Tough times for left leaning Democrats.

[ipsofacto]

Can't support Clinton, too conservative. I supported Sanders, but see myself far from the centrism of the Democratic Party.

 

[Van Basten]

*Tough time for sane American voters.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If you're a left-leaning Democrat, the party has abandoned you. The Democratic Party has been center-right since the first Clinton.

If you want a real progressive party, support the Greens.

 

[ipsofacto]

*Tough time for sane American voters.

Agree. Trump is reactionary and Clinton is corporate conservatism.

 

[ipsofacto]

If you're a left-leaning Democrat, the party has abandoned you. The Democratic Party has been center-right since the first Clinton.

If you want a real progressive party, support the Greens.

Green Party is virtually impotent.

 

[natsb]

*Tough time for sane American voters.

That just about raps it up. I think you just set the record for ending a thread.

 

[ipsofacto]

That just about raps it up. I think you just set the record for ending a thread.

Odd, only if you're a fatalist.

 

[natsb]

Odd, only if you're a fatalist.

Um... if I may use a quote: "That word, I don't think it means what you think it means."

Okay, I am all ears. How is it fatalist?

 

[ipsofacto]

Um... if I may use a quote: "That word, I don't think it means what you think it means."

Okay, I am all ears. How is it fatalist?

Have to say...tired of people like you making personal attacks.

 

[Cephus]

If you're a left-leaning Democrat, the party has abandoned you. The Democratic Party has been center-right since the first Clinton.

If you want a real progressive party, support the Greens.

Sure, if you want to lose every damn time.

 

[ipsofacto]

Sure, if you want to lose every damn time.

The British have a parliamentary system where many different parties are in government. In the US, two easy for the two parties to dominate government.

 

[Cephus]

The British have a parliamentary system where many different parties are in government. In the US, two easy for the two parties to dominate government.

No, if you want a party to win, that party has to appeal to a wide range of people. The Greens do not do so. The Libertarians do not do so. That's why they lose. Because NOBODY LIKES THEM!

It's not that hard.

 

[ipsofacto]

No, if you want a party to win, that party has to appeal to a wide range of people. The Greens do not do so. The Libertarians do not do so. That's why they lose. Because NOBODY LIKES THEM!

It's not that hard.

Ok...not hard. Deep stuff.

 

[Cephus]

Ok...not hard. Deep stuff.

And honestly, if you like the British system, by all means, move there. If they'll take you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Green Party is virtually impotent.

Yep, because most will vote only for those running under one of the "major" party banners because they can more easily win. Thus we have the party of the big federal governmen vs. the party of the huge federal government that both turn over "the details" to unelected carreer "servants" to work out and nothhig much changes, year to year, except that the cost goes up.

 

[natsb]

Have to say...tired of people like you making personal attacks.

You used a word that doesn't fit the narrative. I asked how it does. That is a request for information, not a personal attack.

A personal attack would be something like "Only a delicate little princess with her panties in a knot would take a request for information as a personal attack", but I didn't do that.

I know how you feel... tired of people with thin skin taking things personally. (is that how it works? Or can we have a civil discussion?)

 

[natsb]

Yep, because most will vote only for those running under one of the "major" party banners because they can more easily win. Thus we have the party of the big federal governmen vs. the party of the huge federal government that both turn over "the details" to unelected carreer "servants" to work out and nothhig much changes, year to year, except that the cost goes up.

That is one of the best descriptions I have seen. I applaud your wisdom. :applaud

 

[Surrealistik]

Indeed.

In balance, despite my thorough loathing of her, I'm probably going to go Clinton with the greatest reluctance but only because:

A: Appointment of Justices (at least one, though I doubt it will be as high as 3+ that some people are claiming).
B: Bernie earned the Dem progressive wing representation in the official DNC platform.
C: Clinton will be held accountable to this modified platform per the down ticket and presidential elections in the event she wins the presidency.

She's a probable criminal (I feel she should have been indicted per gross negligence; intent isn't necessary in light of past and recent precedent), a psychopath and a corporatist shill who cannot be trusted barring concrete, hard incentives obliging her to act in a certain way, but at the same time if she delivers on the compromise Bernie fought tooth and nail for (which she does have some incentive to do) and his movement persists, I think I can live with her vis a vis Trump. It's really more about Trump being either worse or a completely unknown quantity at best and her concessions with Bernie than it is about her qualities as a candidate (she has almost none).

 

[CanadaJohn]

Can't support Clinton, too conservative. I supported Sanders, but see myself far from the centrism of the Democratic Party.

I can understand not supporting Clinton because she's a despicable excuse for a human being, but if you can't support her on ideological grounds, you'll never vote in a national election.

 

[poweRob]

Can't support Clinton, too conservative. I supported Sanders, but see myself far from the centrism of the Democratic Party.

The government is far far more than a presidency. I think you worry too much.

 

[poweRob]

Green Party is virtually impotent.

Only because you won't vote for them.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Can't support Clinton, too conservative. I supported Sanders, but see myself far from the centrism of the Democratic Party.

That's what most Republicans don't get - in the eyes of most of the world, Hillary is fairly conservative, particularly when it comes to the economy. It's as if once the hear the names "Hillary" or "Clinton", their minds shut off and no further rational discussion is tolerated.

That said, I understand you not wanting to vote for Hillary. Just bear in mind what happened in 2001 when we had a lot of Democrats voting for Nader instead of Gore....

 

[blaxshep]

Interesting comments, the left thinks the Democrats have become to conservative and the right thinks the Republicans have become too liberal. Apparently the corporate elitists that actually run the uniparty establishment politics must be centerists. Which makes sense they make the most profits and gain the most power by keeping the people divided.

 

[blaxshep]

That's what most Republicans don't get - in the eyes of most of the world, Hillary is fairly conservative, particularly when it comes to the economy. It's as if once the hear the names "Hillary" or "Clinton", their minds shut off and no further rational discussion is tolerated.

That said, I understand you not wanting to vote for Hillary. Just bear in mind what happened in 2001 when we had a lot of Democrats voting for Nader instead of Gore....

I can agree with that. While I oppose the left on social and governmental fronts, especially thier disdane for the constitution I do agree with thier economic agenda, except deficit spending, I oppose wealth disparity and I believe we should have universal Heath care and living wages and environmental regulations. I'm in the anyone but Hillary camp but if it was Sanders vs Trump it would be a very hard decision for me.

 

[Renae]

The British have a parliamentary system where many different parties are in government. In the US, two easy for the two parties to dominate government.

Yes and what a mess of **** they made.