That argument is incoherent.
First of all, Brexit was an example of INCREASED hypernationalism. Second, in the previous election, voters increased the conservative majority. Third, the assumption that anyone would view Trump as the lesser of two evils has a long way to go to escape the laugh test. Fourth, Sanders voters are in the minority. After all, he lost.
Throwing over the table is simply not going to happen. There have been only two economic revolutions in American history. One (eliminating slavery), took a long, bloody war and another century of civil rights conflict. The other (the New Deal) required the biggest economic downturn in history. That is the nature of our system, designed to force compromise. And there is simply nothing remotely comparable to those events on the horizon.
Sanders is right about a lot of things but that isnāt one of them. And at this point, continuing to refuse to endorse Clinton is tantamount to endorsing Trump and counts as making the problems he decries significantly worse, not better.
If he truly believes the things he claims to believe, he will climb down from that now. Gaining his goals will not be a revolution. It will be a long slog of incremental gains in his preferred direction. And the sooner he gets started on that, and stops screaming about his injured ego, the sooner heāll actually accomplish something.
Oh, now I know youāre a man because Iāve seen her shoes and maybe theyāre Ferragamos? But her style means she can buy three pairs at retail.
I havenāt even shaved in a week and Iām over 40 but wearing cargo shorts. I am not the fashion police. 
I was addressing the claim that Clinton was giving āthe progressive NONE of what they want.ā Thatās not true. I wasnāt making that claim that sheād give them everything they want, or even saying sheās a great candidate (she isnāt). The speeches per se arenāt at the top of my list for why she isnāt a great candidate, though they are another data point showing sheās a Wall Street crony. Being a Wall Street crony is a bad thing, but sheās got enough policy ideas on the many other domains presidents have to deal with that are tossing sops to progressives that itās neither fair nor correct to say sheās giving progressives NONE. I disliker like her because sheās a DLC Wall Street crony, the speeches per se arenāt my big issue. YMMV.
I know many, many people who consider Clinton the lesser of two evils. The majority of the dems who voted for her.
And previous Sanders supporters such as myself. He lost. Elections matter.
I havenāt shaved in a week and am over 40 but wearing cargo shorts (and a Goodwill-sourced aloha shirt). I figured her shoes would be like $2k, but itās all a mystery domain. When people were freaking out with the fake story about this being a $13k jacket, I was mostly thinking it looked like something Guinan in TNG would wear.
Those would be too high and too funky for Ms. Clinton, and probably not as comfy as what she wears. As someone who used to be seriously into shoes, I feel like the law of diminishing returns could apply with shoes. More expensive shoes are generally more comfortable, especially those with a significant heel. But thereās a certain point in which more money spent doesnāt guarantee comfort and may, in fact, hurt more than a less expensive pair.
You waxed instead? (ducks!)
The point of the OP is that folks are so pissed off about being offered a choice between bad and worse for so long, that when one of those options freakishly turns out to be one that has the establishment aghast, thatās hugely tempting, because FUCK those guys.
Yeah, thatās pretty shitty. When the majority of the population is extremely disgruntled with the candidate they are voting for but absolutely detest the candidate they are voting against you donāt really have rule by the people, for the people. This may shock you, but in other nations people actually like their governments and think they do a pretty good job. Itās not impossible.
So the fact that Bernie has said he will vote for Hillary means nothing? This is not about his ego. This is about making sure that the millions who did vote for him in the primaries will have a voice at the convention.
It doesnāt mean nothing, but it doesnāt mean a lot either. Heās essentially
saying āYou need to bend over backwards to attract my supporters, but I
will do nothing to encourage them to consider you.ā Heās also still
suggesting that he might support disruptions at the convention if he
doesnāt get his way.
Those two things mean a whole lot more than does one vote. If he wants to
have influence, this is not how to get it. He seriously risks overplaying
his hand and being sidelines altogether.
Thatās a valid opinion, I suppose, but I donāt agree. One could just as easily say that Bernieās playing the only card he has to play to get his supporters heard. Once he surrenders by giving his endorsement and releasing his delegates, he is out of moves. I think itās wise of him to get the best price he can for his endorsement, but thatās my opinion.
It could just as easily be said that by doing as little as humanly possible to woo Bernie supporters, Hillary is risking them shifting their allegiance to Stein, Johnson, and perhaps even Trumpā¦ and losing the election come November.
The price of goods in the Mexican household has been cut in half after NAFTA and despite a complicated history with political turmoil in the past couple of decades the access to technology, vehicles, and many other previously cost prohibitive goods filtered into the country. It has hit Mexico hard in a few areas (such as agriculture and food prices), but overall it improved the quality of life despite US obsessions with guns and drugs destabilizing many regions. I suppose you can say NAFTA is partially to blame for greatly increased obesity rates as well.
There are a lot of people out there with conflicting opinions about NAFTAs impact on Mexico. I can find commentators with all kinds of ideas, very few who present any evidence. Mostly itās just ideology (trade went up, and trade is good, so it was good is the standard argument for it being a good thing). The argument I see that it was bad for Mexico compares how Mexico fared under NAFTA to how Latin American countries fared in the same timeframe, but that hardly seems like apples-to-apples (but at least they are trying to connect to the real world, and at the very least it calls into question the benefits).
Itās pretty easy to talk about what things were like before NAFTA and what things are like now. Itās pretty well impossible to infer causation from that.
What voice is that? Specifically?
How about āIām an American, as is my entire family, and we donāt live in Mexico so why should I care about Mexico if Americans are suffering?ā
I mean, abstractly, I want all people to do well but if I have to choose between my fellow citizens, amongst whom I live, doing well or some other people somewhere else, Iām choosing closer to home.
Iām not sure, but I think this might be the first time Iāve seen anyone say āGee, I wish politicians would lie to me more.ā
