Her policies don’t sound to me like they’d make things worse or put a bandaid on things. Be sure to check out the thoughts from various economists.
Especially compared to the alternative, which is the very definition of a band-aid.
4 Likes
I’m not convinced they’ll reverse the trends since Reagan or bring back the jobs and life savings destroyed since 2008 either.
You do realize that a huge part of why certain Americans are voting Trump is because of these problems and that they’re getting worse? You wanna see a fascist, wait until 2020 or 2024. That’s the elephant in the room. These people aren’t going to him primarily because many of them could be racist. They’re going to them because their lives have been destroyed, have been for 8 years, and no one gives more than lip service to doing anything about it. We’re in economic decline, no matter how rich a hedgefund manager gets. Of course, the latter are the people Clinton pals around with so what does she care?
5 Likes
Well, you could try to do so by explaining how that’s supposedly all that much worse than what HRC has done to Libya (the aftereffects of which Obama has acknoweldged as the “worst mistake” of his presidency).
What I think should be explained, convincingly instead of naively, is why I’m supposed to think HRC and gang would be all that much less hawkish than GWB and gang were.
3 Likes
But but but…they’re Democrats! They wouldn’t invade, bomb, or drone strike the shit out of anyone! That’s a GOP thing!
4 Likes
Are we going to pretend 2000 didn’t happen? Or do you really think the result then was a good one and we should be seeking to repeat it?
Last I heard, they field the candidate that wins the most votes in the primaries.
Or… do you really mean, it’s up to the establishment to field the candidate that YOU like most? (And it they don’t, you’ll take your vote and go home?)
2000 happened. So did 1992 and 1980. It is all history. You want to privilege one narrative? By all means but I think it is a bullshit narrative meant to tell people to “shut up, get into line, and vote Democrat or else!” That’s all it does.
Man, if all those people had backed Carter, we’d never gotten that Reagan asshole either!
I may very well do so, along with something like half of the potential voters based on historical turnouts. Gosh, I wonder why people don’t bother to vote… Oh, that’s right, because it is either a bowl of shit or a bucket of vomit. Pick one.
4 Likes
That is not factual.
6 Likes
The Democratic party’s message to progressive voters and at least one response…
6 Likes
He has always been an (I) in Congress. As a Senator he caucuses with the Democrats, but AFAIK is not one.
He was, from Nov last year until now, then went independent again, I think.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/26/bernie-sanders-to-return-to-senate-as-an-independent/
I am disagreeing, but being polite about it. Your statement characterized it as if Sanders was able to get a majority of the progressive issues in the platform, which I felt was a mischaracterization when the superdelegates were not abolished, which is the tool by which the DNC gets centrist candidates elected. Most of what you cited is what Democrats and progressives agree on, but does not represent true change. As an example, I cited Kaine’s recent letter to banks urging them to loosen regulations. How does that fit with “Wall Street reforms for stronger regulation”? The same goes with “
killing golden parachutes for lobbyists.” Many of the superdelegates work as lobbyists, yet they are still being retained and there is nothing to preclude them from this work.
1 Like
Wow, Clinton is so awe inspiring against an obvious nutjob that she’s polling ahead by a SINGLE POINT.
Now ask yourself, are Trump supporters all racist morons who want black people to shut up and women to get back into kitchens or the bedroom (and there are definitely a bunch of those freaks) or is there some other reason why he polls so closely to her for so many Americans? If only we could figure it out…
3 Likes
I’ve heard this before, and I looked into it, because, if true, it would be enough to drive me to vote for Johnson instead of Stein. It turns out that it’s complete bullshit, so maybe try doing a google search before repeating lies next time.
We need to elect Scott Adams instead.
I didn’t think it did, since it wasn’t what I said, but no point in arguing.
That was a non-comprehensive list. Were even half that list actually realized by Clinton and you said that wasn’t “true change” I’d be really confused, or assume you’re definition of “true” was far out of sync with mine.
I don’t think you understand what killing golden parachutes for lobbyists means, since it has nothing to do with superdelegates. I understand we’re supposed to be extra hostile to superdelegates, but I have a hard time really focusing my ire there. The last time superdelegates have actually come into play in a Dem. primary to choose a candidate when there weren’t enough pledged delegates to seal it was 1984. They had no effect on the 2016 outcome. They are a crappy legacy, and I’d like to see them go, but I have no reason to believe getting rid of them is the panacea you imagine, and they certainly aren’t the tool by which the DNC gets centrist candidates elected, since they haven’t made a change in electoral outcomes in > 30 years.
Haven’t a clue, it came off of the interwebs.
Complete falsehood, the usual anti-Green propaganda.
Thanks for showing where you stand. I notice you got a couple likes on your lie, too!
This seems like a strange objection when you claim she can’t possibly win.
Most Americans are against GMOs. (I’m not, but that’s immaterial). Do you really want the leaders of a supposed Republic to purposely oppose the wishes of the populace? Is this even a real issue, when it basically affects nothing but some giant corporations? We have the ability to feed every human being on Earth without GMOs.
Great, more fake anti-vaxxer disinformation. Look, people who say vaccines are unsafe are mostly Democrats and Independents. Look it up, it’s true, don’t take my word for it. There are right wingers who think the state shouldn’t be allowed to inject stuff into children without permission, but that’s actually a separate issue, and again nothing to do with Greens.
That strategy absolutely ensures that change can never happen. If they don’t have to do what I want them to do to get my vote, but only be marginally better than Satan incarnate, why would any product of a political machine ever want to dismantle the machine? You can’t get on the ballot without the machine, and the machine determines policy based purely on financial inputs.
Feelings of righteousness aren’t high on my lists of objectives. I’d prefer to stand in the rubble than have my children lie under it.
But seriously; you went with the fear argument right out of the gate? That’s not going to work forever, people get tired of being told to be afraid all the time.
6 Likes
Sure, he’s a celebrity with huge charisma whose blustery messages are so vague that people can read anything they want into them. They just had 8 years of stagnation, thanks to a Congress whose policy was literally to do nothing and block everything Obama put forth. They want something new, and a guy with 100% name recognition who says he’s going to “make America great” sure sounds good to people who don’t trust career politicians and want a sea change.
4 Likes
No, not at all. She’s not an anti-vaxxer in the normal sense of the word, in that she supports vaccinations. But her opinion is that vaccines can’t be trusted due to Monsanto’s influence on the FDA. She supports a complete moratorium on GMOs, and feels that because Monsanto peddles in GMO science, their lobbying of the FDA means that vaccines should be reviewed anew before being used.
1 Like
If you live in a swing state, vote Clinton. (Source: A Green party member who voted for Nader in the 2000 general. Yes, I’ve since repented.)
6 Likes
