I'm sick of this concern trolling from people who have no stake whatsoever in the Democratic nominating process. You won't find me sitting around telling Republican voters how they should choose their candidate.
Considering how insane the 2016 Republican primary was, maybe you should! If there was ever an argument for some kind of ranked-choice voting system to replace our stupid plurality-wins system, that was it.
Cripes: can we imagine for a second if Trump's pussy-grabbing advocacy tape became public during the primary?? I tell you, that tape being saved for a would-be 'October surprise' is actually the biggest screw-up of the entire 2016 election.
As for Bernie: please everyone, spare me the crocodile tears. He ran a quixotic campaign that was never going to win. And wonder of wonders, the establishment has a bias toward establishment candidates! Who aren't avowed socialists! Imagine!
Bernie isn't an avowed socialist. Don't buy Trump's bullcrap. Democratic socialist != to socialist. Democratic socialist like in Sweden, France, Denmark, etc not rat-eating venezuela.
Bernie might have won, as you see people on both sides of the aisle like him. People that instead voted for Trump over Hillary. And plenty of regular Democrats liked him too. As for being a Democrat, today's Democrats are basically republicans from the 1980s. Corporatists. Centrists. Right wing leaning. so yeah Bernie is on the left of Democrats. So what. He caucuses with the Democrats.
I'm sick of this concern trolling from people who have no stake whatsoever in the Democratic nominating process. ...
The only two choices that are "acceptable" to non-Democrats seem to be Bernie Sanders, who ISN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT, yet is given the opportunity to run as one anyway, and Tulsi frickin' Gabbard, who has about as much support as your neighbor's parakeet, and as much of a chance of winning...with the never-ending threat of "you'll force me to vote for Trump again". Enough already.
I don't know why you are upset about this. Gabbard and Bernie have support on all sides of the aisle. Maybe we could use some votes that voted red last time. What's wrong with them to Democrats? I'd say give Gabbard a chance. She's Hawaiian. HAWAIIAN. They have a pretty great culture over there. Haha And she's anti-war and a veteran. She's not bad really, what's wrong with her besides .. what? Lack of support from mainstream media? So what.
What's wrong with Bernie? He's got massive grassroots support. He had small donations from all 50 states within one hour of his announcement. What's wrong with universal healthcare? What's wrong with addressing economic inequality and climate change.
With Trump there's a always a tweet of something that directly contradicts his position today (ie obama unconstitutional power grab order on immigration then Trump does that exact thing.)
With Bernie it's like the opposite. Going back 30 years there's a quote of him being on the right side of whatever mistake we made - like being against the Iraq war and not de-regulating banks before the crash etc.
Anyway, centrist dems are always saying we need to support the candidate. Y'all better be prepared to fall in line the same way Hillary supporters demanded Bernie supporters fall in line once Bernie is the nominee. Will they do that?? Haha doubt.
Hah! The Methuselah election; Bernie vs Trump! That's exactly what the ancient white dudes in power want in an election. Do you think I'm wrong? Youth (anybody not a baby-boomer) = scary & unpredictable. God forbid...
As far as the assumption of @jjstraka34 that conservatives have a short-list of acceptable Democrat candidates? It's true as far as I'm concerned. My list is Beto right now for Democrats I'd vote for. I haven't voted for any Democrat for President ever but I'd likely vote for him over Trump. I'd also very likely vote Libertarian if anyone except Warren or Hillary ran against Trump...
Bernie isn't an avowed socialist. Don't buy Trump's bullcrap. Democratic socialist != to socialist. Democratic socialist like in Sweden, France, Denmark, etc not rat-eating venezuela.
Bernie might have won, as you see people on both sides of the aisle like him. People that instead voted for Trump over Hillary. And plenty of regular Democrats liked him too. As for being a Democrat, today's Democrats are basically republicans from the 1980s. Corporatists. Centrists. Right wing leaning. so yeah Bernie is on the left of Democrats. So what. He caucuses with the Democrats.
This is generally crap. In the same sentence, you feel compelled to defend Sanders as not being a true socialist (which is correct. He isnt), but decide to paint is a broad brush and lump all democrats into some 1980's pot of centrism.
I don't know why you are upset about this. Gabbard and Bernie have support on all sides of the aisle. Maybe we could use some votes that voted red last time. What's wrong with them to Democrats? I'd say give Gabbard a chance. She's Hawaiian. HAWAIIAN. They have a pretty great culture over there. Haha And she's anti-war and a veteran. She's not bad really, what's wrong with her besides .. what? Lack of support from mainstream media? So what.
Tulsi's father used to run an organization that was vehemently opposed to gay marriage. She herself espoused this view for a long time. She's anti-war, but has toe'd a weird line of being pro-Assad (or perhaps, not Anti-Assad). To violate Godwin's law, you can be Anti-war and still think Hitler had to go. She doesnt.
What's wrong with Bernie? He's got massive grassroots support. He had small donations from all 50 states within one hour of his announcement. What's wrong with universal healthcare? What's wrong with addressing economic inequality and climate change.
He has major issues on race-relations. The whole "colorblind" attitude, which is a neural way avoid having a hard conversation
Anyway, centrist dems are always saying we need to support the candidate. Y'all better be prepared to fall in line the same way Hillary supporters demanded Bernie supporters fall in line once Bernie is the nominee. Will they do that?? Haha doubt.
Most Dem voters arent centrist.
95% will (and would have) supported Burnie. The 5 that wouldnt are those scared of the word Socialism and those who protest his "I'm leaving and taking my ball with me" mentality.
Dems mainstream voters are centrists because the overton window has skewed politics in the US to the right. Mainstream Democrats would be right wing in other countries such as Canada.
Once Bernie wins the nomination let's see how well the party pushes unity or if they want to take their ball and go home.
I'd be good with a Bernie/Beto or Bernie/Warren ticket.
Gabbard is anti-interventionist. . That doesn't make her pro-assad. It means we shouldn't be spending American lives and money messing around in Syria. Besides why mess in Syria, or Venezuela or places like that? It often leads to a power vacuum that gets you something worse. Maduro and Assad are bad guys, so is Putin so is MBS in Saudi. We can't be Team America:World Police. We have a history of fucking things up in South America. Enough already.
Dems mainstream voters are centrists because the overton window has skewed politics in the US to the right. Mainstream Democrats would be right wing in other countries such as Canada.
.
First - we are of course taking about US politics when talking about he US democratic primaries. It's meaningless in that context to call democrats "centrist" if it is only in comparison with other parts of the world.
Second - If you insist on doing so, Sanders himself would be center left (at best) on economy, centrist with respect to social issues and hard right when it comes to gun control.
... all of which is meaningless because his position with respect to Macron is irrelevant.
In the context of US politics, Democrats occupy a range starting st the center and getting significantly progressive. The median has moved quite a bit to the left in the last 2 years, and was moving left before that (I think something like over 50% of Democrats identify as somewhat or more progressive).
The potential Dem voters in the states besides the ones already guaranteed to vote Democratic are centrist. The correct strategy would be to appeal to these people by not going all in on immigration, hate whitey race based politics, and looking like an out of touch elitist. Anyone who is going to spend their time exalting the "bravery" of journalists and our rotten institutions or conspiracy theorizing about the Russian shadow government is not going to have much success there.
You know who would be good at reaching moderate and slightly conservative voters who may vote for the left? Tulsi! But I digress.
Gabbard is anti-interventionist. . That doesn't make her pro-assad. It means we shouldn't be spending American lives and money messing around in Syria. Besides why mess in Syria, or Venezuela or places like that? It often leads to a power vacuum that gets you something worse. Maduro and Assad are bad guys, so is Putin so is MBS in Saudi. We can't be Team America:World Police. We have a history of fucking things up in South America. Enough already.
I agree entirely with her non-interventionist stance. I can't recall any good that has come from American military power since WW2. Meanwhile our global dominance gets smaller and smaller in the face of rising superpowers. It's time to start keeping the military at home and resolving things through diplomacy and negotiation, if they can be solved at all. Invest at home.
Bernie has the most grassroots support as evidenced by his funding being much higher than all his other contenders. He has the most name recognition of the candidates. He energizes his base. I think he has a significant chance this year if he plays his cards right.
The potential Dem voters in the states besides the ones already guaranteed to vote Democratic are centrist. The correct strategy would be to appeal to these people by not going all in on immigration, hate whitey race based politics, and looking like an out of touch elitist. Anyone who is going to spend their time exalting the "bravery" of journalists and our rotten institutions or conspiracy theorizing about the Russian shadow government is not going to have much success there.
You know who would be good at reaching moderate and slightly conservative voters who may vote for the left? Tulsi! But I digress. .
This speaks to a point made earlier - why suddenly do Democrats have to run to the center to court republicans in order to be elected? Everyone has spent the last two years watching Trump run further and further to the right. He got elected by being the most natavist any president has been since the 1920s.
I give that strategy a resounding "meh". It's almost a certainty that any Democrat who wins the primary will be a step or two to the left of Obama. Maybe it's 3 steps if it's Bernie or only 1 step if it's Biden.
Its also not lost on me that whomever the Democrats put forward after the primary will probably be the odds on favorite to win the White House, so of course conservatives would *love* that person to be a centrist...
The potential Dem voters in the states besides the ones already guaranteed to vote Democratic are centrist. The correct strategy would be to appeal to these people by not going all in on immigration, hate whitey race based politics, and looking like an out of touch elitist. Anyone who is going to spend their time exalting the "bravery" of journalists and our rotten institutions or conspiracy theorizing about the Russian shadow government is not going to have much success there.
You know who would be good at reaching moderate and slightly conservative voters who may vote for the left? Tulsi! But I digress. .
This speaks to a point made earlier - why suddenly do Democrats have to run to the center to court republicans in order to be elected? Everyone has spent the last two years watching Trump run further and further to the right. He got elected by being the most natavist any president has been since the 1920s.
I give that strategy a resounding "meh". It's almost a certainty that any Democrat who wins the primary will be a step or two to the left of Obama. Maybe it's 3 steps if it's Bernie or only 1 step if it's Biden.
Its also not lost on me that whomever the Democrats put forward after the primary will probably be the odds on favorite to win the White House, so of course conservatives would *love* that person to be a centrist...
She was. She lost, (so rigged - amirite?). I'd rather risk losing and running the candidate I actually want than, say, running Kasich as a Democrat.
Edit - as a side note, this is exactly why I'm fine with Bernie running as a Democrat and being supported. People who genuinely like him deserve a chance to support and help him get elected. I just hope that process doesn't damage the eventual candidate if it's not him.
I'd rather risk losing and running the candidate I actually want than, say, running Kasich as a Democrat.
I'd rather not have to vote for Trump again, but I will if the Dems pick wrong. We only get two choices with our idiotic system so we should be wiser in whom we back. But we won't because "screw everybody but me and what I want"! Everybody wants it all immediately with no in-between. Back and forth we go every four or eight years...
Its also not lost on me that whomever the Democrats put forward after the primary will probably be the odds on favorite to win the White House...
And that's why 50 gajillion Dems are running.
It's not every election cycle where no matter who wins the primary your chances of beating the incumbent in the general are this good.
Trump has appealed only to his most radical fringe voters and alienated and attacked literally everyone else. His personality, lying, and 'controversial' (awful) policies have been him shooting himself in the foot.
Much less all the criminals that have surrounded him and him administration.
Criminals and corruption are usually a turn off to voters.
The latest criminal being the guy Trump appointed Secretary of Labor (Acosta) who a judge ruled broke the law when he as a federal prosecutor gave a sweetheart deal to Jeffrey Epstein,who is a buddy of Trump and also a serial pedophile who threw underage orgies that Trump may have attended.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life." - Donald Trump
I'd rather not have to vote for Trump again, but I will if the Dems pick wrong. We only get two choices with our idiotic system so we should be wiser in whom we back. But we won't because "screw everybody but me and what I want"! Everybody wants it all immediately with no in-between. Back and forth we go every four or eight years...
Consider - the last Republican president who moved to the center after or during his campaign was H.W Bush.
The last Democrat who *hasnt* moved to the center was... maybe Jimmy Carter?
The "back and forth" mentality of the White House has seemed to only significantly benefit conservatives over the last generation or two
I'd rather risk losing and running the candidate I actually want than, say, running Kasich as a Democrat.
I'd rather not have to vote for Trump again, but I will if the Dems pick wrong. We only get two choices with our idiotic system so we should be wiser in whom we back. But we won't because "screw everybody but me and what I want"! Everybody wants it all immediately with no in-between. Back and forth we go every four or eight years...
At not point did you EVER "have" to vote for Trump. Your vote is not the Dems fault, its not Hialry's fault. You shoulder the responsibility of your vote alone. If you choose to vote for the guy responsible for kidnapping children and putting them into concentratiob camps, that's ENTIRELY on you.
@ThacoBell: I agree with one sentence in that post, but the rest I simply cannot.
Voting is not an issue of "fault," and voting for a given candidate does not mean you endorse all of that candidate's policies or actions. To date, @Balrog99 has never defended the child separation policy, and has actually criticized Trump on a number of issues--not that he would be a valid target of criticism if he had not.
In the past, I've complained about voting for Trump simply to avoid another President Clinton, and I myself have said, in effect, "It's not the Democrats who put Trump in power by supporting Clinton; it's the people who actually voted for Trump." And I still stand by that--I disagree with the notion that the nomination of Clinton forced anyone to vote for Trump.
But there's a difference between saying "Your vote is your own decision" and "Your vote makes you to blame for your candidate's actions." Votes like @Balrog99's put Trump in power, but that doesn't amount to endorsement of any given policy.
If you want to blame someone for the family separation policy, I think the administration shoulders the blame for that; not the voters.
I would definitely place blame on GOP leaders for tolerating Trump policies like the family separations. They're in a very powerful position to stop him, and they've refused to do so even when confronted with the problem directly. Two years in, all we've had are some quiet, half-hearted complaints from GOP leaders instead of concrete action.
@ThacoBell: I agree with one sentence in that post, but the rest I simply cannot.
Voting is not an issue of "fault," and voting for a given candidate does not mean you endorse all of that candidate's policies or actions. To date, @Balrog99 has never defended the child separation policy, and has actually criticized Trump on a number of issues--not that he would be a valid target of criticism if he had not.
In the past, I've complained about voting for Trump simply to avoid another President Clinton, and I myself have said, in effect, "It's not the Democrats who put Trump in power by supporting Clinton; it's the people who actually voted for Trump." And I still stand by that--I disagree with the notion that the nomination of Clinton forced anyone to vote for Trump.
But there's a difference between saying "Your vote is your own decision" and "Your vote makes you to blame for your candidate's actions." Votes like @Balrog99's put Trump in power, but that doesn't amount to endorsement of any given policy.
If you want to blame someone for the family separation policy, I think the administration shoulders the blame for that; not the voters.
I think you and @ThacoBell are saying two separate things, and I agree with you both.
I agree with you that a voter is not specifically or directly (or really, justifiably indirectly) responsible for the specific actions of an administration they voted for.
However, to parse @ThacoBell 's statement specifically:
At not point did you EVER "have" to vote for Trump. Your vote is not the Dems fault, its not Hialry's fault. You shoulder the responsibility of your vote alone. If you choose to vote for the guy responsible for kidnapping children and putting them into concentratiob camps, that's ENTIRELY on you.
He is right that no one "has" to vote for Trump (or anyone, for that matter). Voting for anyone is never explicitly the fault of the opposition (be that a party, or a person). I also agree that we each shoulder the responsibility of having voted for whomever we actually voted for. This is tautological - but if I voted for candidate A, and candidate A wins... I bear some (small) amount of direct responsibility for that person's election.
Lastly - if a candidate does something you disagree with (or which you agree with), while you arent responsible for those direct actions... you still share in the responsibility of electing that person.
Maybe @ThacoBell can clarify what he meant exactly, but I read his comment to mean that @Balrog99 shoulders his responsibility (Depending on how you look at this, it could be good or bad) for voting for Trump. If he votes for Trump again, he shoulders that responsibility even knowing that Trump played an instrumental role in the kidnapping of children of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the border. It doesnt mean @Balrog99 is either complicit, at fault, or defends the separation of children from their parents.
But it does mean that he was willing to vote for someone who has done that.
(For the record - I want to be careful and make sure you know I'm not trying to judge you in all of this @Balrog99. I dont think you'd care if I was judging you to be honest haha, but I want you to know I'm not labeling or trying to throw anything your way in saying all of the above. We could easily replace Trump with Obama and myself with shouldering responsibility for some the crappy spy-stuff that went on during the Obama administration).
(For the record - I want to be careful and make sure you know I'm not trying to judge you in all of this @Balrog99. I dont think you'd care if I was judging you to be honest haha, but I want you to know I'm not labeling or trying to throw anything your way in saying all of the above. We could easily replace Trump with Obama and myself with shouldering responsibility for some the crappy spy-stuff that went on during the Obama administration).
Or, like, the extrajudicial murder by drone of kids.
But I don't assume every Obama voter likes extrajudicial murder by drone of kids or had that as a reason in mind when voting Obama.
My main point is that we don't have a good system for choosing a president when we only have a two party system. There is no way that only one of two parties can possibly represent anybody in totality. So in reality we're not voting for a person at all. We're voting for a philosophy.
That makes it totally easy to justify voting for Trump. I didn't really vote FOR Trump, I voted conservative, or I voted against Clinton because she's liberal and I'm not. What's lacking is a party (or even better, more than one) in the center. Let the far-left and the far-right languish on the fringes like they should be!
Or, like, the extrajudicial murder by drone of kids.
But I don't assume every Obama voter likes extrajudicial murder by drone of kids or had that as a reason in mind when voting Obama.
Sure. Of course the two examples arent an apples to apples comparison (I'm not aware that Obama ever knew or specifically authorized a military strike he knew would kill children. Trump, OTOH, appears to have been well briefed on the implication of his family separation policy).
That makes it totally easy to justify voting for Trump. I didn't really vote FOR Trump, I voted conservative, or I voted against Clinton because she's liberal and I'm not. What's lacking is a party (or even better, more than one) in the center. Let the far-left and the far-right languish on the fringes like they should be!
Respectfully, I disagree. You may have voted for Trump because he was conservative... but you still voted for Trump and not the Republican Party. We do not elect parties, we elect people. Trump could switch parties tomorrow (or well, he could try) - it wouldnt technically discredit him from the office.
You do own your vote. It doesnt matter if the other candidate is the literal devil. You voted for whomever you voted for.
Or, like, the extrajudicial murder by drone of kids.
But I don't assume every Obama voter likes extrajudicial murder by drone of kids or had that as a reason in mind when voting Obama.
Sure. Of course the two examples arent an apples to apples comparison (I'm not aware that Obama ever knew or specifically authorized a military strike he knew would kill children. Trump, OTOH, appears to have been well briefed on the implication of his family separation policy).
That makes it totally easy to justify voting for Trump. I didn't really vote FOR Trump, I voted conservative, or I voted against Clinton because she's liberal and I'm not. What's lacking is a party (or even better, more than one) in the center. Let the far-left and the far-right languish on the fringes like they should be!
Respectfully, I disagree. You may have voted for Trump because he was conservative... but you still voted for Trump and not the Republican Party. We do not elect parties, we elect people. Trump could switch parties tomorrow (or well, he could try) - it wouldnt technically discredit him from the office.
You do own your vote. It doesnt matter if the other candidate is the literal devil. You voted for whomever you voted for.
Respectfully, you're wrong. I vote for a philosophy on the Federal level. I haven't voted FOR any president since GHW Bush and then only because I was young and stupid. Do you believe I liked 'W', Dole, McCain, Romney or Trump? I did not. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought Bush Sr. ran a terrible campaign. Dole was a sourpuss who only got the nomination because it was his 'turn', which infuriated me. W got the nod because of his daddy. McCain and Romney were more old, white guys with suits that I really was getting sick of and Trump is a douchebag. Call me whatever you want, but there wasn't a better alternative philosophically to me than any of them. I don't vote party lines at the State or Local levels (which I've stated many times on this forum) but for the Senate and President I've voted nearly every time for the Republican (Perot the only exception). I did vote for John Dingell every time except his last campaign so even for US congress I don't tow the party line. I also voted for Granholm both times she ran for governor of Michigan. I think I'm the kind of voter that actually CAN be swayed. Believe it or not...
Edit: AND I've voted in every single election since I was able to vote in 1986.
I'd rather risk losing and running the candidate I actually want than, say, running Kasich as a Democrat.
I'd rather not have to vote for Trump again, but I will if the Dems pick wrong. We only get two choices with our idiotic system so we should be wiser in whom we back. But we won't because "screw everybody but me and what I want"! Everybody wants it all immediately with no in-between. Back and forth we go every four or eight years...
At not point did you EVER "have" to vote for Trump. Your vote is not the Dems fault, its not Hialry's fault. You shoulder the responsibility of your vote alone. If you choose to vote for the guy responsible for kidnapping children and putting them into concentratiob camps, that's ENTIRELY on you.
It's not 'entirely' on me. I have one vote and even on the local level my one vote hasn't changed one thing.
Respectfully, you're wrong. I vote for a philosophy on the Federal level. I haven't voted FOR any president since GHW Bush and then only because I was young and stupid. Do you believe I liked 'W', Dole, McCain, Romney or Trump? I did not. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought Bush Sr. ran a terrible campaign. Dole was a sourpuss who only got the nomination because it was his 'turn', which infuriated me. W got the nod because of his daddy. McCain and Romney were more old, white guys with suits that I really was getting sick of and Trump is a douchebag. Call me whatever you want, but there wasn't a better alternative philosophically to me than any of them. I don't vote party lines at the State or Local levels (which I've stated many times on this forum) but for the Senate and President I've voted nearly every time for the Republican (Perot the only exception). I did vote for John Dingell every time except his last campaign so even for US congress I don't tow the party line. I also voted for Granholm both times she ran for governor of Michigan. I think I'm the kind of voter that actually CAN be swayed. Believe it or not...
Edit: AND I've voted in every single election since I was able to vote in 1986.
Out of curiosity, has that "philosophy" been someone who was alive in each instance of you voting for it? I suspect so. Twist the idea around all you want, when you make a choice, you're making a choice. Voting is non compulsory in the USA. No one compels you to vote a particular way. Each time you vote for a person (and I dont care what your reason is) - you've made a conscious choice to vote for that person. A person bears the responsibility of their choices.
I think @semiticgod and @Balrog99 are misunderstanding my point. When I say that you would be wholly responsible for voting for a man who did something reprehensible, the emphasis is on the VOTING aspect. No one takes any responsibility for who you choose to vote for. You are the only person responsible for your vote. NOT the person wholly responsible for the bad legislation said person you voted for enacted. A lot of peple were taken in by Trump, and not even his most volatile detractors predicted how bad things would go.
Respectfully, you're wrong. I vote for a philosophy on the Federal level. I haven't voted FOR any president since GHW Bush and then only because I was young and stupid. Do you believe I liked 'W', Dole, McCain, Romney or Trump? I did not. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought Bush Sr. ran a terrible campaign. Dole was a sourpuss who only got the nomination because it was his 'turn', which infuriated me. W got the nod because of his daddy. McCain and Romney were more old, white guys with suits that I really was getting sick of and Trump is a douchebag. Call me whatever you want, but there wasn't a better alternative philosophically to me than any of them. I don't vote party lines at the State or Local levels (which I've stated many times on this forum) but for the Senate and President I've voted nearly every time for the Republican (Perot the only exception). I did vote for John Dingell every time except his last campaign so even for US congress I don't tow the party line. I also voted for Granholm both times she ran for governor of Michigan. I think I'm the kind of voter that actually CAN be swayed. Believe it or not...
Edit: AND I've voted in every single election since I was able to vote in 1986.
Out of curiosity, has that "philosophy" been someone who was alive in each instance of you voting for it? I suspect so. Twist the idea around all you want, when you make a choice, you're making a choice. Voting is non compulsory in the USA. No one compels you to vote a particular way. Each time you vote for a person (and I dont care what your reason is) - you've made a conscious choice to vote for that person. A person bears the responsibility of their choices.
It's not 'entirely' on me. I have one vote and even on the local level my one vote hasn't changed one thing.
The choice to vote for trump is entirely on you. His election, is not.
I don't regret my vote even now. I didn't vote for Donald Trump the person. I think we're coming from entirely different perspectives and that's fine. The odd thing is that I kind of think we're both right. You're right about me on the micro level, but I believe I'm right on the macro level. I don't believe I 'bear the responsiblity' of my vote because my view isn't centered on the here and now and yours is. A Clinton presidentship was not something I was willing to vote for. Period...
I think @semiticgod and @Balrog99 are misunderstanding my point. When I say that you would be wholly responsible for voting for a man who did something reprehensible, the emphasis is on the VOTING aspect. No one takes any responsibility for who you choose to vote for. You are the only person responsible for your vote. NOT the person wholly responsible for the bad legislation said person you voted for enacted. A lot of peple were taken in by Trump, and not even his most volatile detractors predicted how bad things would go.
The really sad fact is that I knew exactly what I was voting for, an asshole, and I did it anyway. I'm not ashamed to own it. I believed my dad when he told me that Trump would 'surround himself with the best advisors', but I was not 'taken in' in any way, shape or form.
Looks like I've lost another sparring partner in the forums with @LadyRhian being banned now. Survival of the fittest on this forum apparently. I know you can't comment @semiticgod but I just wanted to say that despite our differences politically I did enjoy her presence and will miss her humor and cat posts...
The video circulating tonight of Dianne Feinstein's pretty tone-deaf response to a group of young people talking to her about the Green New Deal highlights an exact point I've been making for some time, and I don't care if it sounds ageist. People who are over the age of 80 have no business staying in political positions. For one thing, when people age, your abilities and mental acuity declines. It's just what happens to humans. Some do it far more graciously than others, but the simple fact is, no one gets out of here alive. You get set in your ways. You get testy with anyone telling you to try something new, and you have these type of "get off my lawn" moments. But, more to the point, I don't want people who aren't going to be around for (in all likelihood) even 10 more years making decisions that are going to affect others for 40 or 50. Because they have no incentive to do so. No matter how many grandchildren they have, they aren't personally going to be around to reap the cost or benefit of what happens.
But more to the point, there is absolutely NO shame in someone stepping down and not holding onto a position until literally their last breath. What point was served by Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond staying in office when they were clearly dying?? Wouldn't there even be some nobility in stepping down and letting someone who can do the job take your place?? This is also a BIG reason so many small businesses eventually go under. Not because the business is failing, but because they have absolutely no succession plan. If Tommy doesn't want to inherit the woodworking business, his father Gregory is going to be too invested in his own importance and ego to actually find someone who will. In this society, even if you of course genuinely love your kids and grandkids, there is no macro-level thinking about a future you aren't going to be a part of. And it's short-sighted and the height of selfishness.
The video circulating tonight of Dianne Feinstein's pretty tone-deaf response to a group of young people talking to her about the Green New Deal highlights an exact point I've been making for some time, and I don't care if it sounds ageist. People who are over the age of 80 have no business staying in political positions. For one thing, when people age, your abilities and mental acuity declines. It's just what happens to humans. Some do it far more graciously than others, but the simple fact is, no one gets out of here alive. You get set in your ways. You get testy with anyone telling you to try something new, and you have these type of "get off my lawn" moments. But, more to the point, I don't want people who aren't going to be around for (in all likelihood) even 10 more years making decisions that are going to affect others for 40 or 50. Because they have no incentive to do so. No matter how many grandchildren they have, they aren't personally going to be around to reap the cost or benefit of what happens.
But more to the point, there is absolutely NO shame in someone stepping down and not holding onto a position until literally their last breath. What point was served by Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond staying in office when they were clearly dying?? Wouldn't there even be some nobility in stepping down and letting someone who can do the job take your place?? This is also a BIG reason so many small businesses eventually go under. Not because the business is failing, but because they have absolutely no succession plan. If Tommy doesn't want to inherit the woodworking business, his father Gregory is going to be too invested in his own importance and ego to actually find someone who will. In this society, even if you of course genuinely love your kids and grandkids, there is no macro-level thinking about a future you aren't going to be a part of. And it's short-sighted and the height of selfishness.
You're right of course, but it's only human to believe you're irreplaceable. Humility is not something that lends itself to politics unfortunately.
Edit: This is also a good reason to set some kind of term limit or even, gasp, age limit to Supreme Court justices. 30 years and/or 80 years old sounds pretty reasonable to me as a hard limit that isn't super-harsh. Thoughts?
In watching some other parts of the video that were clearly edited out of the original clip, Feinstein comes across far better, and I suppose there IS an argument to be made that kids shouldn't just yell things at adults as if they are equals (because there is merit to that line of thinking, and it's also kind of true). Frankly, it seems to me that the original video may have been put out by a far left-wing group. In fact, I anticipate some on the right are going to applaud Feinstein for bringing them "back to reality" (which is also kind of true). My point about age still stands, and Feinstein had a couple really bad moments in the video (the worst being that she said she just won an election by a million votes and telling one of the kids that she didn't vote for her because she couldn't have, not being old enough, and those are the responses I chalk up to being stubborn), but there is also plenty of truth to what she is talking about. Feinstein is telling the kids and their teacher what is POSSIBLE given the current political climate, which is also something that they (understandably) don't comprehend. Feinstein is trying to convey to them that she is working within the realities of how things actually are, not how they wish it to be. She just doesn't do it very well.
That being said, the original video making the rounds on social media was not only edited, but chopped off the vast bulk of the discussion entirely. She still isn't a great messenger, but the original video is completely dishonest about the entirety of the exchange. It was put together by a climate change advocacy group called the Sunrise Movement, and if this is the kind of tactic they find acceptable, I am just going to have to assume in the future that they are the left-wing version of Project Veritas, except for the fact that they don't appear to have concocted the entire thing out of thin air. But they absolutely selectively choose which parts to show of a much larger conversation.
In watching some other parts of the video that were clearly edited out of the original clip, Feinstein comes across far better, and I suppose there IS an argument to be made that kids shouldn't just yell things at adults as if they are equals (because there is merit to that line of thinking, and it's also kind of true). Frankly, it seems to me that the original video may have been put out by a far left-wing group. In fact, I anticipate some on the right are going to applaud Feinstein for bringing them "back to reality" (which is also kind of true). My point about age still stands, and Feinstein had a couple really bad moments in the video (the worst being that she said she just won an election by a million votes and telling one of the kids that she didn't vote for her because she couldn't have, not being old enough, and those are the responses I chalk up to being stubborn), but there is also plenty of truth to what she is talking about. Feinstein is telling the kids and their teacher what is POSSIBLE given the current political climate, which is also something that they (understandably) don't comprehend. Feinstein is trying to convey to them that she is working within the realities of how things actually are, not how they wish it to be. She just doesn't do it very well.
That being said, the original video making the rounds on social media was not only edited, but chopped off the vast bulk of the discussion entirely. She still isn't a great messenger, but the original video is completely dishonest about the entirety of the exchange, and my guess is it was put out by the same group who tried to primary her last year.
I agree with you again (no I'm not on pain medication!). I actually like Feinstein more after reading that article. Realpolitik rather than emotion and wishful thinking is right up my alley...
Comments
Hah! The Methuselah election; Bernie vs Trump! That's exactly what the ancient white dudes in power want in an election. Do you think I'm wrong? Youth (anybody not a baby-boomer) = scary & unpredictable. God forbid...
As far as the assumption of @jjstraka34 that conservatives have a short-list of acceptable Democrat candidates? It's true as far as I'm concerned. My list is Beto right now for Democrats I'd vote for. I haven't voted for any Democrat for President ever but I'd likely vote for him over Trump. I'd also very likely vote Libertarian if anyone except Warren or Hillary ran against Trump...
This is generally crap. In the same sentence, you feel compelled to defend Sanders as not being a true socialist (which is correct. He isnt), but decide to paint is a broad brush and lump all democrats into some 1980's pot of centrism.
Stop. It isnt true.
Tulsi's father used to run an organization that was vehemently opposed to gay marriage. She herself espoused this view for a long time. She's anti-war, but has toe'd a weird line of being pro-Assad (or perhaps, not Anti-Assad). To violate Godwin's law, you can be Anti-war and still think Hitler had to go. She doesnt.
He has major issues on race-relations. The whole "colorblind" attitude, which is a neural way avoid having a hard conversation
Most Dem voters arent centrist.
95% will (and would have) supported Burnie. The 5 that wouldnt are those scared of the word Socialism and those who protest his "I'm leaving and taking my ball with me" mentality.
Once Bernie wins the nomination let's see how well the party pushes unity or if they want to take their ball and go home.
I'd be good with a Bernie/Beto or Bernie/Warren ticket.
Gabbard is anti-interventionist. . That doesn't make her pro-assad. It means we shouldn't be spending American lives and money messing around in Syria. Besides why mess in Syria, or Venezuela or places like that? It often leads to a power vacuum that gets you something worse. Maduro and Assad are bad guys, so is Putin so is MBS in Saudi. We can't be Team America:World Police. We have a history of fucking things up in South America. Enough already.
First - we are of course taking about US politics when talking about he US democratic primaries. It's meaningless in that context to call democrats "centrist" if it is only in comparison with other parts of the world.
Second - If you insist on doing so, Sanders himself would be center left (at best) on economy, centrist with respect to social issues and hard right when it comes to gun control.
... all of which is meaningless because his position with respect to Macron is irrelevant.
In the context of US politics, Democrats occupy a range starting st the center and getting significantly progressive. The median has moved quite a bit to the left in the last 2 years, and was moving left before that (I think something like over 50% of Democrats identify as somewhat or more progressive).
You know who would be good at reaching moderate and slightly conservative voters who may vote for the left? Tulsi! But I digress.
I agree entirely with her non-interventionist stance. I can't recall any good that has come from American military power since WW2. Meanwhile our global dominance gets smaller and smaller in the face of rising superpowers. It's time to start keeping the military at home and resolving things through diplomacy and negotiation, if they can be solved at all. Invest at home.
This speaks to a point made earlier - why suddenly do Democrats have to run to the center to court republicans in order to be elected? Everyone has spent the last two years watching Trump run further and further to the right. He got elected by being the most natavist any president has been since the 1920s.
I give that strategy a resounding "meh". It's almost a certainty that any Democrat who wins the primary will be a step or two to the left of Obama. Maybe it's 3 steps if it's Bernie or only 1 step if it's Biden.
Its also not lost on me that whomever the Democrats put forward after the primary will probably be the odds on favorite to win the White House, so of course conservatives would *love* that person to be a centrist...
Hillary Clinton was an 'odds-on' favorite...
She was. She lost, (so rigged - amirite?). I'd rather risk losing and running the candidate I actually want than, say, running Kasich as a Democrat.
Edit - as a side note, this is exactly why I'm fine with Bernie running as a Democrat and being supported. People who genuinely like him deserve a chance to support and help him get elected. I just hope that process doesn't damage the eventual candidate if it's not him.
I'd rather not have to vote for Trump again, but I will if the Dems pick wrong. We only get two choices with our idiotic system so we should be wiser in whom we back. But we won't because "screw everybody but me and what I want"! Everybody wants it all immediately with no in-between. Back and forth we go every four or eight years...
And that's why 50 gajillion Dems are running.
It's not every election cycle where no matter who wins the primary your chances of beating the incumbent in the general are this good.
Trump has appealed only to his most radical fringe voters and alienated and attacked literally everyone else. His personality, lying, and 'controversial' (awful) policies have been him shooting himself in the foot.
Much less all the criminals that have surrounded him and him administration.
Criminals and corruption are usually a turn off to voters.
The latest criminal being the guy Trump appointed Secretary of Labor (Acosta) who a judge ruled broke the law when he as a federal prosecutor gave a sweetheart deal to Jeffrey Epstein,who is a buddy of Trump and also a serial pedophile who threw underage orgies that Trump may have attended.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life." - Donald Trump
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/
Consider - the last Republican president who moved to the center after or during his campaign was H.W Bush.
The last Democrat who *hasnt* moved to the center was... maybe Jimmy Carter?
The "back and forth" mentality of the White House has seemed to only significantly benefit conservatives over the last generation or two
At not point did you EVER "have" to vote for Trump. Your vote is not the Dems fault, its not Hialry's fault. You shoulder the responsibility of your vote alone. If you choose to vote for the guy responsible for kidnapping children and putting them into concentratiob camps, that's ENTIRELY on you.
Voting is not an issue of "fault," and voting for a given candidate does not mean you endorse all of that candidate's policies or actions. To date, @Balrog99 has never defended the child separation policy, and has actually criticized Trump on a number of issues--not that he would be a valid target of criticism if he had not.
In the past, I've complained about voting for Trump simply to avoid another President Clinton, and I myself have said, in effect, "It's not the Democrats who put Trump in power by supporting Clinton; it's the people who actually voted for Trump." And I still stand by that--I disagree with the notion that the nomination of Clinton forced anyone to vote for Trump.
But there's a difference between saying "Your vote is your own decision" and "Your vote makes you to blame for your candidate's actions." Votes like @Balrog99's put Trump in power, but that doesn't amount to endorsement of any given policy.
If you want to blame someone for the family separation policy, I think the administration shoulders the blame for that; not the voters.
I think you and @ThacoBell are saying two separate things, and I agree with you both.
I agree with you that a voter is not specifically or directly (or really, justifiably indirectly) responsible for the specific actions of an administration they voted for.
However, to parse @ThacoBell 's statement specifically:
He is right that no one "has" to vote for Trump (or anyone, for that matter). Voting for anyone is never explicitly the fault of the opposition (be that a party, or a person). I also agree that we each shoulder the responsibility of having voted for whomever we actually voted for. This is tautological - but if I voted for candidate A, and candidate A wins... I bear some (small) amount of direct responsibility for that person's election.
Lastly - if a candidate does something you disagree with (or which you agree with), while you arent responsible for those direct actions... you still share in the responsibility of electing that person.
Maybe @ThacoBell can clarify what he meant exactly, but I read his comment to mean that @Balrog99 shoulders his responsibility (Depending on how you look at this, it could be good or bad) for voting for Trump. If he votes for Trump again, he shoulders that responsibility even knowing that Trump played an instrumental role in the kidnapping of children of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the border. It doesnt mean @Balrog99 is either complicit, at fault, or defends the separation of children from their parents.
But it does mean that he was willing to vote for someone who has done that.
(For the record - I want to be careful and make sure you know I'm not trying to judge you in all of this @Balrog99. I dont think you'd care if I was judging you to be honest haha, but I want you to know I'm not labeling or trying to throw anything your way in saying all of the above. We could easily replace Trump with Obama and myself with shouldering responsibility for some the crappy spy-stuff that went on during the Obama administration).
Or, like, the extrajudicial murder by drone of kids.
But I don't assume every Obama voter likes extrajudicial murder by drone of kids or had that as a reason in mind when voting Obama.
That makes it totally easy to justify voting for Trump. I didn't really vote FOR Trump, I voted conservative, or I voted against Clinton because she's liberal and I'm not. What's lacking is a party (or even better, more than one) in the center. Let the far-left and the far-right languish on the fringes like they should be!
Sure. Of course the two examples arent an apples to apples comparison (I'm not aware that Obama ever knew or specifically authorized a military strike he knew would kill children. Trump, OTOH, appears to have been well briefed on the implication of his family separation policy).
Respectfully, I disagree. You may have voted for Trump because he was conservative... but you still voted for Trump and not the Republican Party. We do not elect parties, we elect people. Trump could switch parties tomorrow (or well, he could try) - it wouldnt technically discredit him from the office.
You do own your vote. It doesnt matter if the other candidate is the literal devil. You voted for whomever you voted for.
Respectfully, you're wrong. I vote for a philosophy on the Federal level. I haven't voted FOR any president since GHW Bush and then only because I was young and stupid. Do you believe I liked 'W', Dole, McCain, Romney or Trump? I did not. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought Bush Sr. ran a terrible campaign. Dole was a sourpuss who only got the nomination because it was his 'turn', which infuriated me. W got the nod because of his daddy. McCain and Romney were more old, white guys with suits that I really was getting sick of and Trump is a douchebag. Call me whatever you want, but there wasn't a better alternative philosophically to me than any of them. I don't vote party lines at the State or Local levels (which I've stated many times on this forum) but for the Senate and President I've voted nearly every time for the Republican (Perot the only exception). I did vote for John Dingell every time except his last campaign so even for US congress I don't tow the party line. I also voted for Granholm both times she ran for governor of Michigan. I think I'm the kind of voter that actually CAN be swayed. Believe it or not...
Edit: AND I've voted in every single election since I was able to vote in 1986.
It's not 'entirely' on me. I have one vote and even on the local level my one vote hasn't changed one thing.
Out of curiosity, has that "philosophy" been someone who was alive in each instance of you voting for it? I suspect so. Twist the idea around all you want, when you make a choice, you're making a choice. Voting is non compulsory in the USA. No one compels you to vote a particular way. Each time you vote for a person (and I dont care what your reason is) - you've made a conscious choice to vote for that person. A person bears the responsibility of their choices.
I never said you liked anyone you voted for.
The choice to vote for trump is entirely on you. His election, is not.
I don't regret my vote even now. I didn't vote for Donald Trump the person. I think we're coming from entirely different perspectives and that's fine. The odd thing is that I kind of think we're both right. You're right about me on the micro level, but I believe I'm right on the macro level. I don't believe I 'bear the responsiblity' of my vote because my view isn't centered on the here and now and yours is. A Clinton presidentship was not something I was willing to vote for. Period...
The really sad fact is that I knew exactly what I was voting for, an asshole, and I did it anyway. I'm not ashamed to own it. I believed my dad when he told me that Trump would 'surround himself with the best advisors', but I was not 'taken in' in any way, shape or form.
But more to the point, there is absolutely NO shame in someone stepping down and not holding onto a position until literally their last breath. What point was served by Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond staying in office when they were clearly dying?? Wouldn't there even be some nobility in stepping down and letting someone who can do the job take your place?? This is also a BIG reason so many small businesses eventually go under. Not because the business is failing, but because they have absolutely no succession plan. If Tommy doesn't want to inherit the woodworking business, his father Gregory is going to be too invested in his own importance and ego to actually find someone who will. In this society, even if you of course genuinely love your kids and grandkids, there is no macro-level thinking about a future you aren't going to be a part of. And it's short-sighted and the height of selfishness.
You're right of course, but it's only human to believe you're irreplaceable. Humility is not something that lends itself to politics unfortunately.
Edit: This is also a good reason to set some kind of term limit or even, gasp, age limit to Supreme Court justices. 30 years and/or 80 years old sounds pretty reasonable to me as a hard limit that isn't super-harsh. Thoughts?
That being said, the original video making the rounds on social media was not only edited, but chopped off the vast bulk of the discussion entirely. She still isn't a great messenger, but the original video is completely dishonest about the entirety of the exchange. It was put together by a climate change advocacy group called the Sunrise Movement, and if this is the kind of tactic they find acceptable, I am just going to have to assume in the future that they are the left-wing version of Project Veritas, except for the fact that they don't appear to have concocted the entire thing out of thin air. But they absolutely selectively choose which parts to show of a much larger conversation.
I agree with you again (no I'm not on pain medication!). I actually like Feinstein more after reading that article. Realpolitik rather than emotion and wishful thinking is right up my alley...