Theocracy thanks to liberals who refused to vote for Hillary

[coyote505]

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.

And if Democrats agree with you, they will have a bleak future. The mainstream of America is closer to Joe Manchin.

 

[munkle]

So America was a theocracy before Roe v. Wade?

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

conjecture: [noun] inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence. a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Would you please take time to vent about Ruth Bader Ginsburg not stepping down, thus allowing Amy Coney Barret the opportunity to right all her (Ginsburg's) wrongs ?

Otherwise, you can stick to lashing out at those who let you down by not voting for your lofty ideals (which include your right to bash people who don't do what you want).

 

[aociswundumho]

Just imagine how different history would be if not for the disunity of the American Left.

Don't have to imagine, we know what a far-left USA would look like.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

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.

You realize you're talking about a primary, right?

If it was Bernie vs Trump I certainly wouldn't have stayed home like many Bernie voters did. It's not a fair comparison.

It's really those ultra-liberals who want nothing short of a socialist paradise who time and time again screw us over by not uniting against our common enemy.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Would you please take time to vent about Ruth Bader Ginsburg not stepping down, thus allowing Amy Coney Barret the opportunity to right all her (Ginsburg's) wrongs ?

Otherwise, you can stick to lashing out at those who let you down by not voting for your lofty ideals (which include your right to bash people who don't do what you want).

I don't care that they don't do what I want. What bothers me is they don't understand the consequences of what they do.

Within the left you can argue all you want but once a nominee is chosen you have to unite around the nominee otherwise the right wins. Now even if another Bernie were elected, this SC would squash anything he pushed through. That's the reality.

Liberals are the majority but yet find ways to screw themselves and the country over.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I don't care that they don't do what I want. What bothers me is they don't understand the consequences of what they do.

Within the left you can argue all you want but once a nominee is chosen you have to unite around the nominee otherwise the right wins. Now even if another Bernie were elected, this SC would squash anything he pushed through. That's the reality.

Liberals are the majority but yet find ways to screw themselves and the country over.

Left wingers are the majority ?

You are not a liberal BTW.

Can you please provide some support for that claim.

 

[The Mark]

The ultra-liberals voted for Hillary - not Trump.

It was independents who voted Trump into office - - not because they liked Trump, but because they loathed his opponent.

It was independents who voted Biden into office - - not because they liked Biden, but because they loathed his opponent.

I predict that independents will be consistent with their calculus and vote against Biden in 2024 - - just like they did in the two previous general election cycles.

If Biden runs in 2024, and I think it would be idiotic of the Democrats to nominate him, damn near any republican more polished at bullshit than Trump will beat him.

At least based on current trends.

 

[Craig234]

You realize you're talking about a primary, right?

Yes. That doesn't change a thing.

If it was Bernie vs Trump I certainly wouldn't have stayed home like many Bernie voters did. It's not a fair comparison.

It IS a fair comparison. People who chose Hillary chose to pick a candidate with worse odds against trump, with worse policies, who was the most disliked candidate in modern history except trump over the most liked candidate in modern history, and by so doing they picked the candidate who would lose to trump putting him in office.

And you ignored what I explained, that far more than Hillary - whose supporters didn't vote for the nominee at a *25%* level you ignore - Bernie attracted a lot more voters who refuse to vote for Democrats and can't be expected to vote for Hillary, yet STILL only 10% didn't, implying nearly all of Bernie's Progressive, Democratic supporters voted for Hillary, but you still post false attacks that many dind't.

It's really those ultra-liberals who want nothing short of a socialist paradise who time and time again screw us over by not uniting against our common enemy.

You are posting like a dishonest Hillary propagandist, trying to smear. Bernie is obviously not a "socialist". He was called a "socialist" in the campaign and corrected the person. Almost none of his supporters want what you call a "socialist paradise", they want better policies that *most Democrats and Americans agree with* but many lack the guts or whatever they need to vote for.

First, you said it and it was false. Now that I corrected you and you repeat it you are lying. It's not the "ultra liberals", the Progressives, the Bernie supporters who "screw us over". It's the corporatists who pick bad candidates who lose, the 25% of Hillary Democrats who refused to vote for nominee Obama, Hillary and those supporters questioning whether they'd support Bernie if he was nominated, who do what you wrongly attack Bernie voters for.

 

[Craig234]

If Biden runs in 2024, and I think it would be idiotic of the Democrats to nominate him, damn near any republican more polished at bullshit than Trump will beat him.

At least based on current trends.

Voters would have to be idiots for that to be true.

The evidence, unfortunately, isn't good on that. Personally, I'm more and more for an AOC candidacy.

 

[Craig234]

I don't care that they don't do what I want. What bothers me is they don't understand the consequences of what they do.

Within the left you can argue all you want but once a nominee is chosen you have to unite around the nominee otherwise the right wins. Now even if another Bernie were elected, this SC would squash anything he pushed through. That's the reality.

Liberals are the majority but yet find ways to screw themselves and the country over.

I'm going to explain this to you AGAIN since it's clearly news to you. NOT EVERY VOTER IN THE COUNTRY IS DEMOCRAT. There are Progressive Democrats (almost half). There are 'party'/centrist/corporatist Democrats (just over half). There are trump Republicans (80+%). There are anti-trump Republicans (> 20%). There are more independents than Democrats OR Republicans, about half more 'left' and half more 'right'.

Hillary appealed to the corporatist Democrats. Not much to any of the other groups. Bernie got two independents for every one she did, making him stronger in the general, unless *traitor corporatist Democrats refused to vote for him*, like 25% of Hillary supporters didn't vote for Obama. Polls confirmed he did better against trump than Hillary.

And Bernie got some REPUBLICAN support. I saw a lot of voters say they never vote for Democrats, but Bernie was their first choice and trump their second choice. Because they wanted an 'outsider' who would 'oppose the establishment', a populist. Bernie offered the real deal, trump offered them a phony version of it.

It makes Bernie a STRONGER CANDIDATE for Democrats that he could pull those votes away from trump that Hillary never could. AND it is NOT BERNIE'S FAULT THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. To your credit, you aren't blaming Bernie for that, unlike many Hillary supporters.

But you ARE falsely arguing that those people, who are not Democrats and feel they never vote for Democrats, are "ultra liberals" who spitefully refuse to support the Democratic nominee because they're made Bernie wasn't nominated. That is a myth, a lie, spready by Hillary supporters by mistake or malice. There are a tiny number of people who fit that, but very few.

Let's do a little math. The evidence suggests that 10% of Bernie supports did not vote for Hillary, and your claim is that that same 10% of Bernie supporters voted for trump. *Ultra Liberals didn't vote for trump*. If they were angry, if they disliked Hillary like so many, they'd not vote for president, or they'd write in Bernie, or a few might vote Green. BUT THE 10% WERE DEMOCRAT HATERS, NOT ULTRA LIBERALS.

So your hypocritical attack on them as 'ultra liberals', as people who weren't loyal to a party they never supporter when they were anti-Democrats who would only vote for Bernie and no other Democrats is a perverse smear on Bernie's Progressive supporters. It's attacking him for a strength he had that Hillary didn't to attract them.

And it's not taking responsibility for helping cause trump's election by picking a worse, terrible candidate over Bernie. I'll give you a break that you didn't know that. That despite the evidence, many were 'suckers' who thought Hillary was the 'safer' choice. They were wrong and the price was trump. But the evidence suggests nearly 100% of *Democratic* supporters of Bernie voted for Hillary, UNLIKE HER PUMAs and her own disloyalty to the party.

 

[Craig234]

And if Democrats agree with you, they will have a bleak future. The mainstream of America is closer to Joe Manchin.

Wrong. That's why there's one Joe Manchin blocking 48 of 50 Senate Democrats and the President. It's why polls show over and over support for Bernie Sanders' policies more than any other politician, and far greater support than for Joe Manchin's. You want to make that claim, and you're wrong. Which isn't to say that much of the country isn't to the right of Bernie. We're a very divided country thanks to Republican propaganda increasing that.

 

[Craig234]

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.

What you need to understand about Nixon is the difference between his 'public image' and policies that were moderate and sometimes liberal done to gain political power with voters, and his 'real agenda' behind the scenes which was to help business become the dominant force in our politics.

To understand the change, look at all of the things that happened from the time of the Nixon presidency. Have you heard of the "Powell memo"? It lays out the plotting Nixon supported, just before he put Powel on the Supreme Court to start pushing for the court to start ruling for business such as the 'money is speech' ruling in 1976.

But I'm talking about the infrastructure of the business power in politics - ALEC founded 1973, Heritage Foundation 1973, Cato Institute 1977, and so on. Others were existing organizations who were strengthened for this purpose around that time. For example, "The American Enterprise Institute (AEI)—which had been renamed in 1962—remained a marginal operation with little practical influence in the national politics until the 1970s."

It's understanding that weaponization of American corporations and money into our political system spurred by whatever happened in the Nixon administration that seems the revolution for our country's disastrous and radical move to plutocracy ever since, which helped Reagan win where he was its corporate spokesperson which had been his job for years, such as when the AMA hired him as national spokesperson to oppose JFK's Medicare.

So Reagan popularized the move to plutocracy, convincing millions of Americans that their elected government was their enemy and the wealthy corporations were their friends and what gave them freedom, making "privatization" a loved word and trickle-down (Bush's "Voodoo economics") an economic theory, but he didn't cause it. He helped sell it to the country. Political organizing, institutions and money caused it.

 

[The Mark]

Voters would have to be idiots for that to be true.

The evidence, unfortunately, isn't good on that. Personally, I'm more and more for an AOC candidacy.

That would be interesting.

We could do polls to see if republicans hate her more than they hate Hillary Clinton.

Toss Pelosi and a few other democratic women who seem to draw unreasonable amounts of ire in as well.

Actually now I'm wondering if someone already did that poll.

 

[Craig234]

We could do polls to see if republicans hate her more than they hate Hillary Clinton.

Polls are of little use on Republicans, because they're like a herd of sheep, they will hate who they're told to hate by the Republican propaganda machine when the time comes.

 

[Mithrae]

Hillary's supporters started the birtherism conspiracy theory against Obama, which helped galvanize the white grievance movement from which Trump drew most of his popularity.

Hillary essentially made an open declaration that she wouldn't be a president for a quarter of the country with her "basket of deplorables" slur, alienating independents who were similarly repulsed by Trump's divisiveness, and counter-productively embracing the kind of tribalism which is meat and drink to nationalists, evangelicals etc. but antithetical to core liberal values.

Hillary by all accounts essentially assumed the presidency as her birthright, running a lackluster campaign and taking it for granted that a creature like Trump couldn't possibly win against her.

Hillary continued to follow up with her self-entitled bullshit by continuing to declare for year after year that the election was 'stolen' from her and Trump was not legitimate, doing her part to lay groundwork for the equally petulant but more forceful efforts of Trump following his 2020 loss.



But sure, everything wrong with America is the fault of Bernie's supporters That's how you go about uniting opposition to far-right fascism; by attacking and insulting everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly embrace center-right corporatism and utterly refusing to be any better.

 

[coyote505]

Wrong. That's why there's one Joe Manchin blocking 48 of 50 Senate Democrats and the President. It's why polls show over and over support for Bernie Sanders' policies more than any other politician, and far greater support than for Joe Manchin's. You want to make that claim, and you're wrong. Which isn't to say that much of the country isn't to the right of Bernie. We're a very divided country thanks to Republican propaganda increasing that.

You are speaking for the Democratic Party. Remember, America also has a Republican Party and a growing number of independents. That's why Joe Manchin is the swing vote, rather than AOC.

 

[ataraxia]

Don't have to imagine, we know what a far-left USA would look like.

"Far left" to the GOP today is Bernie Sanders and AOC. What do they advocate? "The Nordic Model". So "a far left USA" would look kinda like this:




OMG! The Horror!!!!

 

[Craig234]

You are speaking for the Democratic Party. Remember, America also has a Republican Party and a growing number of independents. That's why Joe Manchin is the swing vote, rather than AOC.

The country has been pushed far to the right on plutocracy. Bernie represents mainstream policies and has the most popular policies a majority agree with. Manchin does not.

 

[ultmd]

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.

I see your points, @Craig234....don't completely agree with all of them, but certainly understand where you're coming from.

You're right in saying that some Hillary supporters refused to support Obama. But it's not as though that was a one-way street, back in 2008.

I recall polls showing that sizable factions of BOTH sides (i.e. Team Hillary and Team Obama) were telling pollsters that they would vote for McCain (or not vote) if their candidate didn't get the Dem nomination.

Here's one such poll, showing that 28% of Clinton supporters in 2008 would refuse to vote for Obama....while 19% of Obama supporters would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/105691/mccain-vs-obama-28-clinton-backers-mccain.aspx

So I don't think your point (while valid)..... is THE point, here.

Anti-Obama Clinton democrats didn't impact the 2008 election results. Anti-Hillary Clinton (i.e. Bernie) democrats almost certainly did swing the 2016 election to Trump. So it's not a fair comparison that you're making, imo.

Personally, I would have EAGERLY voted for Bernie, if he'd won the nomination. I supported much of his platform. I supported him, not Clinton, in the primary....and I resented the way Clinton literally tried to clear the field of potential challengers BEFORE the primaries began (in typical "Clinton"/DLC fashion), btw. In fact, the only significant issue I had with Bernie was his soft stance of gun control. But I was never a big fan of the Clintons or the "3rd way/DLC" ideology (although I have noted and appreciated Hillary's evolution).

That said, I absolute empathize with the sentiments and the plight of the more liberal faction of the Democratic coalition. In many/most ways, I am them. I vote for "real" liberals in the primaries....but they rarely, if ever, win. I supported McGovern in '72. I supported Jerry Brown in '76. I supported Ted Kennedy (over Carter) in '80. I supported Jackson (then Hart) in '84. I supported Jackson and Paul Simon in '88. I supported Tsongas and Harkin in '96....etc. etc. etc....

But those guys never won the nomination. So I supported whomever DID win the Dem nomination, because the alternative candidate was unacceptable (then, as now)....AND I'm too pragmatic to waste my vote on a protest candidate.

 

[ultmd]

Don't have to imagine, we know what a far-left USA would look like.

....you don't even know what "far-left" is.

From where you (and people like you) sit, Atilla the Hun would look like a "far-left liberal".

There has never been a "far-left" president in this nation's history. FDR comes closest. And LBJ, who governed as POTUS contrary to the way he legislated as a Senator...,would be next. Both rank among the top 10 presidents in history....but neither was "far-left" (at least, not in the minds of people who know w.t.f. they are talking about).

There have, however, been several far-right presidents.

And then, there is the first-and-only LEGITIMATELY FASCIST president in our history........your Dear Leader, himself. Donald Trump.

 

[donhughesmusic]

The ultra-liberals voted for Hillary - not Trump.

It was independents who voted Trump into office - - not because they liked Trump, but because they loathed his opponent.

It was independents who voted Biden into office - - not because they liked Biden, but because they loathed his opponent.

I predict that independents will be consistent with their calculus and vote against Biden in 2024 - - just like they did in the two previous general election cycles.

You're assuming Biden runs again in 2024.

 

[aociswundumho]

....you don't even know what "far-left" is.

From where you (and people like you) sit, Atilla the Hun would look like a "far-left liberal".

There has never been a "far-left" president in this nation's history. FDR comes closest.

You are correct.

 

[Craig234]

I recall polls showing that sizable factions of BOTH sides (i.e. Team Hillary and Team Obama) were telling pollsters that they would vote for McCain (or not vote) if their candidate didn't get the Dem nomination.

That's fair enough. So if we take 25% of Hillary supporters not voting for Obama, and a "sizable"/19% group of Obama supporters doing the same, and only 10% of Bernie supporters when they were people who are not Democrats and normally don't vote for Democrats so nearly all of his Democratic supporters voted for Hillary, it wouldn't be honest to single his supporters, who are the most supportive of the nominee, out as the worst.

Anti-Obama Clinton democrats didn't impact the 2008 election results.

They affected the 'results' in the vote count, and they COULD have changed the election result. It doesn't make sense to say '25% of Hillary's Democratic supporters didn't back the nominee, but he won so it's fine, but 1% of Bernie's Democratic supporters didn't and she lost, so that's a far worse case'.

Anti-Hillary Clinton (i.e. Bernie) democrats almost certainly did swing the 2016 election to Trump. So it's not a fair comparison that you're making, imo.

You haven't listened to what I said. Even though I said it over and over. THESE ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. Bernie drew support from never-Democrat voters who had trump as their second choice. They didn't vote for trump because they're spiteful ultra-liberal Democrats, they voted for trump because they're right-wingers who would not botte for any Democrat except Bernie.

Personally, I would have EAGERLY voted for Bernie, if he'd won the nomination. I supported much of his platform. I supported him, not Clinton, in the primary....and I resented the way Clinton literally tried to clear the field of potential challengers BEFORE the primaries began (in typical "Clinton"/DLC fashion), btw. In fact, the only significant issue I had with Bernie was his soft stance of gun control. But I was never a big fan of the Clintons or the "3rd way/DLC" ideology (although I have noted and appreciated Hillary's evolution).

I agree with all that, and I remind you I supported and voted for Hillary strongly over trump in the general, as Bernie did and nearly all of his *Democratic* supporters.

That said, I absolute empathize with the sentiments and the plight of the more liberal faction of the Democratic coalition. In many/most ways, I am them. I vote for "real" liberals in the primaries....but they rarely, if ever, win. I supported McGovern in '72. I supported Jerry Brown in '76. I supported Ted Kennedy (over Carter) in '80. I supported Jackson (then Hart) in '84. I supported Jackson and Paul Simon in '88. I supported Tsongas and Harkin in '96....etc. etc. etc....

Glad to hear it. It sounds to me like you just have a misunderstanding about Bernie's supporters this time. *I spent the election arguing against those fellow Bernie supporters who advocated against voting for Hillary*. I was almost at war with a forum that seemed dominated by those views.

But those guys never won the nomination. So I supported whomever DID win the Dem nomination, because the alternative candidate was unacceptable (then, as now)....AND I'm too pragmatic to waste my vote on a protest candidate.

I don't even think the third party candidates were better, though I voted for one in an earlier election I'm not so sure about now. Hillary was terrible, but as Bernie said, she was a thousand times better on her worst day than trump on his best. Something I repeatedly quoted him on to other Bernie supporters.

It might sound somewhat contradictory what I'm saying about Bernie supporters voting for Hillary, and how much I argued with them.

But it fits with what I said, about his strength at appealing to voters who normally won't vote for Democrats. We can't blame them for not supporting Hillary, they were never going to and they aren't Democrats. The error is in viewing them as "ultra-liberals" instead of as more right-wing. Ultra-liberals didn't turn from Bernie to trump.