Roberto Firmino
#GoonLife
These Bernard stans so disgustingthey're still in here defending Trump
If Bernie doesn't get the nod how are you voting (POLL)
- Thread starter Brown_Pride
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bernie feel the burn poll voting
Rarebird77
Pro
at the poll options
Where's the "I"m not a Clinton fan but I'll vote for her anyway because I don't want Trump or Cruz's Supreme Court nominations fukking shyt up for decades" option?
I'm far from a Hillary Clinton stan but some of yall are just being irrational.
Yes because lord knows having a democrat will mean a Supreme Court justice that's good for Black people.
Ask President Obama. . ..
Yeah, a liberal justice will just insure Roe V. Wade stands as is. .. what does that have to do with me?
Propaganda
Superstar
i don't like hilary either but if i was american and it came down to clinton vs. trump, i'd vote for her all day, every day.
trump is easily the most ridiculous candidate i've ever seen. the guy is basically a couple steps away from being terry crews in 'idiocracy'.
trump is easily the most ridiculous candidate i've ever seen. the guy is basically a couple steps away from being terry crews in 'idiocracy'.
how have the 2 justices obama appointed voted against black interests?
anyway, as for the general theme of this thread: republicans winning elections doesn't push the democratic party further to the left. it's never worked that way and never will.
Honestly I think Clinton is a better accelerationist candidate than Trump. When Republicans are in office the democrats co-opt left critiques to their own ends. When Bush was in office, being anti-war was popular because Bush was pro-war. Democrats told everyone that if you just had a democrat president, we wouldn't have problems in Afghanistan or Iraq. The collapse of 07-08 was similarly passed off as republican mismanagement rather than structural problems.
When you have an Obama or Clinton in the White House, the democrats simply start to say wars not bad and the economy is actually good. As time goes on less and less people buy into these fictions and reject the democratic apparatus. As you saw in 2000 when democrats had to owned collapsing manufacturing sector jobs and foreign adventurism, a good amount of left votes went for the non democrat Nader. Still visible in 2016 when democrats partially own the dreary economic outlook and shyt show that is Libya and Syria(Honduras to a lesser extent), where a much larger portion of democrats go for the non Democrat sanders.
Primary differences between the 2000 and 2016 races is that even amidst the economic downturn in 2000, economic memories of 1990s boom still fresh, Iraq hadn't finished up yet, and Sanders' primary run much more palatable to dem voters than Nader's general. Compare these two contests to 1992, and 2008. All three primaries completely dominated by neoliberal candidates(exception to this thesis being Jesse Jackson in 88, but Jackson was a unique candidate in a number of ways; and still lost) with extensive DNC ties and the generals all lacking significant left alternatives.
Evidence seems to show that DNC is best able to bring leftish voters to heel under GOP presidents. Soft Keynesian neoliberals look much better when compared to pure Randians, neo Birchers, and raging white nationalists. Conversely when Obama's and Clintons must stand on their own merits they, logically, alienate vast swathes of the country.
Being that we aren't ever getting the 90s economy back, neoliberals will continue to look worse and worse not by by electing fascists; but by continuing to be themselves.
Yes. People act like others haven't already tried to grab the reins of power from the inside before. It's much harder than most make it seem. Integrating yourself and your people can backfire, it has in the past. As you've seen this cycle with many former progressive and even radical outlets and individuals going to bat for Clinton and other company men over lefter alternatives.
When you have an Obama or Clinton in the White House, the democrats simply start to say wars not bad and the economy is actually good. As time goes on less and less people buy into these fictions and reject the democratic apparatus. As you saw in 2000 when democrats had to owned collapsing manufacturing sector jobs and foreign adventurism, a good amount of left votes went for the non democrat Nader. Still visible in 2016 when democrats partially own the dreary economic outlook and shyt show that is Libya and Syria(Honduras to a lesser extent), where a much larger portion of democrats go for the non Democrat sanders.
Primary differences between the 2000 and 2016 races is that even amidst the economic downturn in 2000, economic memories of 1990s boom still fresh, Iraq hadn't finished up yet, and Sanders' primary run much more palatable to dem voters than Nader's general. Compare these two contests to 1992, and 2008. All three primaries completely dominated by neoliberal candidates(exception to this thesis being Jesse Jackson in 88, but Jackson was a unique candidate in a number of ways; and still lost) with extensive DNC ties and the generals all lacking significant left alternatives.
Evidence seems to show that DNC is best able to bring leftish voters to heel under GOP presidents. Soft Keynesian neoliberals look much better when compared to pure Randians, neo Birchers, and raging white nationalists. Conversely when Obama's and Clintons must stand on their own merits they, logically, alienate vast swathes of the country.
Being that we aren't ever getting the 90s economy back, neoliberals will continue to look worse and worse not by by electing fascists; but by continuing to be themselves.
Yes. People act like others haven't already tried to grab the reins of power from the inside before. It's much harder than most make it seem. Integrating yourself and your people can backfire, it has in the past. As you've seen this cycle with many former progressive and even radical outlets and individuals going to bat for Clinton and other company men over lefter alternatives.
Rarebird77
Pro
Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns?
He is an established centrist on the bench, with a tough stance on crime that could, in theory, make him palatable to a Republican Senate who has vowed not to confirm any nominee until the next President takes office. However, there is one area in particular that conservatives will scrutinize.
im aware of that, breh. bernie was never gonna win. but just tell me that the deck wasnt stacked from the beginning, just in case
The deck was stacked only in the sense that he was going against a political juggernaut while being a relatively unknown democratic socialist. So yeah, it was a going to be an uphill battle, just like it was for Obama. But that doesn't mean it was impossible for him to win. He was probably one major Hillary gaffe away from winning this thing.
I'm confused. What is it about Trump's foreign policy & trade policy that differs from Clinton and would take longer for ordinary people to recover?
Seems to me this would make little difference. Clinton would still be up 1947 to 1575 in total delegates, and probably still get the nomination. Sanders would need to win 2/3s of the remaining delegates in this scenario ... not very likely to happen.
Planned on voting for the democratic nominee no matter what. I'm more voting for the supreme court than the individual running.
I'm not a fan of Bernie's plans and hillary is not my first choice by a long shot.
Republicans...Trump, not even on my radar, ESPECIALLY, with all the possible openings on the Supreme court
I'm not a fan of Bernie's plans and hillary is not my first choice by a long shot.
Republicans...Trump, not even on my radar, ESPECIALLY, with all the possible openings on the Supreme court
This is true. The reason the super imbalance matters is because it affected how the race was covered and ran before it was decided.
The narrative following every sanders win was that it didn't matter because of the huge delegate gap that existed. While a sizable gap existed following Super Tuesday, it was near universally inflated by including the super delegate gap.
how is that an answer to my question: how have the 2 justices obama appointed voted against black interests?
Rarebird77
Pro
No they wouldn't have.
The democratic party didn't throw dirt in Obama's face like they did bernie. Hillary went hard on Obama but the democratic party supported both of their campaigns.
They acted like bernie was some old crazy socialist dude that was gonna tear the country apart, when his whole platform is shyt that the Democrats believed in and fought for before he started running. They actually moved away from the left to the center to oppose him.
Brown_Pride
All Star
this is why i don't fear voting for Trump. Rather than it being Republican's vs democrats it'd be Trump vs Republicans vs Democrats.youre right, that wouldnt deal an enormous blow to the democratic party that spit in our faces by installing this whore as the face of the left
all that time and effort wouldnt have been in vain for them, right, theyd just be like ", fukk it. who cares"
why should i be scared of a trump presidency anyway? its like motherfukkers forgot about checks and balances when it comes to that possiblity. it would not be Dictator Trump
its all "the president is just a figurehead" until whillary loses and trump wins? it cant be both
I'm morbidly curious to see how it would pan out actually.
The office of the president, since Bush II, has steadily been grabbing at power and the people and congress have allowed that to happen more and more. With Trump in office you'd have a "populous" president leading the country not really belonging to a party in congress. Granted, he'd be more inclinded to lean right in most things.
Food for thought...
We know who bought and paid for Hillary
We know who bought and paid for Trump
We know who bought and paid for Bernie
One is paid for by corporate money, one is paid for by his own money and one is paid for by money belonging to the people.
Based on that which is the best option?
2016 Outside Spending by Single-Candidate Super PACs | OpenSecrets
Brown_Pride
All Star
HEre's the other big point. YOUR VOTE DON'T MEAN shyt.Not Voting....
Literally. I'm always shocked out how few people realize YOUR VOTE DOESN'T ELECT THE PRESIDENT.
But let's all keep arguing over a vote that, literally means nothing...
by the way don't forget to vote in the poll if you haven't already
