Theocracy thanks to liberals who refused to vote for Hillary

[CaughtInThe]

I agree. BEFORE she was the nominee if you didn't vote for Bernie you helped create this mess.

but she was the nominee.

 

[MamboDervish]

I just want to take the time to vent about all the conservative Democrats who refused to vote for Bernie and allowed trump to squeak by and do all the harm he did, while they attacked Bernie like maniacs. Imagine what the country would look like had Bernie won?

But you raise the issue of "ultra-liberals" not voting for Hillary, so let's kill that myth/lie you have fallen for.

In 2008, Hillary lost to Obama. She held back her endorsement, until a meeting with Obama, after which she gave her endorsement - and he made her Secretary of State. Hm. But despite that, *25%* of her supporters refused to vote for Obama, greatly increasing the chances of the Republican winning - which would have put *Sarah Palin* in the White House with many other problems instead of Obama.

But conservative Democrats don't want to take responsibility for that; Obama won, so no problem, they claim. Nevermind that they were so selfish the celebrated their refusal to support the Democratic nominee by calling themselves "PUMAs" - "Part Unity, My Ass!". Those are your Hillary heroes.

In contrast, Bernie had history levels of support from outside the party. There were many who would never vote for Democrats, but said Bernie was their first choice and trump their second. For every independent who supported Hillary, Bernie got two. Bernie beat trump in polls more than Hillary.

But conservative Democrats refused to support the most liked candidate in modern history, Bernie, who was better on policy and politics, and instead forced the most disliked candidate in modern history except trump onto the party and the country, narrowly beating Bernie, with all the corporate money, the media blackout on Bernie, having the party help Hillary in many ways including debate scheduling, and so on.

Yet, when she grabbed the nomination in that corrupt manner, Bernie turned around and campaigned for her like no competitor has ever done. And only 10% of his supporters didn't vote for Hillary, unlike her 25%, despite how many of his supporters weren't even Democrats - suggesting that nearly 100% of his Democratic supporters supported Hillary.

Yet, the attacks on Bernie and his supporters from rabid Hillary supporters - with slander and lies that they're all sexist "Bernie Bros" - are still screamed, with false attacks like yours about their not voting for Hillary.

Fact is, It's the Democrats who supported Hillary who caused trump, and have never been honest to recognize it or take responsibility and still have the gall to blame Bernie and his supporters.

Oh, there's more garbage in your post? Bernie was better on every policy than Hillary - medicine, labor, gay rights as you list - the only issue Hillary had a chance on was women's rights. And the country and party greatly preferred Bernie's policies, but Hillary was able to keep that from getting votes.

Conservative Democrats are the most annoying group. Nader took votes about evenly from Gore and Bush, studies show, but conservative Democrats post lies attacking progressives. They refused to vote for Bernie and gave us a lunatic and now a theocracy. Talk about self-defeating. Two conservative Democrats have blocked Biden and Berne's entire BBB agenda for the country. I bet that's Bernie's fault, you'll say.

Much of this is a bullshit argument. True, Bernie is not to blame, and he did campaign vigorously for her. Kudos to him for that. But it's a lie to say "only 10% of his supporters didn't vote for Hillary", when the fact is, 10% of his supporters actually voted for Trump! Big difference! Once Hillary had taken the Democratic Party's nomination, there should have been nothing but a 100% full-throated support for her echoing from every corner of the progressive wing, to keep Trump out of office. Nobody should blame Bernie for that failure, but the blame certainly does fall on 10% of his idiot supporters. And who knows how many other voters who sat on their hands on election day, not bothering to vote at all, because they assumed - like most of the educated world - that Trump could never win the election ..... so why bother to go to the polls?

Here's How Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Ultimately Voted For Trump

Yes, Bernie Sanders supporters who voted for President Trump could have cost Hillary Clinton the election. But then, about the same share of Republican primary voters defected to Clinton.

www.npr.org

The problem with Bernie supporters is that they did not support Bernie enough - because if all of them had really supported him, they would have heeded his warnings, and supported the candidate he supported - Hillary Clinton.

 

[Mach]

I just want to take time to vent about all the liberals who refused to vote for Hillary and allowed Trump to squeak by and turnover the SC to theocrats for generations. Imagine what the court would have looked like had Hillary won?

Yeah. I get it.

But to be fair, Republicans spent loads of time and effort into demonizing Hillary, making just enough independents to shy away from her at the polls.
Democrats had to be reminded harshly by Trump, why you vote Democrat...to stop Republicans.
Democrats can't really get any legislation passed these days the way our government was set up (it's broken), so being the party of policy is going to largely come to a halt if not already.
It's the party of not_republicans...you'll get maybe some infrastructure spending, years later a SCOTUS pick if you roll the dice right, and some temporary regulations for big business. That's about ll you can do in our current system of government with two major parties, winner takes all, electoral college and a representative per state (no matter the population) in the broken senate.

Democrats are only a partial threat if they completely overtake the senate, and even then with SCOTUS there to block them, it would be hard to have high-hopes.

Long-embedded big money in politics ensures this will likely never change. It may be all downhill from here.

 

[reinaert]

Maybe the focus of ire should be on Comey and the corporate press.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I just want to take time to vent about all the liberals who refused to vote for Hillary and allowed Trump to squeak by and turnover the SC to theocrats for generations. Imagine what the court would have looked like had Hillary won?

It frustrates me when ultra-liberals take this all-or-nothing approach and end up screwing things up for everyone.

More socialized medicine? Forget it. Labor right? lol. Gay rights? You'll be lucky if it's not illegal to be gay. Women's rights? gone.

Ultra-liberals are the most annoying group. They voted for Nader and gave us Bush and the Iraq war. They refused to vote for Hillary and gave us a lunatic and now a theocracy. Talk about self-defeating.

Being a moderate, I'm not a fan of fringes of any stripe.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yet both Hillary and Biden beat Trump with popular votes? I think that you guys are venting the wrong shit.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not defending Hillary's SUPPORTERS.
I am pointing out the fact that if we don't want to see this country sink into fascism, we'd better put aside ALL our petty grievances and work in unity come election day.
You seem to forget that most of my posts on this issue stretch WAY back BEFORE Hillary, or Obama, or Bernie's candidacy.

1968, ultra-progs refused to vote for HHH, we got Nixon.
Same with Nader.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Look. We AGREE on the central issue here - the need for unity for Democrats to defeat Republicans.

But we're seeming to disagree on a lot of secondary issues.

One is in your not acknowledging factual issues and likelihoods - and exaggerating other things.

So when the fact is Hillary supporters showing a hugely greater lack of unity and Bernie supporters showing huge unity, you are portraying that as 'Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary was a big problem' and nothing to say about Hillary's, until finally admitting 'ok them too'.

Another is selective history. For example, you totally left out the history of how Nixon won 1968 through treason (I assume you know the history when I mention it, sabotaging LBJ's peace deal).

You show no understanding or sympathy for the passionate opposition to the Vietnam war, and how they *didn't know* how bad Nixon would be. He ran as a moderate, he ran PROMISING TO END THE WAR while Humphrey had to support LBJ's war policies. They had their anti-war candidate, Robert Kennedy, assassinated. There's a heck of a lot to be understanding about. I agree with you what a mistake it was and what a disaster, but not on the rest.

Another is facts. Studies found that Nader took about as many votes from Bush as he did from Gore. Instead of supporting the corporate side of the Democratic Party in the battle between it and Progressives by attacking Progressives wrongly and baselessly, how about doing what you said by attacking the real bad guys, the Republicans who stole the 2000 election? There's a long list.

The more accurate history of all this is Progressives not having a chance to win the presidency almost ever - facing powerful corporate interests - I mean, FDR at the height of his power was forced to give up the progressive VP he wanted to take a pro-business replacement. And a hell of a lot of unfairness when they did have a chance with Bernie that included a lot of lies and abuse of power by the party and Hillary supporters.

So we agree there is a battle in the party, we agree both sides should support the victor while fighting next election for their side, but you are posting a lot of support for mostly false attacks and slander on progressives about this for whatever reason despite voting for Bernie, which is great. We both voted for Bernie and then Hillary and Biden, as you know. I pushed a lot of people to vote for Hillary and Biden, while being honest about them.

 

[Craig234]

Being a moderate, I'm not a fan of fringes of any stripe.

That's fine, if you understand that American politics have shifted radically to plutocracy, and that Republicans are extreme fringe, corporate Democrats are fringe, and Progressives are mainstream, FDR JFK type policies.

 

[Chillfolks]

When the Democrats had the final two of Bernie or Hillary they made their choice to loose the election.

 

[reinaert]

When the Democrats had the final two of Bernie or Hillary they made their choice to loose the election.

Argh. "Loose" describes bowels and screws. You lose an election.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You show no understanding or sympathy for the passionate opposition to the Vietnam war, and how they *didn't know* how bad Nixon would be. He ran as a moderate, he ran PROMISING TO END THE WAR while Humphrey had to support LBJ's war policies. They had their anti-war candidate, Robert Kennedy, assassinated. There's a heck of a lot to be understanding about. I agree with you what a mistake it was and what a disaster, but not on the rest.

There's a 5000 character limit!

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

@SonOfDaedalus

Why are you embracing and broadcasting ignorance?

 

[reinaert]

Bobby's murder was a death blow. We have never really had a chance since.

 

[Craig234]

Much of this is a bullshit argument.

No, much of your OP is, as I showed.

True, Bernie is not to blame, and he did campaign vigorously for her. Kudos to him for that.

And kudos to you for being honest about that, unlike so many Hillary supporters.

But it's a lie to say "only 10% of his supporters didn't vote for Hillary", when the fact is, 10% of his supporters actually voted for Trump! Big difference!

First of all, THAT IS NOT A LIE, even if what you said happened is correct. It's nice how you dodge the issue of 25% of Hillary PUMAs not voting for Obama - inconvenient facts, and how you ignore the fact that Bernie had better appeal to non-Democrats, resulting in people who never vote for Democrats supporting him. You're acting like they're disloyal Democrats not supporting the nominee, and that's the lie.

Once Hillary had taken the Democratic Party's nomination, there should have been nothing but a 100% full-throated support for her echoing from every corner of the progressive wing, to keep Trump out of office. Nobody should blame Bernie for that failure, but the blame certainly does fall on 10% of his idiot supporters.

Look, if you want to call voters who never vote for Democrats, and supported Bernie because he was an 'outsider' and they could see he's honest and 'on their side' against 'the establishment' - many of the same reasons they supported trump as their second choice for lying that he supported those things - idiots, you might be right. So? What's better, having them vote for nominee Bernie, or nominee trump? *THEY AREN'T PROGRESSIVES*.

And who knows how many other voters who sat on their hands on election day, not bothering to vote at all, because they assumed - like most of the educated world - that Trump could never win the election ..... so why bother to go to the polls?

Give me a break. First, take some responsibility for Hillary being the most disliked candidate in modern history after trump - and for supporting her over the most liked, who was more likely to beat trump, and how that likely gave us trump - a candidate who HERSELF helped give us trump by boosting his candidacy thinking she could easily beat him. Nearly all of Bernie's progressive supporters voted for Hillary, it appears.

But that doesn't get in the way of dishonest, hyper-partisan Hillary supporters from adding to their lies, claiming Bernie didn't support her and that many of his progressive supporters didn't vote for her.

The problem with Bernie supporters is that they did not support Bernie enough - because if all of them had really supported him, they would have heeded his warnings, and supported the candidate he supported - Hillary Clinton.

BS. I already explained above, that some of his supporters were not Democrats, not Progressives, who were never going to vote for Hillary, but would support him. That was one of his strengths, that he could appeal to people she couldn't, and it's not his fault they had trump as their second choice. You are attacking them like they're Democrats - they're no worse than simple trump voters, people who are not Democrats.

What we have is partisan Hillary supporters trying to twist the issue from being a strength for Bernie, into an attack on Progressives, trying to defeat progressives in the battle in the party. It's Hillary supporters showing dishonesty and a lack of unity. It's Hillary and her supporters who hinted at not supporting Bernie if he were nominated, while he always pledged full support for her if she was, and he did.

 

[multivita-man]

I just want to take time to vent about all the liberals who refused to vote for Hillary and allowed Trump to squeak by and turnover the SC to theocrats for generations. Imagine what the court would have looked like had Hillary won?

It frustrates me when ultra-liberals take this all-or-nothing approach and end up screwing things up for everyone.

More socialized medicine? Forget it. Labor right? lol. Gay rights? You'll be lucky if it's not illegal to be gay. Women's rights? gone.

Ultra-liberals are the most annoying group. They voted for Nader and gave us Bush and the Iraq war. They refused to vote for Hillary and gave us a lunatic and now a theocracy. Talk about self-defeating.

I get your point, but do you really think sneering at them out of the blue works? I admit that I will sneer and lecture if/when I see Bernistas taking shots at Hillary supporters, but that fact reminds me that it doesn't feel good to be mocked and put down. Moreover, it's not entirely Sanders' voters who tanked Hillary. She also lost African American support in places like Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadephia.

Hillary and Bernie voters are not going to agree on some things but we gotta stop this circular firing squad. This kinda stuff is why Hugo Chavez became so difficult to dislodge in Venezuela and ended up leaving the country with Maduro's failed state. The political opposition was so busy fighting each other that they failed to stop the rise of Chavez. Same thing happens here, only it's a right wing populist movement that needs to be reversed.

 

[Craig234]

Bobby's murder was a death blow. We have never really had a chance since.

There are a few hugely historic elections in changing the course of the country IMO. One is Bobby instead of Nixon 1968, another is Gore instead of Bush 2000, another Bernie instead of trump 2016. Perhaps Carter over Reagan in 1980, but probably not, because while the 'Reagan revolution' has been one of the worst things for the country ever, it was already in progress and not depending on Reagan. Nixon initiated it.

 

[Craig234]

There's a 5000 character limit!

I think I might be the person most aware of that. See my recent three-post thread.

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

Sorry, but this thread and its reasoning is as bad as the following.

Abortion is not in the constitution. That's a pretty neutral position. A stronger pro-life position is that a fetus is a human being that has certain constitutional guarantees. If you say that abortion is not a constitutional issue and is up to the states then you're essentially saying that a fetus doesn't have any constitutional rights. But of course, the Court is also saying that the parent doesn't have any constitutional right to terminate the pregnancy.

I'm personally pro-life. I believe a fetus of any age is a human life. But I don't think that I should impose that belief on my fellow citizens by using the power of the government. Moreover, I don't think that such laws are effective. People who want abortions will travel or find other potentially dangerous means. Religious people should focus on persuading people not coercing them using Big Government threats of incarceration.

Moreover, the Court's decision clears the way for a national abortion ban. I doubt Republicans want the election to become a national referendum on abortion.

So, now this becomes a local issue for voters and this is a losing issue for Republicans. Even heavily Catholic Mexico voted to legalize abortion. Republicans are trying to swim upstream against the current of progress.

My idea is that we completely detach abortion from politics and make abortion a local referendum. That way it's not up to politicians to change the laws on abortion but up to the local people. Now Catholics can vote for Democrats without this abortion issue clouding their choice.

 

[multivita-man]

Bobby's murder was a death blow. We have never really had a chance since.

Meh, I don't know, Bubba and Barack managed to win two terms. Problem is, they didn't have enough congressional strength to achieve their agenda, and that has really been the biggest change since the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Democrats have lost the white conservative working class that would, despite some of their social conservatism, support Democrats because they belonged to unions. Once Reagan's GOP finished off the unions, that titled the advantage at the state and county levels, where much of the real political power in this country exists, it changed the balance of power.

The Democrats have to come up with a strategy that can dream big and occasionally achieve big things but also never loses sight of political reality: they may outnumber conservatives because they live in large urban areas, but the system gives the conservatives disproportionate power relative to their actual numbers. We can cry and moan about that, but that's the reality unless we're able to call our own constitutional convention and magically change it all. And the last time I looked, Republicans probably are much closer to achieving that than we are.

I think Democrats need to find a few things that are simple to understand and that people want, which is why I like Sanders' idea of Medicare/Medicaid for all. Everyone basically gets how Medicare works. Millions of people already use it and, right wing or left, will go to war if someone threatens to take it away from them. Just make the health coverage pool a lot bigger. Yes, taxes would be raised, but raise it on the corporations and the superwealthy. Corporations, by the way, would no longer have to carry expensive health coverage programs, so it would be a win for them even if they argue otherwise.

But progressives are gonna have to find ways to make inroads to Middle America again. No easy answers there but they gotta try. That doesn't mean they should abandon cities or the people and causes who constitute the core of the party but better outreach to moderates and centrists.

 

[reinaert]

Meh, I don't know, Bubba and Barack managed to win two terms. Problem is, they didn't have enough congressional strength to achieve their agenda, and that has really been the biggest change since the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Democrats have lost the white conservative working class that would, despite some of their social conservatism, support Democrats because they belonged to unions. Once Reagan's GOP finished off the unions, that titled the advantage at the state and county levels, where much of the real political power in this country exists, it changed the balance of power.

The Democrats have to come up with a strategy that can dream big and occasionally achieve big things but also never loses sight of political reality: they may outnumber conservatives because they live in large urban areas, but the system gives the conservatives disproportionate power relative to their actual numbers. We can cry and moan about that, but that's the reality unless we're able to call our own constitutional convention and magically change it all. And the last time I looked, Republicans probably are much closer to achieving that than we are.

I think Democrats need to find a few things that are simple to understand and that people want, which is why I like Sanders' idea of Medicare/Medicaid for all. Everyone basically gets how Medicare works. Millions of people already use it and, right wing or left, will go to war if someone threatens to take it away from them. Just make the health coverage pool a lot bigger. Yes, taxes would be raised, but raise it on the corporations and the superwealthy. Corporations, by the way, would no longer have to carry expensive health coverage programs, so it would be a win for them even if they argue otherwise.

But progressives are gonna have to find ways to make inroads to Middle America again. No easy answers there but they gotta try. That doesn't mean they should abandon cities or the people and causes who constitute the core of the party but better outreach to moderates and centrists.

Bobby's death meant Nixon and Reagan. We will never recover from Reagan.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

First of all, THAT IS NOT A LIE, even if what you said happened is correct. It's nice how you dodge the issue of 25% of Hillary PUMAs not voting for Obama - inconvenient facts, and how you ignore the fact that Bernie had better appeal to non-Democrats, resulting in people who never vote for Democrats supporting him. You're acting like they're disloyal Democrats not supporting the nominee, and that's the lie.

The problem is that what Hillarys supporters did in 2008 has no bearing on what happened in 2016. It seems like you want two nad choices to be equal when they arent. End results matter, and the end result of Hillarys supporters not voting for Obama wasnt a Republican winning. Unfortunately, the Bernie supporters who either didnt support Hillary, or even worse, voted against her led directly to the madman getting elected and bringing forth the issues of today.

I take my lumps every day as someone who didnt check a box for president that year.

Look, if you want to call voters who never vote for Democrats, and supported Bernie because he was an 'outsider' and they could see he's honest and 'on their side' against 'the establishment' - many of the same reasons they supported trump as their second choice for lying that he supported those things - idiots, you might be right. So? What's better, having them vote for nominee Bernie, or nominee trump? *THEY AREN'T PROGRESSIVES*.

Simple fact is that Hill was going to promote more things that progressives were gonna support than Trump ever was. The protest vote amounted to spitting in thier own eyes.

Give me a break. First, take some responsibility for Hillary being the most disliked candidate in modern history after trump - and for supporting her over the most liked, who was more likely to beat trump, and how that likely gave us trump - a candidate who HERSELF helped give us trump by boosting his candidacy thinking she could easily beat him. Nearly all of Bernie's progressive supporters voted for Hillary, it appears.

Except the 10% who said they voted for Trump, right? They mattered.

But that doesn't get in the way of dishonest, hyper-partisan Hillary supporters from adding to their lies, claiming Bernie didn't support her and that many of his progressive supporters didn't vote for her.

Nobody said many....simply enough to make a difference.

BS. I already explained above, that some of his supporters were not Democrats, not Progressives, who were never going to vote for Hillary, but would support him. That was one of his strengths, that he could appeal to people she couldn't, and it's not his fault they had trump as their second choice. You are attacking them like they're Democrats - they're no worse than simple trump voters, people who are not Democrats.

What we have is partisan Hillary supporters trying to twist the issue from being a strength for Bernie, into an attack on Progressives, trying to defeat progressives in the battle in the party. It's Hillary supporters showing dishonesty and a lack of unity. It's Hillary and her supporters who hinted at not supporting Bernie if he were nominated, while he always pledged full support for her if she was, and he did.

Too bad his supporters didnt show the same support as thier chosen candidate.

 

[KLATTU]

So we're going from a coach saying a prayer in huddle to kids who didn't care go a Theocracy???
Oh wait. I know, They're GOING TO do it- just you wait and see.
LAFFRIOT

 

[Craig234]

Bobby's death meant Nixon and Reagan. We will never recover from Reagan.

As much as I have criticized the shift with Reagan as one of the three great turning points in US history, can I suggest it wasn't really about Reagan, it was about the Nixonian move for business to more fully engage in our political system, weaponizing money, creating systems that made money rule the political system? Reagan helped lead the wave but it was happening without him.

 

[noonereal]

I just want to take time to vent about all the liberals who refused to vote for Hillary and allowed Trump to squeak by and turnover the SC to theocrats for generations. Imagine what the court would have looked like had Hillary won?

It frustrates me when ultra-liberals take this all-or-nothing approach and end up screwing things up for everyone.

More socialized medicine? Forget it. Labor right? lol. Gay rights? You'll be lucky if it's not illegal to be gay. Women's rights? gone.

Ultra-liberals are the most annoying group. They voted for Nader and gave us Bush and the Iraq war. They refused to vote for Hillary and gave us a lunatic and now a theocracy. Talk about self-defeating.

You have confused centrists with liberals.

 

[reinaert]

As much as I have criticized the shift with Reagan as one of the three great turning points in US history, can I suggest it wasn't really about Reagan, it was about the Nixonian move for business to more fully engage in our political system, weaponizing money, creating systems that made money rule the political system? Reagan helped lead the wave but it was happening without him.

For me, it's how Reagan was used (because he was famously dim) to radically shift away from all the hard won victories for commonweal. Nixon did not fundamentally challenge the notion of the public estate. He was merely a corrupt caretaker who knew the rot had already started to set in. Rather, it was the Reagan cabal that broke the republic.