| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
1/19/2016 | New Hampshire:
Bernie Sanders: 60%
Hillary Clinton: 33%
+27 for Sanders.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
I can't wait until we get to the less liberal states 
at least she's still coming thru in Iowa 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
I can't wait until we get to the less liberal states
at least she's still coming thru in Iowa |
When the supporters acknowledge she's not that progressive 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 2/5/2014
Posts: 1,808
|
The bickering between supporters in this thread is legitimately unbearable.
Bernie stans need to chill the f*ck out, and Hillary stans need stop being smug a$$holes. These types of antics are exactly why the majority of people are burnt out on politics.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 21,143
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
When the supporters acknowledge she's not that progressive |
*as progressive
Because nobody is as progressive as Bernie, truthfully. It's just that only a minority of people in this country want that level of progressivism.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Citrus
*as progressive
Because nobody is as progressive as Bernie, truthfully. It's just that only a minority of people in this country want that level of progressivism.
|
True
and omg I'm gonna delete my friends off of FB they keep sending me Goodman articles that are just...insane 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
AP.
Or they have a different opinion than you do?  |
Or maybe we are just sexist. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 4,846
|
Apparently Bill is back. All the reporters I follow were saying that the big dog is slaying all his points in NH. Also there's a townhall next Monday.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
Or maybe we are just sexist. |
Yeah we are so are 60% of NH democrats apparently (you know, the same people who currently have 2 female senators, a female governor, a female congresswoman, more than half of their state senate are women and were the only state in history to send an all-female delegation to DC back in 2012)
When will this sexism ever stop
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Yeah we are so are 60% of NH democrats apparently (you know, the same people who currently have 2 female senators, a female governor, a female congresswoman, more than half of their state senate are women and were the only state in history to send an all-female delegation to DC back in 2012)
When will this sexism ever stop |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Team_Avatar
The bickering between supporters in this thread is legitimately unbearable.
Bernie stans need to chill the f*ck out, and Hillary stans need stop being smug a$$holes. These types of antics are exactly why the majority of people are burnt out on politics.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Yeah we are so are 60% of NH democrats apparently (you know, the same people who currently have 2 female senators, a female governor, a female congresswoman, more than half of their state senate are women and were the only state in history to send an all-female delegation to DC back in 2012)
When will this sexism ever stop |
disregard the fact you used to live here
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
disregard the fact you used to live here
|
Well I'm not disregarding that fact because I'm at least getting 10 people I know from when I lived in NH to vote for Bernie (so far), that would have more impact than me casting one vote 
But draG²!!!11!!11!!! my sexist soul I guess
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Well I'm not disregarding that fact because I'm at least getting 10 people I know from when I lived in NH to vote for Bernie (so far), that would have more impact than me casting one vote
But draG²!!!11!!11!!! my sexist soul I guess |
I was kidding clearly no one is sexist automatically if they refuse to vote for Hillary .
but lol @ you rounding up people to vote for Bernie
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
I was kidding clearly no one is sexist automatically if they refuse to vote for Hillary .
but lol @ you rounding up people to vote for Bernie |
It wasn't hard
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
When the supporters acknowledge she's not that progressive |
*as progressive, as Citrus noted...
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
*as progressive, as Citrus noted...
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
|
AMEN!!!!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
*as progressive, as Citrus noted...
... which is a core part of why we're voting for her. I think most of us have made it very clear that we don't want someone as progressive as Bernie and don't think that he can accomplish what we need in our country.
Like, we live all of these politics being thrown around, every day. Those of us who support Hillary don't think that Bernie is best for the country that we see around us in a constant state of imbalance and tension. We don't think that his policies are ideal for the current economic and political climate. Many of us don't think that his primary focuses of the wage gap and campaign finance are actually appropriate as his only main points. Many of us know that his plans for the banks would do nothing and that his plans for healthcare would be an impossible legal feat that would essentially destroy Obamacare to build it from the ground up.
Political views exist on a spectrum from conservative to liberal, not from wrong to right. Being more progressive isn't always equivalent to being more right, or more enlightened, and that's the basis on which a lot of Bernie supporters seem to exist. The only time I think that's true is with social policy - race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, it's not always "progressive = right."
When we talk about socialism, even brought about through a democratic process as Bernie advocates, we're talking about a complex political ideology that has existed for over a century. It has been attempted in many places, to highly varying degrees of success. It rarely works in practice how it works on paper - it is idealist, and it is a vulnerable system. Democratic socialism doesn't even have a solid definition, though Bernie's brand of it seems to basically just be socialism that needs establishment through a democratic process.
Now this brings us to another problem: the opposition. We all talk about who would negotiate better with the Republican party, particularly if they maintain a majority but not the Presidency, and I think that the conversation ignores some things. The Republicans will be vehemently opposed to absolutely every proposal that Sanders has put forth. His healthcare plan would never fly in a country in which the GOP has tried to repeal the current, less progressive plan sixty-seven times; his plans for breaking up the big banks, aside from being rather pointless, would never fly; a $15 minimum wage would be viewed as completely ludicrous, and many Democrats don't even agree with it; the list goes on. Having a more moderate nominee would seem to be more effective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it would be far easier to defend the Affordable Care Act than to push an even more progressive system; raising the minimum wage is much more likely if it's to a lower, but still adequate, number. The woman in question also has considerable experience in negotiating and compromising to pass bipartisan legislation, something that literally could not happen with Bernie's promises.
Then we finally get to electability. We have quite a lot of people peddling the notion that Bernie is more electable - but does that really even make sense? Aside from the fact that polls tell a new story about that issue every other week, most recently showing Hillary to have better chances in the general, the idea of Bernie being more electable is short-sighted and dangerous. Bernie isn't mention nearly as much - hell, nearly at all - in GOP speeches, debates, and social media posts. It's all Hillary, it's all attacks on Hillary, and it's all targeting her as a politician and as a person. Bernie is not yet a victim of that level of scrutiny or attack - and that has a significant impact on the general election. When the general election comes, if he is the nominee, Republicans will be absolutely merciless. They will paint him as a radical socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle and upper classes (he wants to do both), fund free college education with money that we simply do not have, destabilize the economy by breaking up important financial institutions, and cost the government millions in totally reworking healthcare. You and I might know that's an exaggeration, but does the general American citizen? I mean, it's been proven that not all people even have a solid idea of who he is - there's plenty of capacity for his numbers in the general to decline. Additionally, he's not a good debater, he's not as experienced as Hillary in foreign policy and thus will lack that advantage, lacks the minority vote so far... there are plenty of issues with him in the general, and we need to stop acting like he has an astronomically better shot there. In all reality, he probably has a worse shot given his low establishment support (fundraising, publicity, etc.) and his excessive focus on ideals that the general American likely will not want. Him being more progressive may actually hurt him quite a bit in the general election.
Ultimately, the fact that Hillary isn't as "progressive" as Bernie is a huge part of why she receives so much support. There are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a more progressive candidate being a good idea. I am a citizen of the United States who wants to get through college with as little debt as possible; who wants to make a reasonable living wage throughout my life; who wants reliable access to healthcare no matter what my economic circumstances. I want plenty of other things that both candidates propose, but to put any of these things at risk is not acceptable to me. That's a big part of why I support Hillary - I will not be responsible for putting at risk any of the things that I consider essential to a good life for myself and the rest of my country.
That's my soap for the day (hope I didn't come of as "smug," since I was only laying out my actual personal views and thoughts). I only typed a literal essay because I really think that the issue of progressiveness is something we need to talk about seriously and not trivialize or paint as the only acceptable mode of operation. Maybe - just maybe - the most progressive candidate is not what we need right now. And a lot of Hillary supporters have been saying that for a long time. It's something she acknowledged, to pretty wide support, when she said she's "a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done."
|
Excellent. Sums up how I feel about Hillary to a T
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Eleven days out and it looks like Trump may actually still win Iowa. And he's leading every other state pretty well.
Lord god, he's going to get the nomination. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Eleven days out and it looks like Trump may actually still win Iowa. And he's leading every other state pretty well.
Lord god, he's going to get the nomination. |
Sad, but true. It makes the entire GOP party look like a joke. If I had to pick the Republican nominee, it'd have to be Kasich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
