Bernie's Down But Not Out

[Bad Penny II]

So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?

No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.

I'm dubious about this, Davins in increasing number don't vote democrat because party isn't left enough, anti Davins desert them because they're too mamby pamby.  So the party stays in its centre spot.
There are other alternatives, self immolation can be quite effective, not you, cheese, we haven't got over Crow yet, but if a lesser Davin did it for the cause...

The plea wasn't to vote wise, it was to vote out of fear.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing, but everyone is treating the president like the president solely runs the country. No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

And one of the other errors is that the irrational plea has somehow offended my sensibility. I don't get offended by demonstrations of ignorance, we're all ignorant of far more than we are knowledgeable.

Fear, was it fear? Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's things you should be fearful of.
I think most of the international forum members wouldn't be entirely ignorant of your system.  I don't think it's a very good model, but it provided a guide to other would be democracies as to what works and what doesn't, I thank you all for that.

I was suggesting the compromise offends your sensibility, yet I know you to be an entirely rational thing, sorry.

[Davin]

So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?

No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.

I'm dubious about this, Davins in increasing number don't vote democrat because party isn't left enough, anti Davins desert them because they're too mamby pamby.

That is not how Davins vote.

So the party stays in its centre spot.
There are other alternatives, self immolation can be quite effective, not you, cheese, we haven't got over Crow yet, but if a lesser Davin did it for the cause...

The party does not stay where it is, it's just a little behind the Republicans. If the Republicans fail at attaining another presidency, I will guarantee that many of the money backers of the Republicans will just switch over to the Democrats. Some will probably support the Tea Party. But the end result will be same, the elected representatives will end up very deep in the pockets of other people and will legislate accordingly.

The plea wasn't to vote wise, it was to vote out of fear.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing, but everyone is treating the president like the president solely runs the country. No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

And one of the other errors is that the irrational plea has somehow offended my sensibility. I don't get offended by demonstrations of ignorance, we're all ignorant of far more than we are knowledgeable.

Fear, was it fear? Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's things you should be fearful of.

I never said there was anything bad about fear. However, there is something bad about letting fear or any other emotion bypass ones rationality.

I think most of the international forum members wouldn't be entirely ignorant of your system.  I don't think it's a very good model, but it provided a guide to other would be democracies as to what works and what doesn't, I thank you all for that.

Most people are ignorant of my system, but my system is not what I propose, not too many people would agree with it. However, I do support George Washington's ideas about being anti-political party. You might have heard of him, he was the first president of the US.

I was suggesting the compromise offends your sensibility, yet I know you to be an entirely rational thing, sorry.

Again, you can't offend my sensibilities, not even by continuing to try to imply that you somehow did. If you think I am entirely rational, then you don't know who I am and are still attacking your own men of straw.

[Firebird]

The party does not stay where it is, it's just a little behind the Republicans. If the Republicans fail at attaining another presidency, I will guarantee that many of the money backers of the Republicans will just switch over to the Democrats. Some will probably support the Tea Party. But the end result will be same, the elected representatives will end up very deep in the pockets of other people and will legislate accordingly.

I have a real problem with the blanket statement that "it's just a little behind the Republicans." Sure, the party isn't as far to the left as most of us would like, but the GOP has turned into a party of anarcho-capitalists, neocons, and religious wackos. There's a reason I would never consider moving to the South or most of the Midwest.

Going back to some of your previous statements:

I spoke incorrectly there, I should have said that the world will not be destroyed because Trump is the president if he is elected. I don't think that Hillary offers a much better offer. At least with Trump I can assume that he is incompetent, but I know that Hillary is very smart, strong, and capable, but still has made many false claims herself.



I'm not so sure that it will be much better with Hillary, but if those are the two most likely options, it might be better with someone who is not as well equipped. I don't know.

I have to say that diagram looks much better for Hillary than it does for Trump. But more importantly, I don't understand your logic of putting someone who's more incompetent into the top position as a good strategy. Here's a list of some of the stuff Trump can do without Congress stopping him.  And that's before he uses his proven ability to rile up a crowd, possibly influence public opinion, and scare Congress into doing something stupid like bomb Iran. You know, like Bush did.

I don't see why the only solution is to start at the bottom and work the way up. I guess my question is why can't we vote the way we want to on all levels at the same time? Keep in mind that I am not prone let fear sidestep my rationality.

Fair point, it shouldn't be that way. Hell, my vote counts less than someone in Ohio or Florida because they're swing states and Massachusetts isn't. But let's say for argument's sake you live in a swing state and you choose to vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) or some other third-party candidate who won't win. Sure, maybe you'll be able to stick to your pure principles and point to that. What does that really accomplish, though? Does it really change anything in the country in a way that will accomplish your goals? Ralph Nader clearly played a significant role in 2000. What did that accomplish besides possible getting the disastrous Bush elected? Sure, it got us Obama. But Obama's had to spend most of his presidency cleaning up that mess rather than focusing on a more progressive agenda.

Yes, fine, I'm appealing to fear and you claim that doesn't affect you. But if your goal is to nudge the country and system in a better direction, helping to get Trump elected does nothing for that goal, unless he ends up blowing up the whole damn thing like what happened in Germany post world war II. And that's not worth it, in my opinion (and most people's). Large changes, like making the political system fairer or other things like health care reform, gay marriage, etc usually bubble up from below, not from the top down. So if  you want to change the system, starting locally is your better bet. By the time you get to the top, you're simply refusing to play the game and conceding to your opponent.

[jumbojak]

I'm clearly not American so don't get a vote anyway (Firebird maybe be relieved I don't )

I wouldn't vote for Hillary.  I don't think she's the same as Trump but I don't think she's progressive like she claims.  If Bernie isn't on the ticket I'd vote for Dr Jill Stein (Green Party).  Of course, there's a risk Trump would get in, but honestly that might actually shake the Democrats and America up enough for them to vote for actual change in the next election.

That's a little like Hitler teaching the Germans a lesson. And he didn't have nuclear weapons.

That's not the whole story regarding Hitler. It wasn't just Hitler who's actions led to world war, it was a number of nations and individuals whose decisions to act, or not, in various situations led to the events following his election. Could Trump be considered a fascist? Under some definitions, yes, he certainly could. But that doesn't mean he'll be able to set events in motion on the same scale as the 1940s.

Trump doesn't have the organization that the Nazis did during the 1930s, lacks the same sort of driving political ambition (I mean really, who thinks Trump has spent the last decade or more putting together a plan to wrest control of the US from the political establishment? He strikes me as a buffoon who ran because he could and found that doing so stroked his ego.) and would be hard pressed to accomplish his more outrageous policy proposals.

Yes, a Trump presidency could send the world into chaos. Alternatively, so long as we're extrapolating from historical examples, a more principled stand against Hitler's aggression by the French and British could have nipped the last world war in the bud. A Trump presidency could be the worst possible outcome for everyone, so could a Clinton presidency or a Sander's presidency if public pressure were directed in the right way.

[Tom62]

I consider Hillary Clinton to be the more sneaky of the two. As secretary of state, she played some very dangerous games. If she continues to annoy Russia and does nothing against ISIS then I rather have Trump as next president, for the safety of the world. Clinton + Merkel = Sum of all Evil .

[Firebird]

I consider Hillary Clinton to be the more sneaky of the two. As secretary of state, she played some very dangerous games. If she continues to annoy Russia and does nothing against ISIS then I rather have Trump as next president, for the safety of the world. Clinton + Merkel = Sum of all Evil .

What kind of damage do you really think she'd do that would be worse than Trump?
I know she's a flawed candidate, but I keep seeing these blanket statements about how sneaky, dangerous, and horrible she is compared to Trump and they have no basis in reality. Maybe part of it is that many of you are non-US, so all the damage he'd do domestically has no bearing on you. Well, it absolutely would with us. But fine, set that aside. Do you honestly think Trump's "incompetence" is a virtue when it comes to global affairs?
Do you guys care about global warming and the Paris Accord? Kiss that goodbye. Do you still think you need NATO?   Because he basically wants to lay waste to that. He liked Putin, for fuck's sake.  How will his "incompetence"  stop him from ripping up the oil deal with Iran and bombing them on a whim?
Hillary may be flawed, but she is still smart and  competent, and whether you agree with her or not, there isn't a risk she'll be goaded into doing something idiotic because someone insulted her.  So please, get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like she's somehow worse than that incompetent bag of air. It's a ridiculous assertion to make.

[Icarus]

Hillary has some experience and at least a modicum of success with diplomacy. I am not entirely comfortable with her,  meanwhile Trump displays the same degree of diplomatic reasoning as a wounded Honey Badger. That is scary because it is not inconceivable that he could become the most powerful (spell that... d a n g e r o u s) head of state on earth.

[Tom62]

Well, I currently see in the Western media a lot of anti-Russia sympathies going on, directed against Putin in particular. In the meanwhile NATO and the EU have expanded their interests more to the East than that is healthy for the Western - Russian relationship. One of the agreements that were made with Russia, to enable the German unification, was that NATO and the EU would NOT move further East. They didn't stick to that deal, which makes the Russians realize that the Western politicians cannot be trusted (surprise, surprise...).

Assuming that Clinton proceeds with the Obama politics, moving further to the east (like the Ukraine) could increase tensions even more and perhaps, lead to WW-III. Yes, Putin is a dictator but he seems to be a more benevolent one than most dictators who are "our friends" (like the creepy kings in Saudi Arabia). Putin is also the only one who is cleaning up the ISIS mess in the Middle East. We are better of with him as a friend than an enemy.

Regarding "Global Warming", I  don't expect much from Clinton either. Perhaps a bit more than Trump, but certainly much less than Sanders. American (industry) interests will remain more important than world interests. You can already see that with the TTIP agreement between USA and EU, that they want to push through (in secret meetings). Here we'll also end up in a situation, where everyone will be worst off, with the exception of American companies and banks.

[Firebird]

Yes, Putin is a dictator but he seems to be a more benevolent one than most dictators who are "our friends" (like the creepy kings in Saudi Arabia). Putin is also the only one who is cleaning up the ISIS mess in the Middle East.

You have got to be kidding me. A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally annex part of the country next door. A "benevolent dictator" does not assassinate his rivals and media critics by gunning them down in the streets or poisoning them with radiation to ensure a slow, painful death. A "benevolent dictator" does not let of his lackeys (Ramazan Kadyrov in Chechnya) torture and murder whoever he likes to "keep the peace". A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally trash all regional governments and appoint whoever he likes instead. Calling Putin out on that is not a smear campaign, it's the cold, hard truth.
The US is hitting ISIS really hard too. Why isn't NATO? Why do you prefer to rely on the US and Russia instead of leaning more on NATO? Isn't this the kind of thing it's supposed to counter?

[Bad Penny II]

I thought Russia was hitting opponents of their guy Assad who is a total bastard, so Russia hit Isis and some some others opposed to a total bastard.

[Bad Penny II]

You have got to be kidding me. A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally annex part of the country next door. A "benevolent dictator" does not assassinate his rivals and media critics by gunning them down in the streets or poisoning them with radiation to ensure a slow, painful death. A "benevolent dictator" does not let of his lackeys (Ramazan Kadyrov in Chechnya) torture and murder whoever he likes to "keep the peace". A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally trash all regional governments and appoint whoever he likes instead.

Some call such benevolent and are outraged by Angela Merkel, it's all a matter of perspective.

[Davin]

The party does not stay where it is, it's just a little behind the Republicans. If the Republicans fail at attaining another presidency, I will guarantee that many of the money backers of the Republicans will just switch over to the Democrats. Some will probably support the Tea Party. But the end result will be same, the elected representatives will end up very deep in the pockets of other people and will legislate accordingly.

I have a real problem with the blanket statement that "it's just a little behind the Republicans."

Yu have a problem with it because it's not a blanket statement.

Sure, the party isn't as far to the left as most of us would like, but the GOP has turned into a party of anarcho-capitalists, neocons, and religious wackos. There's a reason I would never consider moving to the South or most of the Midwest.

Not what mean in terms of distance. The distance I'm talking about, as can be seen from the context of my statements, is the distance the politicians are from the pockets of the corporations.

Going back to some of your previous statements:

I spoke incorrectly there, I should have said that the world will not be destroyed because Trump is the president if he is elected. I don't think that Hillary offers a much better offer. At least with Trump I can assume that he is incompetent, but I know that Hillary is very smart, strong, and capable, but still has made many false claims herself.



I'm not so sure that it will be much better with Hillary, but if those are the two most likely options, it might be better with someone who is not as well equipped. I don't know.

I have to say that diagram looks much better for Hillary than it does for Trump.

It does look better.

But more importantly, I don't understand your logic of putting someone who's more incompetent into the top position as a good strategy. Here's a list of some of the stuff Trump can do without Congress stopping him.  And that's before he uses his proven ability to rile up a crowd, possibly influence public opinion, and scare Congress into doing something stupid like bomb Iran. You know, like Bush did.

First, read what I wrote, and make sure you're responding to what I said, and not this straw man you seem to be talking to. I never offered that as a strategy, nor is that my logic.

You can't engage with what I actually said, instead you went off to crazy town and expect me to answer for the things that popped in your imagination. That's not not reasonable.

Undoing presidential orders and a president issuing orders is not as simple as just writing "take backsies" and signing it. There are lawyers involved because the courts are an option to prevent presidential powers. Though, Trump may be the one installing the next SCOTUS member, I'm not sure that Hillary will choose a better SCOTUS when she's so close to Wallstreet. That's a real concern. I'm not exaggerating. I don;t think that her Supreme Court selection will destroy all that we love, I'm just saying that I think that she might a choice that is better for Wallstreet and worse for the working people.

I don't see why the only solution is to start at the bottom and work the way up. I guess my question is why can't we vote the way we want to on all levels at the same time? Keep in mind that I am not prone let fear sidestep my rationality.

Fair point, it shouldn't be that way. Hell, my vote counts less than someone in Ohio or Florida because they're swing states and Massachusetts isn't. But let's say for argument's sake you live in a swing state and you choose to vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) or some other third-party candidate who won't win. Sure, maybe you'll be able to stick to your pure principles and point to that. What does that really accomplish, though? Does it really change anything in the country in a way that will accomplish your goals? Ralph Nader clearly played a significant role in 2000. What did that accomplish besides possible getting the disastrous Bush elected? Sure, it got us Obama. But Obama's had to spend most of his presidency cleaning up that mess rather than focusing on a more progressive agenda.

Every time the amount of people that vote for a third party increases, it increases the chances that a third party will have a chance. So while it doesn't have any immediate changes, it does have some long term effects. There are more people now who would support the idea of a third party according to a gallop poll. So if that is my goal, then it is working. It will have worked if we get a good chance with a third party.

Yes, fine, I'm appealing to fear and you claim that doesn't affect you. But if your goal is to nudge the country and system in a better direction, helping to get Trump elected does nothing for that goal, unless he ends up blowing up the whole damn thing like what happened in Germany post world war II. And that's not worth it, in my opinion (and most people's). Large changes, like making the political system fairer or other things like health care reform, gay marriage, etc usually bubble up from below, not from the top down. So if  you want to change the system, starting locally is your better bet. By the time you get to the top, you're simply refusing to play the game and conceding to your opponent.

This is an example of what I dislike about trying to talk to people about these things. You have one kind of person trying to downplay a thing to insignificance, another person trying to tell how that very same thing will murder your entire family, and almost no one talking about these things like they're real. I'm not saying that Trump won't cause any damage, and I'm not saying the Hillary is the worst thing since volcanoes, what I'm saying, is that if they are the only two options, I honestly don't see much difference in terms of how much they will harm the country and me personally. And you can't discuss that rationally, all you can do is try to appeal to fear by describing things in unrealistic extremes. If that works for you on other people, then go right ahead, but if that's all you have when talking to me, you're just wasting your time. Just preach your fear without the pretense of responding to me.

And yes, I disagree with appealing to fear. I disagree with most attempts at manipulation. I'm not a fan of the ends justifying the means, because there are so many unintended consequences behind those means that make things worse.

[Recusant]

I think building a third party means just that. Get the party established in local and statewide elections: create a genuine party structure that offers an alternative to the present choices. Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice--it's being a spoiler, plain and simple.

[Davin]

I think building a third party means just that. Get the party established in local and statewide elections: create a genuine party structure that offers an alternative to the present choices. Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice--it's being a spoiler, plain and simple.

That is true. It's a good thing no one here is advocating that. Again, talking in these weird extremes instead of reality doesn't really help discussion.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I've voted for a third party the last two elections.  Having tried it, I've begun to feel that I'm wasting my vote.  So this time it will be Hillary as the lesser of two evils.  But that will also, effectively, be a wasted vote, since I live in Texas.  Texas will vote Republican and all its electoral votes will go for Trump.  But at least I can say, if he wins, that I didn't enable him.  I still think Hillary will win overall because the Electoral College is favorable to her at this time in history - it will be difficult for Trump to win the right states.