US Politics

calodo2003 said:
I get that you want to funnel everything back into a condemnation of Hillary (and she certainly deserves a massive amount of criticism) and you will go to the mat every time any aspect of the progressive element of our party gets brought up in a critical light, but to not look rationally back at the negative causation that were caused by both campaigns and to not learn from them is baffling.

Very rarely is there ever a pure ‘if / then’ argument in politics, but if we didn’t have the futile Nader campaign in 2000, we wouldn’t have wasted trillions of dollars on war (not to mention trillions more on other off book Bush boondoggles) and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives would have been spared. Such an negative effect on the potential outcome of the election wasn’t recognized well enough in the run up to the 2016 election and history somewhat repeated itself. To not realize that such events happened and we should be concerned about them going forward is to keep one’s head firmly in the sand.
Click to expand...

I dont want to funnel back into Hillary. I'd gladly never have to talk about her again. I'm pointing out that the gnashing of teeth only goes one way.

I also think it's wrong to assume naders voters would have went to gore and Stein to Clinton and so on.
 
The real question Democrats should be asking themselves is:

Why can't they appeal to the 90+ million of eligible voters who were not inspired enough to actually vote?
If 45% of eligible voters are staying home, its not the fault of someone who voted for Stein, its solely the fault of Democrats for not figuring out how to actually appeal to more of their base.
 
calodo2003 said:
Very rarely is there ever a pure ‘if / then’ argument in politics, but if we didn’t have the futile Nader campaign in 2000, we wouldn’t have wasted trillions of dollars on war (not to mention trillions more on other off book Bush boondoggles)
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with this statement is that it relies on a massive assumption that people who voted Nader/Stein should/would always vote Democrat if the choice of Nader was not available.

That is flawed both logically and factually. Logically it should be easy how that assertion is not a valid logical argument. Factually, I think you need to look at how many people don't vote. Many of Nader's voters were people who would NEVER vote establishment Dem or Rep. Votes for Nader were not automatically Gore votes. Many were votes Gore never had a chance to win in the first place. Obama inspired greater voter turnout than Kerry, Gore and two Clinton elections. People should stop ignoring the reality that a small minority will ALWAYS vote Green or Libertarian because they do not believe the D/R false dichotomy represents their beliefs.

This attitude illustrates the biggest problem with the post 1992 Democrats - they think they deserve votes from anyone who doesn't like the far right. They think they are entitled to votes simply because they are "Not Trump".
That isn't how democratic republics should work though. Candidates have to EARN votes every election.
If the candidate fails to EARN those votes, then the only blame is on them. If Clinton couldn't figure out how to appeal to more of the 90 million that stayed home, that isn't on Jill Stein, Nader or the Tooth Fairy, its solely on Hilary and her entitled, arrogant campaign fools.

They are not entitled to votes just because they have a certain letter next to their name.
 
Establishment Dems are like Republican light.
They should all in for Medicare for all, less $$ spent on the military, subsidised higher education, and lower taxes, and not so much in the pockets of the wealthy and corporations.
If their leadership is in turmoil it’s because they’re worried their money supply will be cut off by their large donors.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The biggest problem with this statement is that it relies on a massive assumption that people who voted Nader/Stein should/would always vote Democrat if the choice of Nader was not available.

That is flawed both logically and factually. Logically it should be easy how that assertion is not a valid logical argument. Factually, I think you need to look at how many people don't vote. Many of Nader's voters were people who would NEVER vote establishment Dem or Rep. Votes for Nader were not automatically Gore votes. Many were votes Gore never had a chance to win in the first place. Obama inspired greater voter turnout than Kerry, Gore and two Clinton elections. People should stop ignoring the reality that a small minority will ALWAYS vote Green or Libertarian because they do not believe the D/R false dichotomy represents their beliefs.

This attitude illustrates the biggest problem with the post 1992 Democrats - they think they deserve votes from anyone who doesn't like the far right. They think they are entitled to votes simply because they are "Not Trump".
That isn't how democratic republics should work though. Candidates have to EARN votes every election.
If the candidate fails to EARN those votes, then the only blame is on them. If Clinton couldn't figure out how to appeal to more of the 90 million that stayed home, that isn't on Jill Stein, Nader or the Tooth Fairy, its solely on Hilary and her entitled, arrogant campaign fools.

They are not entitled to votes just because they have a certain letter next to their name.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I have very little sympathy for protest voters blaming 'Establishment Democrats' for the suffering minorities though. As much as candidates need to earn the votes, the voters have to undergo the consequence of their votes. Wishing death on John Mccain after voting Harambe is well.. daft.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Fair enough, but I have very little sympathy for protest voters blaming 'Establishment Democrats' for the suffering minorities though. As much as candidates need to earn the votes, the voters have to undergo the consequence of their votes. Wishing death on John Mccain after voting Harambe is well.. daft.
Click to expand...

How is someone that always voted Green or Libertarian a "protest voter"? Or how about the entire 35-45% that consistently aren't inspired to vote because of the candidates?

That entire framing is inaccurate IMO (I can explain more if you really want)

The majority of eligible voters do not support either Clinton or Trump. That is more meaningful to me than any Stein/Nader distraction

did-not-vote-2016-update.png
 
Last edited:
fishfingers15 said:
Fair enough, but I have very little sympathy for protest voters blaming 'Establishment Democrats' for the suffering minorities though. As much as candidates need to earn the votes, the voters have to undergo the consequence of their votes. Wishing death on John Mccain after voting Harambe is well.. daft.
Click to expand...

we arent asking for your sympathy. your continued bad faith engagement in the ce forum is to be expected. you only jump in to have a pop at me and some of the other left wing posters without ever really discussing any of the issues. you could have a serious discussion on john mccains legacy or on ice or the supreme court or any other current event without constantly trying to shame me for not voting for a person i didnt support. but you dont because you are a troll.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
How is someone that always voted Green or Libertarian a "protest voter"? Or how about the entire 35-45% that consistently aren't inspired to vote because of the candidates?

That entire framing is inaccurate IMO (I can explain more if you really want)

The majority of eligible voters do not support either Clinton or Trump. That is more meaningful to me than any Stein/Nader distraction

did-not-vote-2016-update.png
Click to expand...


its absurd that we have to re-litigate the 2016 primary two years later. i cant remember another politician "fanbase" that is so intent on blaming literally anyone but their chosen candidate. literally every thread is poisoned by the hillary / bernie thing. shes not running anymore. he likely wont even win the nomination. move on folks


edit: not really intended at you, since you didnt start this discussion
 
The richest country in the world could be the greatest country if they showed more heart and stopped being a tool for the wealthy to line their own pockets at the expense of those less fortunate.
Amazes me that free healthcare is considered a handout or akin to socialism. Also amazes me that poorer people will vote against their own best wishes. Crazy mofos.
 
Eboue said:
If you want to talk about strategic voting, why is no one telling at the Clinton primary voters who saw the polling that said Bernie would beat trump and Clinton wouldnt and still voted for her anyway?

I dont blame those people because that's not what voting is about. But why is it only one way? Why dont the people so upset about this yell at their queen who was too much of a dumbass to go to Wisconsin even once
Click to expand...
Please do not make up stuff, whilst it was true that Bernie has a bigger lead than Hillary against Trump during the primaries, what you said wasn't true at any stage of the campaign apart from the few days after the GOP convention. By then the Dem nomination was very much decided.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The real question Democrats should be asking themselves is:

Why can't they appeal to the 90+ million of eligible voters who were not inspired enough to actually vote?
If 45% of eligible voters are staying home, its not the fault of someone who voted for Stein, its solely the fault of Democrats for not figuring out how to actually appeal to more of their base.
Click to expand...
What makes you think those people who don't vote are Dem leaning?
 
Last edited:
Poor people in America seem si for issue voters. "I am prepared to be poor to stop unborn babies from being killed". I suspect that's sort of their thinking.
 
Cal? said:
The amazing thing about the GOP is that plenty of poor people go against their own interest and vote for them, whereas the Dems sweep up the richer states with little issue.
Click to expand...
Some of the most pro-Trump people I know are on Medicaid or have insurance through “Obamacare”.

I’ve actually had debates in class where students that are on welfare argue that people should not receive welfare.

It’s mind blowing.
 
Adisa said:
Poor people in America seem si for issue voters. "I am prepared to be poor to stop unborn babies from being killed". I suspect that's sort of their thinking.
Click to expand...
The pro-birth people I really really don't get.
Carolina Red said:
Some of the most pro-Trump people I know are on Medicaid or have insurance through “Obamacare”.

I’ve actually had debates in class where students that are on welfare argue that people should not receive welfare.

It’s mind blowing.
Click to expand...
Actually, thinking about it, there are people like that in Hong Kong too. People who don't own property cheering for skyhigh prices. (against any kind of intervention) :rolleyes:
 
Carolina Red said:
Some of the most pro-Trump people I know are on Medicaid or have insurance through “Obamacare”.

I’ve actually had debates in class where students that are on welfare argue that people should not receive welfare.

It’s mind blowing.
Click to expand...

Have you not asked why they (or their parents) dont give up their welfare entitlements. Do they not realise they're being hypocrites?
 
Eboue said:
I think this is the wrong way to look at these things. In a democracy, theres no such thing as playing spoiler. There are candidates who vie for votes from voters and in this democracy in particular, the fact that a third party candidate gets a decent amount of votes is a sign of dissatisfaction with the two main party candidates who could have potentially won those voters over by approaching issues that they care about in a different way.
Click to expand...
Again you always fail to realise that the other candidate was donald fecking trump. I could take you more seriously if it was Hillary v Romney/Kasich type. There is nothing you can say that would make me think that a president Hillary Clinton would be worse for my children's future then Donald trump.
The only thing you're 3rd party vote did was make you feel superior to the people who actually had the political sense not to piss their vote in to a gold plated toilet. All the moaning about the dems screwing Sanders is also bullshit. They had every right in my opinion to champion their parties candidate, it's also irrelevant as Clinton gained millions more votes in the primary.He's not a Democrat so he should have run as a true independent on his message as many people who voted for Hillary out of necessity would have voted Sanders including every member of my family and trump wouldn't be sitting in the WH on the back of 70,000 votes.
I believe you are from Michigan so the reality of Republicans poisoning kids and doing fecking nothing about it did diddly squat in convincing you to do everything you can to stop the very worst of them gaining the office of the presidency. Well done on you're horrible decision.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...


Given that Kennedy ruled in favour of private and corporate power unfailingly, and that he was explicit that the Janus (unions) case was about unions' political power (which works for Dems) first and foremost, I don't see how the "SC was one vestige of power that hadn't abandoned Democrats." Citizens United, Bush v Gore...both 5-4 cases, explicitly political, explicitly for the GOP/corporate power, where he joined the majority. And many more cases like that.
 
GiddyUp said:
Again you always fail to realise that the other candidate was donald fecking trump. I could take you more seriously if it was Hillary v Romney/Kasich type. There is nothing you can say that would make me think that a president Hillary Clinton would be worse for my children's future then Donald trump.
The only thing you're 3rd party vote did was make you feel superior to the people who actually had the political sense not to piss their vote in to a gold plated toilet. All the moaning about the dems screwing Sanders is also bullshit. They had every right in my opinion to champion their parties candidate, it's also irrelevant as Clinton gained millions more votes in the primary.He's not a Democrat so he should have run as a true independent on his message as many people who voted for Hillary out of necessity would have voted Sanders including every member of my family and trump wouldn't be sitting in the WH on the back of 70,000 votes.
I believe you are from Michigan so the reality of Republicans poisoning kids and doing fecking nothing about it did diddly squat in convincing you to do everything you can to stop the very worst of them gaining the office of the presidency. Well done on you're horrible decision.
Click to expand...

The same old nonsense. We've literally had this argument a dozen times
 
Eboue said:


the democratic leadership is completely unprepared for the anger of the base
Click to expand...

"You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is it's mouth". The Republicans have time and again proven they cannot be trusted.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
How is someone that always voted Green or Libertarian a "protest voter"? Or how about the entire 35-45% that consistently aren't inspired to vote because of the candidates?

That entire framing is inaccurate IMO (I can explain more if you really want)

The majority of eligible voters do not support either Clinton or Trump. That is more meaningful to me than any Stein/Nader distraction

did-not-vote-2016-update.png
Click to expand...


The two issues aren't mutually exclusive. The Dems should've created a broader grand narrative about what they were offering rather than attempting to ram Hillary through the process by way of super delegates because it was "her turn" to be coronated after narrowly missing out to Obama in 08. On the other hand, the US is a two party system. You can vote for fringe elements like the Green, Libertarian, Constitution parties, with the knowledge that none of them will win, where in the process you are tacitly helping the opposition get elected.
 
Raoul said:
The two issues aren't mutually exclusive. The Dems should've created a broader grand narrative about what they were offering rather than attempting to ram Hillary through the process by way of super delegates because it was "her turn" to be coronated after narrowly missing out to Obama in 08. On the other hand, the US is a two party system. You can vote for fringe elements like the Green, Libertarian, Constitution parties, with the knowledge that none of them will win, where in the process you are tacitly helping the opposition get elected.
Click to expand...


Its not that simple. When the US Constitution was passed the "two parties" were Federalists and Democrat-Republicans. Neither exists anymore
Four US Presidents were from the Whig party.

Parties evolve, change and thankfully die over time. The idea that these two current parties are entitled to exist as the only two political choices is again logically invalid and pragmatically very troublesome.

Contrary to the lies and propaganda spread by both political parties, third parties have been integral in moving society forward in a positive and progressive manner. Teddy didn't win with his Bull Moose party in 1912 but his candidacy was a massive boost for progressivism and had a big impact on updating outdated institutions.

Ross Perot in 1992 was beating BOTH Bush and Clinton for a long time. Right up until he pulled out of the race after his family was receiving death threats and other bizarre events were happening. Even after he re-entered he still won 19% of votes. His candidacy absolutely pushed Bill Clinton towards a more balanced budget than otherwise might have happened. And despite the lies that were spread - Perot attracted people from the left, the right and the center. It was the most diverse bottom-up support any politician I have ever witnessed has received.

Eugene Debs is another whose Socialist party candidacy helped raise awareness of a lot of the atrocities committed by corporations and business before unions and worker's rights were formed.

The only winning strategy for the Democrats is to offer a real alternative - take on Ocasio-Cortez's platform and ditch the corporate shilling.

Also I don't buy into your false dichotomy that all Democrats should be allies and support
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
Its not that simple. When the US Constitution was passed the "two parties" were Federalists and Democrat-Republicans. Neither exists anymore
Four US Presidents were from the Whig party.

Parties evolve, change and thankfully die over time. The idea that these two current parties are entitled to exist as the only two political choices is again logically invalid and pragmatically very troublesome.

Contrary to the lies and propaganda spread by both political parties, third parties have been integral in moving society forward in a positive and progressive manner. Teddy didn't win with his Bull Moose party in 1912 but his candidacy was a massive boost for progressivism and had a big impact on updating outdated institutions.

Ross Perot in 1992 was beating BOTH Bush and Clinton for a long time. Right up until he pulled out of the race after his family was receiving death threats and other bizarre events were happening. Even after he re-entered he still won 19% of votes. His candidacy absolutely pushed Bill Clinton towards a more balanced budget than otherwise might have happened.

The only winning strategy for the Democrats is to offer a real alternative - take on Ocasio-Cortez's platform and ditch the corporate shilling.
Click to expand...

Everything that existed prior to the current two party system can be safely eliminated from the discussion, including the Reform Party, which was never really a thing outside Perot's personal southern charisma and proclivity for spontaneous for one liners. In the current construct, there are two parties and any attempts at forming viable third parties always results either in failure (as in the Reform party) or else one of the two parties subsuming the platform of whatever new movement comes up. The Dems will subsume all the Bernie style socialist insurrections and the Republicans will do the same with any sort of libertarian and/or ultra-conservative strains of conservatism that may not see eye to eye with the establishment. Any attempts to vote outside the two party system will therefore help the opposition.
 
Raoul said:
Everything that existed prior to the current two party system can be safely eliminated from the discussion, including the Reform Party, which was never really a thing outside Perot's personal southern charisma and proclivity for spontaneous for one liners. In the current construct, there are two parties and any attempts at forming viable third parties always results either in failure (as in the Reform party) or else one of the two parties subsuming the platform of whatever new movement comes up. The Dems will subsume all the Bernie style socialist insurrections and the Republicans will do the same with any sort of libertarian and/or ultra-conservative strains of conservatism that may not see eye to eye with the establishment. Any attempts to vote outside the two party system will therefore help the opposition.
Click to expand...


This is complete off-base and I question how much you actually know about his candidacy.
Perot was winning in 1992 and the only reason he didn't win was because of some really shady politics. He was pulling people left, right and center. Perot's supporters were far more diverse than any establishment Dem or Rep. Only thing to stop the momentum was unlawful black SUVs and death threats. But Former CIA Director Bush and long time governor of a deep south political machine Clinton had nothing to do with the death threats of course.

It took death threats and black SUVs following family members to unlawfully derail a legitimate winning candidacy. Clintons and Bushes pushed both parties to pursue solely the interests of Immortal Persons of Tremendous Wealth rather than the interests of we, the people.

Anyway, moving forward. Trying to shame people for not voting a corporate Democrat candidate is not an effective strategy - either for the Democrats or for individuals on forums like yourself. If the Democrat party wants to win elections they have to do what Ocasio-Cortez did. Listen to the poor, disenfranchised 90+ million and actually form progressive policy that can appeal to those 90 million.

So the establishment democrats need to stop the shaming, stop trying to attack third parties and stop blaming everyone and anyone but themselves for their failure to address the needs of the people.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
This is complete off-base and I question how much you actually know about his candidacy.
Perot was winning in 1992 and the only reason he didn't win was because of some really shady politics. He was pulling people left, right and center. Perot's supporters were far more diverse than any establishment Dem or Rep. Only thing to stop the momentum was unlawful black SUVs and death threats. But Former CIA Director Bush and long time governor of a deep south political machine Clinton had nothing to do with the death threats of course.

It took death threats and black SUVs following family members to unlawfully derail a legitimate winning candidacy. Clintons and Bushes pushed both parties to pursue solely the interests of Immortal Persons of Tremendous Wealth rather than the interests of we, the people.

Anyway, moving forward. Trying to shame people for not voting a corporate Democrat candidate is not an effective strategy - either for the Democrats or for individuals on forums like yourself. If the Democrat party wants to win elections they have to do what Ocasio-Cortez did. Listen to the poor, disenfranchised 90+ million and actually form progressive policy that can appeal to those 90 million.

So the establishment democrats need to stop the shaming, stop trying to attack third parties and stop blaming everyone and anyone but themselves for their failure to address the needs of the people.
Click to expand...

I was there every step of the way in 92. Perot’s campaign was personality driven (I’m all ears!) in a similar way to how Trump’s was. It had nothing to do with the Reform Party, which iirc was a Perot invention. Not coincidentally it folded back into irrelevance when Perot predictably imploded. Thus we are back in the two party grind. When a third party emerges to win the White House then we can chat further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.