time, he didn't make such a fuss, and waited more patiently.

 

He's smarter than some of us.

 

Kid is mucho smart but he needs to join a party :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Completely wrong. In 2000, the year he was accused of being a spoiler, Nader ran in the general election. Sanders will not be running in the general election in 2016. There is no comparison.

 

By making blown-up accusations and false comparisons like the one trying to smear Sanders by comparing him to Nader, Hillary supporters perpetuate unnecessary bickering. Winners usually gain respect and support by being graceful in victory. Many Hillary supporters have chosen the self-defeating path of attempting to pick on the Bernie's decision to stay in the race. Yes race, because there are political advantages for not giving up. Sanders is winning the battle of ideas. Sanders has forced Hillary to the left on Medicare and the TPP. He can force her further left yet.

 

By acting as such poor winners, Hillary supporters are losing primary votes and shooting themselves in the foot.

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like an argument for taking away American civil liberties after a terrorist attack,

 

It's what we're fighting against.

 

We're on the same team. Let's get together, defeat Donald Trump, and take back the Congress, and then together we can hold Hillary to account, and if she fails to live up to the task, we'll primary her ass in 2020. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because comparing adults to toddlers when there's a disagreement is somehow NOT detrimental to party unity?

 

You're an adult who has already committed to not ever voting for Clinton. There already isn't party unity in your case and I wasn't trying to change your mind.

 

I'm just an old white guy writing crap on a forum. Whatever I write isn't meant as anything to hurt you in any way. It's just words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary needs to start wooing Bernie Supporters, instead of assuming they owe her something because she's going up against Donald Trump. Yes, life would be worse with Donald Trump as President. But if you want to be POTUS, you're going to have to show us why you deserve it, and not just why the other guy doesn't. Trump isn't going to go light on her. He's going to bring the email scandal to the forefront of the general election, and he's going to hit her hard. She needs to show that she's not just the 'lesser of two evils'. Because I'm tired of two evils being the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what we're fighting against.

 

We're on the same team. Let's get together, defeat Donald Trump, and take back the Congress, and then together we can hold Hillary to account, and if she fails to live up to the task, we'll primary her ass in 2020. ;)

 

If memory serves me right, there is no primary for a Democratic incumbent who wishes a second term as President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not correct. For example Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980. Gene McCarthy challenged LBJ (prior to the president dropping out in 1968).

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernst.jpg

Those who cannot remember the past

are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is a dirty business. People who think Clinton is dishonest and Sanders is pure are wrong. Sanders is a politician, that is, a person who gets where they're going by exploiting other people's opinions. He's every bit as dirty as any other pol, and no purer than Clinton.

Laripu, that is patently false. May I ask what Bernie has done over the years that led you to believe he is "dishonest" and "dirty?" Do you mind listing a few things that back up your opinion? I'm interested where you're coming from with this comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laripu, that is patently false. May I ask what Bernie has done over the years that led you to believe he is "dishonest" and "dirty?" Do you mind listing a few things that back up your opinion? I'm interested where you're coming from with this comment.

 

I didn't say he was "dirty", period. I said he was as dirty as any other pol. I'm not disaffected by the political process. I understand that politicians lie, and that they have to lie. I understand that they make ugly compromises and that they have to make ugly compromises. I understand that they'll say and do almost anything to get elected. Once elected they have to do many unsavory things; that's just the way the world works.

 

I also said that if he was the nominee, I'd support him. In fact I'd have a Bernie Sanders sign on my lawn, just like I had Obama signs on my lawn in 2008 and 2012.

 

Since you want an example, here's one:

Over and over he's said that the super-delegates should be apportioned proportionally. (By delegates or popular vote: doesn't matter to me.)

 

Well right now, he can't realistically overtake Clinton in either the popular vote or the pledged delegates, so if he got exactly what he wanted he'd still not get the nomination. (I redid the math yesterday. He'd need 69% of the remaining pledged delegates to catch her. You don't plan seriously for that, any more than you plan to win a lottery.)

 

So he pivots and says that he's going to try to get enough super-delegates away from Clinton to get the nomination, even if it's not proportional. That's hypocritical compared to his own stated views about super-delegates. He's saying that because it's all about getting elected - just like it is for every other politician.

 

And by harping on unfairness (when the rules were know in advance) he's stoking the fires of dissatisfaction that results in the Nevada events. Just like the constant harping on the right about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim stoked the fires of dissatisfaction that caused numerous violent outbursts from tea partiers. That's just irresponsible. And it is something he should be ashamed of. Really.

 

And another example:

Sanders is now running as a Democrat, but he doesn't have the best interests of the Democratic party and it's agenda at heart. He has the best interests of Bernie Sanders at heart. He (or you) might claim it's about his agenda, but his agenda is 90% the same as Hillary Clinton's; so if it's really about the greatest probability that the most of his ideas become reality, then he'd do better for his agenda by supporting her.

 

So, like every other politician, it's about getting elected. (Because if you want to talk about a movement, just remember Ron Paul's movement... and where is it now?)

 

I don't care. That's the system. I'll talk him up and vote for him if he's the nominee. I just want everyone to stop the idiotic attitude that makes him look like the second coming of Jesus F***-in' Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no loyalty to any politician or any party. I don't care about any candidate's personal wealth, or the lack of it. I'm disinterested in a candidate's sexual preferences, excluding abuse. Physical attractiveness or charm don't count to me. Etc. But I'm aware there are large numbers who base their votes on personal criteria and that this must be taken into account, politically.

 

What makes me support or oppose a candidate is their ideas, beliefs and actions. Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and is most likely to support or oppose the same legislation I would. His past voting record in the Senate backs that up. If Bernie should ever deviate from his ideas and legislative agenda, I will disown him. As of now, the Democratic Party is run by the New Democrats who tend to be socially Liberal and economically Conservative.

 

As far as I and many others are concerned, the New Democrats need to be replaced by New Deal Democrats or Democratic Socialists. The ideologically centrist New Democrats are enemies of the ordinary people almost as much as the Republicans. They will not go away on their own. It will take bold men and women of action to replace them.

 

Bernie's movement is a political development of the Occupy Movement. It's proponents are mostly young. Their generation is the first to inherit the Plutocratic takeover of government, including the New Democrats. They are the first generation to feel the full effects of the growing Plutocracy and to realize their future has been robbed from them. As Plutocracy deepens under the New Democrats, the Democratic Socialist movement is bound to grow. It has strong impetus and will pick up momentum and numbers. So that in a few years, it will begin to win elections.

 

Despite the present discord in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton will probably be our next president. Up to now, their has been almost no awareness among the voting public of Trump's past shady dealings ... His many bankruptcies and business failures ... His connections to racketeers .... His inheritance .... His mistreatment of workers, tenants and others .... His mistreatment of women, both intimate and impersonal. When the Hillary campaign makes Trump's unattractive past public knowledge, his demolition will have been accomplished. He will lose. If the Clinton campaign fails to do it, she will have been proved to be too incompetent to be president.

 

There are other aspects of the Hillary campaign of course but exposing The Donald for a cad, is key. Hillary's past has been out in the open for a long time now and consists largely of questionable trespasses. Trump's past is extensive, ugly and damning. It begs to be put on public view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Plutocracy deepens under the New Democrats, the Democratic Socialist movement is bound to grow.

I disagree. It might grow. It's possible. But I don't think it's likely and here's why:

1. Other movements have failed. (e.g. Ron Paul) This and other movements depend on having a charismatic leader continually pushing the goals of the movement into the popular media. Once the election is over, if the charismatic leader loses, he or she no longer gets media coverage, and the enthusiasm evaporates, and people go back to the minutiae of their lives. On the other hand, if the charismatic leader wins, they themselves are bogged down by the minutiae of governing. They no longer have the time to pump the message into the media stream.

2. For a movement to really grow, it needs two things: one is a dedicated organization that can exploit the generated excitement (which will no longer be forthcoming, because of #1 above), and the other is the lifeblood of any such organization: money. It's much easier to get money from a small number of rich people than it is to get it from many many ordinary people after either outcome listed in #1.

 

Either way... dropoff of excitement, dropoff of money, evaporation of the organization, end of the movement. Add character assassination from the right, and ... that's it.

 

By the way, Sanders claims the process is unfair to him, and maybe so, but the same process is unfair to Clinton. She has 30.44% more popular vote than Sanders, but only 18.34% more pledged delegates. In other words, the process is cheating her: she only has 60% of the delegates she should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction: not 60% of the delegates she should have, 60% of the margin she should have. I was swyping my cell phone faster than I was thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...