• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question For Bernie Sanders' Supporters

I support Bernie because:

  • I believe in his agenda

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Hillary is establishment and the establishment must be stopped

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • I can't support a lying, dishonest, crook

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Total voters
    23
From what I have seen throughout my years a vote for a third party isn't voting for someone, it is voting against the main two. Often times the third party candidate isn't worth a crap either.
 
That is false. If you vote for someone that cannot win, you chose the winner, though, you did not give her your vote.

It's simply not true.

First, to choose someone requires you to actually CHOOSE them for one.

Second, this assumes that if one was not to vote 3rd party that they would automatically vote for the person that didn't win.

Third, if you're going with the literalistic premise that every vote not for [x] is a vote for [y], then it's just as viable to go the literalistic route and say that if [x] won by more votes than [y] than the lack of a persons vote for [y] had zero direct impact on "electing" person [x].

It's an ignorant and logically incorrect notion paraded around by adherents to both parties to trump up their own candidates and to make them feel good about their personal decision to vote for someone they don't feel comfortable supporting at times.

I have nothing against those that wish to flush away their principles, or feel that the ends justifies the means, or feels confident in giving their vote of confidence and support to the lesser of two evils. However, they are no more correct in their tactics than those who don't wish to do those things, and the hollier than thou attitude in an attempt to belittle and demean other peoples choice in order to intimidate, guilt, or shame them into voting in their way is inherently abhorrent to my sensibilities as an American and actually make me less likely to vote for that persons chosen candidate every. single. time.
 
It's simply not true.

First, to choose someone requires you to actually CHOOSE them for one.

Second, this assumes that if one was not to vote 3rd party that they would automatically vote for the person that didn't win.

Third, if you're going with the literalistic premise that every vote not for [x] is a vote for [y], then it's just as viable to go the literalistic route and say that if [x] won by more votes than [y] than the lack of a persons vote for [y] had zero direct impact on "electing" person [x].

It's an ignorant and logically incorrect notion paraded around by adherents to both parties to trump up their own candidates and to make them feel good about their personal decision to vote for someone they don't feel comfortable supporting at times.

I have nothing against those that wish to flush away their principles, or feel that the ends justifies the means, or feels confident in giving their vote of confidence and support to the lesser of two evils. However, they are no more correct in their tactics than those who don't wish to do those things, and the hollier than thou attitude in an attempt to belittle and demean other peoples choice in order to intimidate, guilt, or shame them into voting in their way is inherently abhorrent to my sensibilities as an American and actually make me less likely to vote for that persons chosen candidate every. single. time.

While I understand and appreciate the importance of choice, your argument demands having ignorance of the greater circumstances as well as possible negative outcomes of such a choice. If you want to make the "principle" argument, that's absolutely fine, but insisting on ignoring very obvious repercussions is breathtakingly naive.
 
While I understand and appreciate the importance of choice, your argument demands having ignorance of the greater circumstances as well as possible negative outcomes of such a choice. If you want to make the "principle" argument, that's absolutely fine, but insisting on ignoring very obvious repercussions is breathtakingly naive.

Again, one cannot sit here and talk about the "repercussions" of voting third party with a straight face without also with a straight face acknowledging that the likelihood of an individuals single vote...or even every 3rd party voter on this website...of actually having an impact on this election is nearly as statistically unlikely as a 3rd party candidate actually winning.

I fully acknowledge, by voting 3rd party or by not voting, that it means a person I despise will wind up in the White House. I fully acknowledge, by voting 3rd party or by not voting, a person I think will significantly harm this country will wind in the White House. I also fully acknowledge, that by voting for one of those two candidates, the exact same result will ultimately occur.

There is zero "repercussions" to me not casting a vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary based on my view of both of them as being equally unacceptable to support as POTUS, as the result of me voting or not voting for them is the same...someone I deem completely unacceptable ascends to the Presidency. So it comes down to the decision of whether or not I actually SUPPORT the unacceptable, and there for have signed away my tacit approval of whatever bull**** they do, or do I put my vote towards an acknowledgement that I find neither of them satisfactory and unsupportable. In either case, the same result occurs...someone I find fully unacceptable becomes president.

The "repercussions" you speak of are either non-existent or inconsequential, however you wish to view it.

For others, who DO find there to be a significant enough difference by the metrics they use to choose a president or does not feel that one or the other is wholly unacceptable, then it makes sense for them to choose the "lesser of two evils". As in that case, even though statistically their vote will have little singular chance of swaying anything, they at least have the chance of casting one towards the side they want to have win. But for those that view them both as utterly unacceptable and see's neither as significantly better than the other, there is literally no difference in terms of the "repercussions" of voting for neither.
 
While I understand and appreciate the importance of choice, your argument demands having ignorance of the greater circumstances as well as possible negative outcomes of such a choice. If you want to make the "principle" argument, that's absolutely fine, but insisting on ignoring very obvious repercussions is breathtakingly naive.

If you cast your vote for candidate C, but know that he cannot win and that your vote is thus "wasted", you are choosing the winner of the election. At the very least, you are marinally increasing the risk that A wins, as you are choosing to vote for your favorite and not the second best that has a chance of winning.

Look. This is America. A vote for somebody you think is best qualified is a vote FOR somebody. It is NOT a vote for somebody else.

Stop trying to BULLY people into voting for either a D or an R simply because YOU feel their vote means nothing.

You are indeed part of the problem by perpetuating such garbage. You're trying to manipulate people into falling into one of two fantastically awful categories. In this case political parties. That's simply the wrong thing to do.
 
Look. This is America. A vote for somebody you think is best qualified is a vote FOR somebody. It is NOT a vote for somebody else.

Stop trying to BULLY people into voting for either a D or an R simply because YOU feel their vote means nothing.

You are indeed part of the problem by perpetuating such garbage. You're trying to manipulate people into falling into one of two fantastically awful categories. In this case political parties. That's simply the wrong thing to do.

I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything. As I told Zyphlin, and as I have told many other people numerous times, if you want to make a vote based on principle that's absolutely fine. But if Clinton is the official Democratic nominee and I write in "Bernie Sanders," don't tell me that that isn't one less vote for Clinton and that much less Trump must have to work for in order to become President. That's not actually a judgment against voting 3rd party, that's just math.
 
Last edited:
Again, one cannot sit here and talk about the "repercussions" of voting third party with a straight face without also with a straight face acknowledging that the likelihood of an individuals single vote...or even every 3rd party voter on this website...of actually having an impact on this election is nearly as statistically unlikely as a 3rd party candidate actually winning.

I fully acknowledge, by voting 3rd party or by not voting, that it means a person I despise will wind up in the White House. I fully acknowledge, by voting 3rd party or by not voting, a person I think will significantly harm this country will wind in the White House. I also fully acknowledge, that by voting for one of those two candidates, the exact same result will ultimately occur.

There is zero "repercussions" to me not casting a vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary based on my view of both of them as being equally unacceptable to support as POTUS, as the result of me voting or not voting for them is the same...someone I deem completely unacceptable ascends to the Presidency. So it comes down to the decision of whether or not I actually SUPPORT the unacceptable, and there for have signed away my tacit approval of whatever bull**** they do, or do I put my vote towards an acknowledgement that I find neither of them satisfactory and unsupportable. In either case, the same result occurs...someone I find fully unacceptable becomes president.

The "repercussions" you speak of are either non-existent or inconsequential, however you wish to view it.

For others, who DO find there to be a significant enough difference by the metrics they use to choose a president or does not feel that one or the other is wholly unacceptable, then it makes sense for them to choose the "lesser of two evils". As in that case, even though statistically their vote will have little singular chance of swaying anything, they at least have the chance of casting one towards the side they want to have win. But for those that view them both as utterly unacceptable and see's neither as significantly better than the other, there is literally no difference in terms of the "repercussions" of voting for neither.

There is only "zero" repercussion if you live in a state that you know for a fact will swing to one specific candidate. But then, making a "protest" vote in those circumstances has relatively little value, even symbolically. "Oh, you live in Texas and wrote in Marc Rubio as a protest? You rebel you."

And "lesser of two evils" is a nonsensical marketing term. It's just another cutesy, over-used term for "the better of the two." "Voting for the lesser of two evils" needs to be dragged out into the street alongside "activist judge" and shot.
 
Last edited:
There is only "zero" repercussion if you live in a state that you know for a fact will swing to one specific candidate.

No, there is "zero" repercussions if you literally do not have a preference between either.

If you hate broccoli and you hate cauliflower, and both make you ill at the thought of eating them, then there is literally no difference in terms of repercussions if you choose one of those two to eat or if someone forces you to eat one. Either way, you're eating something you're disgusted at, regardless of whether you choose it or someone else chooses it.

Even with the "better of the two" language; if a person comes to a determination that neither are "better" than the other and find both utterly unacceptable, there is no "repercussion" to not voting for either. As you said, it's a nigh certainty that ONE of those two will win, and if you despise both and can not support the notion of either being President, then the end result is the same REGARDLESS of whether you vote or not....ie, someone you find abhorrent will become the President.

You're argument is based off the notion that someone MUST be able to determine that one or the other is "better" in their mind. That is not actually automatic nor mandatory to conclude.
 
I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything. As I told Zyphlin, and as I have told many other people numerous times, if you want to make a vote based on principle that's absolutely fine. But if Clinton is the official Democratic nominee and I write in "Bernie Sanders," don't tell me that that isn't one less vote for Clinton and that much less Trump must have to work for in order to become President. That's not actually a judgment against voting 3rd party, that's just math.

You writing in Bernie Sanders is as much one less vote for Clinton as it is one less vote for Trump. What you're basically suggesting are people are robots beholden to the party and must vote for that party if they are to vote. Where as, if forced to vote for someone in the two parties, a Bernie voter may vote for Trump or a Rubio voter may vote for Hillary. You're living in this required binary system that everyone is a blind mindless zombie beholden to their political party or ideology of choice.

At best, it's a Schrodinger's cat situation. The vote from an individual that is voting 3rd party or not voting at can be assumed to be a vote for either of the two primary party candidates IF they must vote for a primary party candidate. While you can make guesses or assumptions as to which they'd vote for, ultimately you can't be sure unless they actually cast a vote, and therefore they could just as easily have worked AGAINST the person who lost as they could have worked for them.

Essentially, a 3rd party voters vote for a primary party candidate must be assumed as a vote for the Republican OR the Democrat up until such point that they declare it definitively for one or the other.
 
You writing in Bernie Sanders is as much one less vote for Clinton as it is one less vote for Trump. What you're basically suggesting are people are robots beholden to the party and must vote for that party if they are to vote. Where as, if forced to vote for someone in the two parties, a Bernie voter may vote for Trump or a Rubio voter may vote for Hillary. You're living in this required binary system that everyone is a blind mindless zombie beholden to their political party or ideology of choice.

At best, it's a Schrodinger's cat situation. The vote from an individual that is voting 3rd party or not voting at can be assumed to be a vote for either of the two primary party candidates IF they must vote for a primary party candidate. While you can make guesses or assumptions as to which they'd vote for, ultimately you can't be sure unless they actually cast a vote, and therefore they could just as easily have worked AGAINST the person who lost as they could have worked for them.

Essentially, a 3rd party voters vote for a primary party candidate must be assumed as a vote for the Republican OR the Democrat up until such point that they declare it definitively for one or the other.

Straw man. Rewrite your post with the understanding in mind that I have nothing against voting your conscience.
 
Straw man. Rewrite your post with the understanding in mind that I have nothing against voting your conscience.

It's not a strawman. You suggested that by default, if someone is writing in Bernie Sanders than it is automatically a one less vote for Clinton and one less vote that Trump has to overcome. The only way such logic works is if one simply assumes that an individual is beholden to the party aligned with the primarily ideological bend, and thus if they vote 3rd party it is automatically one less vote for the party nearest to their ideology. That is simply and utterly an illogical and incorrect line of thinking, as the reality is that if they were casting their vote for a major party candidate they could conceivably cast it for EITHER party, and thus it can not be suggested that a vote for a 3rd party is automatically one vote less for either specific party.
 
It's not a strawman.

I misread your post and rescind the strawman comment.

You suggested that by default, if someone is writing in Bernie Sanders than it is automatically a one less vote for Clinton and one less vote that Trump has to overcome.

And that is mathematically false how?

The only way such logic works is if one simply assumes that an individual is beholden to the party aligned with the primarily ideological bend, and thus if they vote 3rd party it is automatically one less vote for the party nearest to their ideology. That is simply and utterly an illogical and incorrect line of thinking, as the reality is that if they were casting their vote for a major party candidate they could conceivably cast it for EITHER party, and thus it can not be suggested that a vote for a 3rd party is automatically one vote less for either specific party.

You're looking at this all wrong. You have a desired outcome and I have a desired outcome. My desire is to see a Democratic white house because I don't see an Independent White House as being a realistic outcome. Your desired outcome, I assume, is the knowledge that you voted for someone who most closely matches your principles. I don't believe that either of our goals are inherently wrong if we're honest about the outcomes we desire. But mathematically, I don't see how you can argue against the statement that a vote for a candidate that cannot win takes a vote away from a candidate who can potentially win.
 
Last edited:
I misread your post and rescind the strawman comment.

Appreciate and respect that.

And that is mathematically false how?

Because it assumes the person writing in would automatically be a vote for Hillary Clinton, since you indicated it was 1 less for her and 1 less than Trump had to overcome. On the contrary, it could be one less vote for Trump and 1 more for Hillary to overcome. There is zero guarantee that just because they're voting for Bernie Sanders, that Hillary would be their vote if they were forced to vote for one of the two party candidates.

I assume, is the knowledge that you voted for someone who most closely matches your principles.

Decent assumption, and for most going 3rd party it's probably accurate. I've explained mine elsewhere but here's my general take.

The first criteria for me is do I believe that the person has a high probability of significantly damaging the foundational principles of this country as I see them or significantly damaging the well being of the country, beyond simply a disagreement on policy from an ideological statement. As long as I can reconcile that part in my head, then I can move onto step two.

Step two is looking at those candidates that I feel meet criteria one, and determining first...which are most likely to win (ie, one of the two major parties). Then, once I determine that, it's which one is most likely to support the most things I support.

The issue is if neither major party candidate meets criteria 1 for me, then it ends. Essentially, on a scale to 0 to 10, if you don't meet criteria 1 then you're a 0. There's no lower number than 0, and there's no going higher than zero if you can't pass the first criteria. If there's an election where I feel both major party candidates can't get past criteria 1, then neither are going to get my vote.

TL;DR: The knowledge that that my vote, my support, is being given to someone that I at least find "acceptable" is what's important to me.

I don't believe that either of our goals are inherently wrong if we're honest about the outcomes we desire.

Agree 100%

But mathematically, I don't see how you can argue against the statement that a vote for a candidate that cannot win takes a vote away from a candidate who can potentially win.

If someone told me that voting 3rd party or staying home takes a vote away from BOTH candidates, or even if they said EITHER candidate, then I could at least stomach that and agree with that from a mathematical stand point. The issue is this automatic assumption that the vote would go to [x].

Is it LIKELY that most libertarian 3rd partiers, if a gun was put to their head, would vote for Trump over Hillary? Sure. Is it LIKELY that most green or Bernie write in people, if a gun was put on their head, would vote for Hillary over Trump? Sure. But it's not guaranteed. There's people who may simply despise their "normal" parties candidate so much that they would vote the other way. There's people who would possibly vote the other way out of spite due to the party passing on their guy. There may be some who go with the theory that it's better to have the opposition party in, because then there's someone to right against and rally against in 4 years instead of sticking to supporting crap for the next 8. There may be some who want to vote for Trump because the attraction to Bernie is his anti-establishment nature, and they like that in Trump more than they like Hillary's policies. There may be some who want to vote for Hillary, because she may actually be more for "free trade" than Trump is. And it can go on and on.

I have no issue mathematically stating "Voting for a 3rd party candidate takes a vote away from the two main party candidates.". That's essentially accurate at 100% of the time when you're at least giving SOME kind of vote. My issue is with claiming that it's specifically taking it away from ONE candidate or another.

If I vote 3rd party in Virginia and Trump wins, I didn't cause him to win or cause Hillary to lose, because I caused them BOTH to lose a potential voter. Similarly, if Hillary wins Virginia and Trump wins, I didn't cause her ot win or cause Trump to lose, because I caused them BOTH to lose a potential voter.

Without a statement of certainty, or near certainty, from me of "If I were to vote major party, my vote would be [x]", ultimately who I'm "costing" a vote is a complete variable, and thus can only be spoken about as a POTENTIAL loss for both, which essentially negates itself. It is only once I've made it clear that my vote would go to one or the other IF it was to go to either that you can definitively say I cost [x], and [x] alone, a vote.
 
Appreciate and respect that.



Because it assumes the person writing in would automatically be a vote for Hillary Clinton, since you indicated it was 1 less for her and 1 less than Trump had to overcome. On the contrary, it could be one less vote for Trump and 1 more for Hillary to overcome. There is zero guarantee that just because they're voting for Bernie Sanders, that Hillary would be their vote if they were forced to vote for one of the two party candidates.



Decent assumption, and for most going 3rd party it's probably accurate. I've explained mine elsewhere but here's my general take.

The first criteria for me is do I believe that the person has a high probability of significantly damaging the foundational principles of this country as I see them or significantly damaging the well being of the country, beyond simply a disagreement on policy from an ideological statement. As long as I can reconcile that part in my head, then I can move onto step two.

Step two is looking at those candidates that I feel meet criteria one, and determining first...which are most likely to win (ie, one of the two major parties). Then, once I determine that, it's which one is most likely to support the most things I support.

The issue is if neither major party candidate meets criteria 1 for me, then it ends. Essentially, on a scale to 0 to 10, if you don't meet criteria 1 then you're a 0. There's no lower number than 0, and there's no going higher than zero if you can't pass the first criteria. If there's an election where I feel both major party candidates can't get past criteria 1, then neither are going to get my vote.

TL;DR: The knowledge that that my vote, my support, is being given to someone that I at least find "acceptable" is what's important to me.



Agree 100%



If someone told me that voting 3rd party or staying home takes a vote away from BOTH candidates, or even if they said EITHER candidate, then I could at least stomach that and agree with that from a mathematical stand point. The issue is this automatic assumption that the vote would go to [x].

Is it LIKELY that most libertarian 3rd partiers, if a gun was put to their head, would vote for Trump over Hillary? Sure. Is it LIKELY that most green or Bernie write in people, if a gun was put on their head, would vote for Hillary over Trump? Sure. But it's not guaranteed. There's people who may simply despise their "normal" parties candidate so much that they would vote the other way. There's people who would possibly vote the other way out of spite due to the party passing on their guy. There may be some who go with the theory that it's better to have the opposition party in, because then there's someone to right against and rally against in 4 years instead of sticking to supporting crap for the next 8. There may be some who want to vote for Trump because the attraction to Bernie is his anti-establishment nature, and they like that in Trump more than they like Hillary's policies. There may be some who want to vote for Hillary, because she may actually be more for "free trade" than Trump is. And it can go on and on.

I have no issue mathematically stating "Voting for a 3rd party candidate takes a vote away from the two main party candidates.". That's essentially accurate at 100% of the time when you're at least giving SOME kind of vote. My issue is with claiming that it's specifically taking it away from ONE candidate or another.

If I vote 3rd party in Virginia and Trump wins, I didn't cause him to win or cause Hillary to lose, because I caused them BOTH to lose a potential voter. Similarly, if Hillary wins Virginia and Trump wins, I didn't cause her ot win or cause Trump to lose, because I caused them BOTH to lose a potential voter.

Without a statement of certainty, or near certainty, from me of "If I were to vote major party, my vote would be [x]", ultimately who I'm "costing" a vote is a complete variable, and thus can only be spoken about as a POTENTIAL loss for both, which essentially negates itself. It is only once I've made it clear that my vote would go to one or the other IF it was to go to either that you can definitively say I cost [x], and [x] alone, a vote.

This really isn't my day. I've been bollocksing half my posts on this site today with poor communication and awful grammar. Chalk it up to insomnia.

Anyway, the logic behind my position assumes that the thirdy party is closely affiliated in ideology to the candidate who would be "losing" a vote. Without that assumption in mind, obviously my argument isn't going to make sense.
 
This really isn't my day. I've been bollocksing half my posts on this site today with poor communication and awful grammar. Chalk it up to insomnia.

Anyway, the logic behind my position assumes that the thirdy party is closely affiliated in ideology to the candidate who would be "losing" a vote. Without that assumption in mind, obviously my argument isn't going to make sense.

I figured that was your assumption, I just find that to be a poor assumption to build what is essentially a statement of fact (in terms of who it's "costing" a vote from) when dealing with these kind of situations.

I feel you on the insomnia thing. And I'm probably coming at this a bit more aggressive/bull headed because of ingrained reactionary instincts from the dozens of people over the years that also make the same statements as part of the "you're wasting your vote and you're electing [x] person and you're bad because of it!" type arguments.
 
This is the first campaign I can remember where both the Far Left and the Far Right dominated so much of the discussion.
 
I figured that was your assumption, I just find that to be a poor assumption to build what is essentially a statement of fact (in terms of who it's "costing" a vote from) when dealing with these kind of situations.

I feel you on the insomnia thing. And I'm probably coming at this a bit more aggressive/bull headed because of ingrained reactionary instincts from the dozens of people over the years that also make the same statements as part of the "you're wasting your vote and you're electing [x] person and you're bad because of it!" type arguments.

Well, I don't think people who vote their consciences are bad, and I don't think what I'm doing is bad. In fact I've always said that these are personal decisions and I respect both equally. That said, if one's position were liberal, I believe that voting for the liberal who isn't even on the ballot is an inefficient approach to putting another liberal who is on the ballot in the White House.
 
I support Bernie because

1. he's the only candidate that i believe is genuinely pro-worker.

2. he's the only candidate that i believe.

3. much of what he's proposing would barely be controversial in the rest of the first world, because they're already doing it.
 
Numbers 2 and 3, unequivocally. Number 1, I'm about 50/50 on. I inherently don't trust politicians.
But Hillary's crookery is painfully obvious, unlike Bernie's.
 
Well, I don't think people who vote their consciences are bad, and I don't think what I'm doing is bad. In fact I've always said that these are personal decisions and I respect both equally. That said, if one's position were liberal, I believe that voting for the liberal who isn't even on the ballot is an inefficient approach to putting another liberal who is on the ballot in the White House.

Again, this assumes that they feel that putting a liberal...no matter what liberal it is...in the white house is ALWAYS the better option simply because they themselves are liberal. I documented numerous reasons above why someone who's liberal would possibly think of voting for Trump, and someone who's conservative would possibly think of voting for Clinton, depending on what are the more important facets for their reasons to vote this election cycle.
 
3. much of what he's proposing would barely be controversial in the rest of the first world, because they're already doing it.

This is actually one of the primary reasons I DISLIKE Bernie. I have no desire to jus follow in the foot steps of the rest of the first world. One of the things I value is the notion of CHOICE, including the choice of government, the choice of societal view on it's role, and how it interacts with the citizen. I don't WANT every first world country to continue to move to a homogenized stretch of cloned entities, with the only real difference in where you reside being that individual locations history and the landscape. I like the notion that there are different styles of government and ultimately people can take actions on their own to try and seek one that better suits their desires out. The desire to turn us more into Europe West would actually be a large reason why I would never likely vote for Bernie.
 
Socialism has been tried many times over and failed many times over.
 
This is actually one of the primary reasons I DISLIKE Bernie. I have no desire to jus follow in the foot steps of the rest of the first world. One of the things I value is the notion of CHOICE, including the choice of government, the choice of societal view on it's role, and how it interacts with the citizen. I don't WANT every first world country to continue to move to a homogenized stretch of cloned entities, with the only real difference in where you reside being that individual locations history and the landscape. I like the notion that there are different styles of government and ultimately people can take actions on their own to try and seek one that better suits their desires out. The desire to turn us more into Europe West would actually be a large reason why I would never likely vote for Bernie.

my position is that they are doing some things better than we are, such as universal healthcare and some worker benefits. i'd like to see us move in that direction.

be that as it may, you definitely have an argument. i can't guarantee that any blanket solution would solve all of our problems. however, Sanders promotes some policies that i argue for on this forum, and he's pretty much the only candidate who is doing that. even if he won, though, the chances that he could get any of it through are very slim without an FDR congress. that's very unlikely to happen, and it's even less likely that he'll be the nominee.
 
I support Bernie because, for the most part, I like his voting record and the policies he pushes. He has always stood for what he believed even when it wasn't popular. In hindsight he was usually right.

Hillary was never going to have my vote. I voted Green party in the last election and would have this time around if Bernie hadn't thrown in his hat. And if he doesn't get the nomination I will likely vote Green again. I voted for Bernie despite him running as a Democrat.
 
FYI, I'm a capitalist, and I find nothing contradictory between Sanders' platform and my capitalism.

My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.
 
Back
Top Bottom