American Politics

[z.5]

Mr.Sanders better endorse Mrs. Clinton. If he wants to stop a Trump presidency.

Why? Because she is too weak/poor a candidate to beat him herself?

Clinton needs to win over Sanders' supporters - make the case for why they should vote for her and not for Trump, Sanders, some third party - or not vote at all.
She shouldn't feel that she is entitled to anything, especially not their votes, just because she won the horse race.

It's not Sanders' job to win Clinton votes - if she can't beat Trump, then she has no one but herself to blame.

Also, yeah, fuck party loyalty. There is no reason why someone should ever place party loyalty over their own ideals.

 

[Philia]

Why? Because she is too weak/poor a candidate to beat him herself?

Clinton needs to win over Sanders' supporters - make the case for why they should vote for her and not for Trump, Sanders, some third party - or not vote at all.
She shouldn't feel that she is entitled to anything, especially not their votes, just because she won the horse race.

It's not Sanders' job to win Clinton votes - if she can't beat Trump, then she has no one but herself to blame.

Also, yeah, fuck party loyalty. There is no reason why someone should ever place party loyalty over their own ideals.

Sanders said Trump presidency would be a disaster. Now he's out of the race. So if he want to stop Trump from winning the election then endorsing Mrs. Clinton would not hurt.

Also, if individual principles are more important than party, then one should run as independent.

 

[z.5]

Sanders said Trump presidency would be a disaster. Now he's out of the race. So if he want to stop Trump from winning the election then endorsing Mrs. Clinton would not hurt.

Also, if individual principles are more important than party, then one should run as independent.

Well, he isn't technically out yet.

Also, sure, it probably wouldn't hurt - but it would go against everything he stands for.
By not endorsing Clinton, he is in a stronger position to force her to have to move further towards his aims. It's smarter politics, if he actually wants to achieve many of the things he has run on.

Run as an independant and stand even less chance of winning? Why should Sanders not also be allowed to game the system, as everyone else appears to be doing?

Sanders argues for changing the system, but, unfortunately, he has to play by certain rules to even get close to a position to do so.

 

[shionoro]

Why does he have to? Why should anyone endorse someone they don't support? I believe he will endorse her at some point, or else he'd probably be railroaded. Though I'm not sure what effect that'd have among Vermont's voters, they love the guy (he won Vermont with 86% of the vote rofl).

Honestly if the GOP field were different, I could see someone like Sanders not endorsing Clinton at all, and I wouldn't blame him in the least. He's been a Democrat for less than a year, why would anyone expect party loyalty? Him becoming a Democrat was a smart strategical choice, or else he still wouldn't have appeared in any televised debates up until this very day! Fuck party loyalty IMO, it's part of the problem with our political system. Just look at the GOP, someone like Marco Rubio, whose manhood was insulted by Trump, is expected to endorse him or face the consequences. Why would anyone with a modicum of self-respect do such a thing? Paul Ryan tiptoed around endorsing the guy for a long time, and right after he does it he betrays any reasonable person's confidence with the Judge Curiel controversy...and guess what, he still backs him!

The DNC and Clinton supporters are pushing the narrative that Trump being the GOP's nominee is supposed to be a unifying factor for moderates/progressives/independents, but Hillary Clinton has no business holding the office herself. This is the South Park episode come to life - people are choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Because on the long run, by doing that, you strengthen your party. And in a two party system, as long as your country does not go off the rails like with trump, that will leave you with politics much nearer to your own than the alternative.
It also helps to stay in the political game.
Clinton endorsed obama and then got secretary of state. Hurting your own party leaves you with less influence to change things the way you want and it strengthens people who are much further from what you want.
And Sanders behaved somewhat like an unruly elephant regarding the democratic party.

He just ran with the democrats to begin with because he wanted to use the party which he didnt care for as a chance for the presidency.
Fair enough, but then he instantly started to complain about the parties process of election, raving against the establishment.
It is pretty clear that people are not thriled by someone coming to your party, which you put in a lot of personal effort, using it for their own goals and telling th e public how undemocratic it is just to then not being able toa ccept a lose to hurt it more.

Exactly, why would anyone exspect party loyality? Aka, why would any democrat want him to represent them?
Sanders could have made a more honest effort here if he ran third party or independend. That still might have cost the dems the win, but it would have been a lot more honest than what he has done.

And yes i agree that this is a flaw of your political system.
But you cannot say that running a dem is a smart choice but then not sticking with the dem party aka playing the game necessary for influence in the party is a sign of selfrespect.

It is either dishonest to run with the dems o begin with if you have no party loyalty, or it is a smart move which then ended up in a very stupid one when not endorsing clinton.

 

[kkck]

Why does he have to? Why should anyone endorse someone they don't support? I believe he will endorse her at some point, or else he'd probably be railroaded. Though I'm not sure what effect that'd have among Vermont's voters, they love the guy (he won Vermont with 86% of the vote rofl).

Honestly if the GOP field were different, I could see someone like Sanders not endorsing Clinton at all, and I wouldn't blame him in the least. He's been a Democrat for less than a year, why would anyone expect party loyalty? Him becoming a Democrat was a smart strategical choice, or else he still wouldn't have appeared in any televised debates up until this very day! Fuck party loyalty IMO, it's part of the problem with our political system. Just look at the GOP, someone like Marco Rubio, whose manhood was insulted by Trump, is expected to endorse him or face the consequences. Why would anyone with a modicum of self-respect do such a thing? Paul Ryan tiptoed around endorsing the guy for a long time, and right after he does it he betrays any reasonable person's confidence with the Judge Curiel controversy...and guess what, he still backs him!

The DNC and Clinton supporters are pushing the narrative that Trump being the GOP's nominee is supposed to be a unifying factor for moderates/progressives/independents, but Hillary Clinton has no business holding the office herself. This is the South Park episode come to life - people are choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Well, if you put it like that then yeah, technically there is no reason to endorse someone you don't like. BUT in the end every politician has an agenda which in principle should be bigger than whoever specific president they are voting for. This also goes for virtually anyone who is voting as well, even if it is with a "cut your losses" mentality.

As far as the endorsement thing... I think you are taking that too far. Sure, sanders joined the democrat party because strategically it made sense... but what also played a part into the whole thing is probably that the democrat party is the one whose views are closer to his own. Otherwise, why would someone with a modicum of self-respect join a party with whom they disagree so much? Sanders could potentially not endorse clinton but.... why? Does it make sense for him to say that clinton's agenda is the same as trump's? That by all rational metric factually incorrect. It wouldn't help him in the least to advance his own agenda. If anything it would make him seem like a sellout considering he joined a party merely for attention even though the implication would be that he object to it as much as the republican party.

As for the republicans, I think they are a bit less of a sellout than you think. Republicans actually agree with quite a few of trumps proposals. What they disagree with about trump is for the most part his rhetoric and then a few of his proposals.
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/50-70/Marco-Rubio-vs-Donald-Trump

Just look at how trump's positions compare to rubio's, a conservative "moderate" who is for some reason called the republican obama... Remove trump's rhetoric an there is quite a bit of agreement there. In other words, the republican moderate who is criticized for being too liberal is actually shares the same views as trump. Sure, ryan has tip toed around trump... But when ryan says he shares a lot of views with trump, that is factually correct. In other words, republicans don't disagree with trump when it comes to the big picture. And, almost laughably, republicans take issue with trump because his positions are not politically correct even though they actually agree with him....

And for the lolz, compare hillary's positions with the others:
http://presidential-candidates.insi...illary-Clinton-vs-Marco-Rubio-vs-Donald-Trump

As far as the south park bit... South park does have moments of brilliance but that episode IMO was not one of them although it was funny (if I understood the actual meaning of the episode at least). The whole point seems to be "voting doesn't matter" which.... is wrong. Not voting is not something that makes a statement... at least not by itself.

At this point rather than a turd sandwich and a giant douche I propose the comparison to be a turd sandwich and a big mac. A big mac is not good for your health and overall the taste is.... barely passable, if at all. And if you get a regular soda and fries with it you might as well be viciously stabbing your liver and pancreas. But if there are no other alternatives it's still better than being hungry. And it has the advantage of not having an actual piece of shit between its buns to give you hepatitis or typhoid fever or who the fuck knows what else.....

 

[xi0]

He just ran with the democrats to begin with because he wanted to use the party which he didnt care for as a chance for the presidency

"Didn't care for" is too strong of a way to put it. Sanders had always caucused with the Democrats in the Senate.

Fair enough, but then he instantly started to complain about the parties process of election, raving against the establishment.

I fail to see how this is a problem. People in the establishment complain about the establishment. At least Sander's motives appeared genuine, regardless of whatever you want to say about it being damaging.

It is pretty clear that people are not thriled by someone coming to your party, which you put in a lot of personal effort, using it for their own goals and telling th e public how undemocratic it is just to then not being able toa ccept a lose to hurt it more.

Exactly, why would anyone exspect party loyality? Aka, why would any democrat want him to represent them?

Based on what? Plenty of Democrats in every state voted for Sanders over Clinton. That's why the race was as close as it was in the first place. Most of the state primaries are closed elections, meaning only Democrats can vote in them. They clearly don't care about party loyalty, nor does the average person. Democrat and Republican parties exist so lazy people can vote for a party's platform, not the person.

Sanders could have made a more honest effort here if he ran third party or independend. That still might have cost the dems the win, but it would have been a lot more honest than what he has done.

Yes, and this "honest" effort would amounted to jack shit compared to what it's been. Like zimbardo said, Sander's played the system for his benefit, just like any other person would. Like I said before, Sanders would have had so little media coverage running as an Independent, that most people wouldn't even know his name or what he stood for TODAY.

As far as the endorsement thing... I think you are taking that too far. Sure, sanders joined the democrat party because strategically it made sense... but what also played a part into the whole thing is probably that the democrat party is the one whose views are closer to his own. Otherwise, why would someone with a modicum of self-respect join a party with whom they disagree so much? Sanders could potentially not endorse clinton but.... why?

Of course, Sander is a democratic socialist...he was never going to run as a Republican. He only had one choice in this election cycle. Who said they disagreed so much? Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. But Hillary Clinton has more of history as a Neo-Con than a Liberal. Sanders essentially forced her to appear more progressive due to his presence. A political strategist would call what she did "good politicking", but anyone who cares to look into her history can't see it as anything but disingenuous IMO.

 

[kkck]

Of course, Sander is a democratic socialist...he was never going to run as a Republican. He only had one choice in this election cycle. Who said they disagreed so much? Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. But Hillary Clinton has more of history as a Neo-Con than a Liberal. Sanders essentially forced her to appear more progressive due to his presence. A political strategist would call what she did "good politicking", but anyone who cares to look into her history can't see it as anything but disingenuous IMO.

What exactly do you mean by neocon? Well, I have a notion of what you mean but not the entire picture (right wing, left wing, neoliberal, neoconservative and such thing's meaning tend to vary over time and place)... Or do you mean she is a neocon in some specific aspect? In any case my impression so far is that hillary has been rather consistently on the liberal end of the spectrum of US politics, safe for her more aggressive foreign policy positions which seem to be closer to be a bit closer to the conservative side of the US politics (though I think republicans do not see it as aggressive enough which IMO is terrifying because even obama is way too aggressive). Reading up on her not being a liberal does produce some results online but for the most part the results seem from the pundit side of the spectrum (of course, I am not saying she is the most liberal/progressive democrat out there but she should still fall well within what the US considers liberal at any point of her god knows how long career).

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 9, 2016 ---

aaaaaand the inevitable happened.

 

[shionoro]

This reminds me once again that obama is insanely good at holding speeches.

 

[xi0]

What exactly do you mean by neocon?

Her political career is quite similar to her husband's legacy. She's a self-described moderate. When I say she's basically a neocon, I'm saying that she is a center-left, establishment politician that has a history of aggressive foreign policy, is BFFs with Henry Kissinger and brags about it as if that is somehow meant to be appealing. Look at the Clinton Foundation, look at what she has said in the past. She isn't your typical liberal progressive. She went more left during the primary campaign because she had to due to Sanders. I mean everyone tends to move away from the center during primary campaigns, regardless of party. But still...the proof is in the pudding.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 10, 2016 ---

When Christopher Hitchens was still alive, he was quite critical of the Clintons, despite being a liberal himself. This is just a summary really.

 

[M3J]

Why? Because she is too weak/poor a candidate to beat him herself?

Clinton needs to win over Sanders' supporters - make the case for why they should vote for her and not for Trump, Sanders, some third party - or not vote at all.
She shouldn't feel that she is entitled to anything, especially not their votes, just because she won the horse race.

It's not Sanders' job to win Clinton votes - if she can't beat Trump, then she has no one but herself to blame.

Also, yeah, fuck party loyalty. There is no reason why someone should ever place party loyalty over their own ideals.

but it is wise for Bernie to encourage his supporters to vote for Hillary instead of "boycotting."

Exactly, why would anyone exspect party loyality? Aka, why would any democrat want him to represent them?
Sanders could have made a more honest effort here if he ran third party or independend. That still might have cost the dems the win, but it would have been a lot more honest than what he has done.

No he wouldn't have. He apparently did that many times, but it got him nowhere so he joined the democrats, and when he did that he became well known.

What exactly do you mean by neocon? Well, I have a notion of what you mean but not the entire picture (right wing, left wing, neoliberal, neoconservative and such thing's meaning tend to vary over time and place)... Or do you mean she is a neocon in some specific aspect? In any case my impression so far is that hillary has been rather consistently on the liberal end of the spectrum of US politics, safe for her more aggressive foreign policy positions which seem to be closer to be a bit closer to the conservative side of the US politics (though I think republicans do not see it as aggressive enough which IMO is terrifying because even obama is way too aggressive). Reading up on her not being a liberal does produce some results online but for the most part the results seem from the pundit side of the spectrum (of course, I am not saying she is the most liberal/progressive democrat out there but she should still fall well within what the US considers liberal at any point of her god knows how long career).

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 9, 2016 ---

aaaaaand the inevitable happened.

I wonder how Obama's endorsement will hurt Hillary's campaign.

 

[xi0]

I wonder how Obama's endorsement will hurt Hillary's campaign.

It has no effect. The sitting president supports the person who becomes the presumptive nominee of their party.

 

[M3J]

Obama's unpopular though, even among democrats. Last I heard, anyway.

 

[z.5]

but it is wise for Bernie to encourage his supporters to vote for Hillary instead of "boycotting."

Well, that depends on whether you believe Trump will be significantly worse for the country than Hillary will be.
It also depends on if you believe Sanders (or another third party candidate) could ever get elected at this point. This seems highly unlikely, unless something extreme were to happen (read possible indictment).

Sanders appears to think so.

It's the old 'lesser of two evils' argument - Trump has managed to prove himself enough of a bigoted arsehole to convince many that a man with no real policies is worse than a woman who may not stick to the policies she is suggesting to have (and who will support her rich donors, to the ends of the earth, in the policies she would enact).

To be honest, if Trump would actually enact any of the policies he has previously suggested he will - then I can understand the fear.
... I can also understand the feeling that some people have, which suggests that it was all a horrific act, and Trump will 'suddenly pivot left' when he realises that the whole country (and independents) are nowhere near as far-right as many of the people he has currently been trying to win over in the primaries.

 

[Philia]

Obama to campaign with Clinton. Sanders also seems to be getting ready to back her(if he's offered something significant, like Obama did to Clinton).

I guess Clinton's rating will go a bit higher in the next few weeks. Lets see how Trump handles this.

 

[kkck]

Her political career is quite similar to her husband's legacy. She's a self-described moderate. When I say she's basically a neocon, I'm saying that she is a center-left, establishment politician that has a history of aggressive foreign policy, is BFFs with Henry Kissinger and brags about it as if that is somehow meant to be appealing. Look at the Clinton Foundation, look at what she has said in the past. She isn't your typical liberal progressive. She went more left during the primary campaign because she had to due to Sanders. I mean everyone tends to move away from the center during primary campaigns, regardless of party. But still...the proof is in the pudding.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 10, 2016 ---

When Christopher Hitchens was still alive, he was quite critical of the Clintons, despite being a liberal himself. This is just a summary really.

Ok, I get what you mean now. What you said at first sounded off to me because quite frankly I always saw the Clintons as prototype democrats and US liberals (perhaps in more or less the same way I saw campaigning marco rubio as a generic republican drone). Sure, there are other democrats/progressive who are more to the left and bernie sanders supporters are even further to the left but what I would have guessed it was them who were outside the norm. Even googling the subject indicates hillary is actually more liberal than the average democrat, even if only a bit (save for the foreign policy bit).

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 10, 2016 ---

I wonder how Obama's endorsement will hurt Hillary's campaign.

Why would it hurt her? Obama, to the best of my knowledge, is relatively popular at least among democrats and independents. Obviously not among republicans but those are votes that democrats are not getting regardless of the candidate. If anything there is a bigger chance of this hurting obama's image that hillary's.

 

[xi0]

Obama's unpopular though, even among democrats. Last I heard, anyway.

He's a lame duck president, their approval ratings always go down.

Ok, I get what you mean now. What you said at first sounded off to me because quite frankly I always saw the Clintons as prototype democrats and US liberals (perhaps in more or less the same way I saw campaigning marco rubio as a generic republican drone). Sure, there are other democrats/progressive who are more to the left and bernie sanders supporters are even further to the left but what I would have guessed it was them who were outside the norm. Even googling the subject indicates hillary is actually more liberal than the average democrat, even if only a bit (save for the foreign policy bit).

The Clinton administration was an example of what many call "conservative democrats". Clinton was popular for a lot of the same reasons Reagan was. He actually worked with people across the aisle. Now, you had a decent contingent of people who saw through this and realized the guy was abusing his power and on a personal level, was quite questionable. But people didn't really seem to care, hence him being re-elected. On a foreign policy basis, their philosophy didn't seem to be all that different from what we got from the second Bush administration, which was the height of Neo-Conservatism. The only difference is war in the Middle East was under much higher scrutiny in a post-9/11 world compared to the military campaign in the Balkans.

But taking voting record aside, look at the person. Look at all of the controversy that surrounds her and her husband. If you think like her, that some "vast right-wing conspiracy" is to blame, or the way her campaign has spun it into an issue of feminism with the #ImWithHer campaign, then you're not really paying attention to the fine print. Those that did do this and were fed up with her antics in 2008 backed Sanders. And that goes for a ton of outspoken liberals on the left and plenty of celebrities who associated with her in the past. I mean, fuck, Trump is running against her and he had donated tons of money to her and her husband's "efforts".

 

[M3J]

Well, that depends on whether you believe Trump will be significantly worse for the country than Hillary will be.
It also depends on if you believe Sanders (or another third party candidate) could ever get elected at this point. This seems highly unlikely, unless something extreme were to happen (read possible indictment).

Sanders appears to think so.

It's the old 'lesser of two evils' argument - Trump has managed to prove himself enough of a bigoted arsehole to convince many that a man with no real policies is worse than a woman who may not stick to the policies she is suggesting to have (and who will support her rich donors, to the ends of the earth, in the policies she would enact).

To be honest, if Trump would actually enact any of the policies he has previously suggested he will - then I can understand the fear.
... I can also understand the feeling that some people have, which suggests that it was all a horrific act, and Trump will 'suddenly pivot left' when he realises that the whole country (and independents) are nowhere near as far-right as many of the people he has currently been trying to win over in the primaries.

He probably will be, but I'm considering Trump saying dumb shit will get the country in trouble as opposed to Hillary knowing how to be a politician. I mean, one country wanted to ban Trump while one or few others cut ties with his businesses. If Putin pisses Trump off, how will he react? Will he say "Putin is a dopey faced Commie whose ass got kicked by the US!!!"?

Enough of the whole country is far right that he's the most popular, and the way Trump protesters are acting, it only gets him more support.

Ok, I get what you mean now. What you said at first sounded off to me because quite frankly I always saw the Clintons as prototype democrats and US liberals (perhaps in more or less the same way I saw campaigning marco rubio as a generic republican drone). Sure, there are other democrats/progressive who are more to the left and bernie sanders supporters are even further to the left but what I would have guessed it was them who were outside the norm. Even googling the subject indicates hillary is actually more liberal than the average democrat, even if only a bit (save for the foreign policy bit).

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 10, 2016 ---

Why would it hurt her? Obama, to the best of my knowledge, is relatively popular at least among democrats and independents. Obviously not among republicans but those are votes that democrats are not getting regardless of the candidate. If anything there is a bigger chance of this hurting obama's image that hillary's.

He's not that popular, and as far as I recall reading, democrats have been going against him as well for a while.

 

[SharkBait]

Trump will at least deliver on ushering in more of a focus on conservative values in the country, repeal Obamacare, and hopefully avoid the liberal agenda. He seems to be mellowing out and going back on a few of his outlandish ideas that made the other candidates far stronger.

 

[M3J]

No, Trump will end up making America worse. America is getting worse with all the conservative values that are being pushed upon it, and we don't need that. This country needs to be far more liberal if it is to advance and become better, with some conservative values mixed in.

Affordable Care Act seems to be incredibly effective, though I've read that quite a few people haven't had good experience, my mom included.


Also, Trump's tweets on the Orlando Shooting are disgusting and shows what a scumbag he is. Also a clear sign we need to do something about gun control, as all politicians can do is offer prayers adn thoughts.

 

[Philia]

Trump is trying to take credit on being right about radical Islam.

I guess the incident gives Trump bit of an advantage because of his past remarks.