The Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell and the Wages of Hypocrisy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

If candidates aren't willing to do what it takes to build a large enough coalition to win, then fuck 'em. They shouldn't be in politics. And they get out of politics by losing.

They can indeed-- and their opponent, whose victory is assisted in this manner, is rewarded for the very same (or worse) behaviour.

Voting outside of the two party system still assists one of the two main candidates. It assists the eventual Victor.

So, the message ends up being, 'fuck 'em- if they lose'. Very principled!

But, your point about primaries is well taken.

Or maybe not.

You'll notice, of course, that Ocasio-Cortez' own path has been... through the Primary process.

Who has helped to shape the Democratic Party here? Those who voted for her in the Primary, and handed her the nomination? Or those who refused to engage with the process?

I think people should engage in primaries. And general elections. For example: if a good candidate loses their Democratic primary, they should run independent or endorse another good candidate. That other good candidate might in theory be their primary opponent, but it also might not.

As for who gets rewarded by this: it's much more serious an error to reward Democrats for not representing the left than it is to reward Republicans for running against Democrats who don't represent the left. Republicans never pretended to represent the left; they are thus not the principal obstacle to appropriately representing leftist views in government. The primary obstacle is those who claim to represent the left but don't. That is who must be destroyed.

Ah, good to see my thread has devolved into the usual Hillary vs. Bernie grudge match.

I would like to clarify the two points I was going for in my OP: the Supreme Court is extremely important, vastly more important than most progressives seem to think it is - which is ironic, considering that the biggest progressive win of the last decade was same-sex marriage being legalised...by the Supreme Court - and secondly, that Republican voters do not adequately punish their elected representatives for their hypocrisy, in large part because that hypocrisy benefits Republican voter priorities.

I would also like to reaffirm the second point. If Republican voters want to be able to criticise Democratic politicians, they need to clean up their own damn house before I'm going to be willing to listen. If Republicans sincerely give a shit about morals, civility and truth, they need to stop voting for people like McConnell. He is the most hated senator in the country. Even Republicans don't like him. He seems to be fuelled by sheer disdain.

Dump the turtle-necked motherfucker already. Here, Hypothetical Republican Voter, we'll make an exchange; if the Democrats dump Pelosi, you dump McConnell.

And now to hypocritically comment on the Hillary v. Bernie grudge match despite personally considering it a waste of time.

Seanchaidh:
I think people should engage in primaries. And general elections. For example: if a good candidate loses their Democratic primary, they should run independent or endorse another good candidate. That other good candidate might in theory be their primary opponent, but it also might not.

That approach makes perfect sense...in a general election with preferential voting. In a first-past-the-post election, all you will do is split the vote and perpetuate the status quo.

Get power first, then reform the electoral process. Until that is achieved, focus the pressure of reforming your party during the primary, not the general. Push for risky candidates in safe seats and for safe candidates in risky seats. It's slow and it involves voting for people you might find distasteful, but it is also literally the only way to get what you want; you will achieve nothing from splitting the vote except to empower the politicians who most oppose the idea of electoral reform.

Ocasio-Cortez seems to have the same idea, mind.

The more I learn about this lady, the more I like about her.

bastardofmelbourne:
Get power first

The biggest obstacle to that is corporate funded Democrats.

bastardofmelbourne:
Get power first, then reform the electoral process.

Yeah, that's not happening in a country dedicated to political gridlock. "Getting power" in the USA almost inevitably means never getting as much power as is needed for radical reform. It'll reform when it breaks, if it breaks. It seems to me plausible that the USA is on trajectory further towards an oligarchic pseudo-democracy. It's just a matter of well the oligarchs keep unrest contained.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Get power first

The biggest obstacle to that is corporate funded Democrats.

Corporate funded Republicans are a bigger problem.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Get power first

The biggest obstacle to that is corporate funded Democrats.

You said this in your earlier post, and I declined to address it then, but this position is...mostly nonsense.

The biggest obstacle to left-wing political reform in the US is not insufficiently left-wing Democrats. It's the Republicans, who are far less progressive and control the other one-half of the electorate at any given time. I find it really kind of crazy to say otherwise.

I mean, even if you had a candidate who was only 10% left-wing, that's still less of an obstacle to left-wing policies than a candidate who is 0% left-wing, because he will vote on a left-wing policy 10% of the time as opposed to 0%. If Congress was nothing but centrist Democrats and progressive Democrats, it would be a hell of a lot easier for progressives to get shit done. But the fact is that at any given time, a huge portion of Congress is stacked with right-wing people who just want to keep cutting their own taxes and who hate welfare on a conceptual level. That's the freaking obstacle.

It's like driving your car into a concrete wall, and then blaming the car for being a hunk of junk. The car's not the goddamn problem; it might be a good car, it might be a bad car, but that fact is irrelevant so long as there's a concrete wall standing between you and where you need to go.

Agema:
Yeah, that's not happening in a country dedicated to political gridlock. "Getting power" in the USA almost inevitably means never getting as much power as is needed for radical reform. It'll reform when it breaks, if it breaks. It seems to me plausible that the USA is on trajectory further towards an oligarchic pseudo-democracy. It's just a matter of well the oligarchs keep unrest contained.

My comment was less "this is likely to happen" and more "this is the last remaining slim chance that exists to fix things before the fan is broken irreparably from the weight of all the shit that just hit it."

Like, in order to stop the irreversible death of most marine life and crop-destroying shifts in the Earth's climate, we would need immediate and dramatic reductions in carbon emissions - as well as also inventing some purely-hypothetical technology to remove carbon from the air - just in order to stay below the 2? limit, which is already pretty bad in and of itself. (We're currently headed towards 4?, at which point there is no guarantee that the world will even be habitable in the long term.)

That is literally the only way forward on climate change and the only way to avoid an environmental catastrophe in the coming century, but it also has a snowball's chance in hell of ever occurring. In a similar way, immediate and dramatic reformation of the US electoral process is needed to prevent the entire country from slipping into kleptocracy, but it is not at all likely that such reforms will take place. That should not prevent myself or anyone else from advocating for such reforms.

Seanchaidh:

I think people should engage in primaries. And general elections. For example: if a good candidate loses their Democratic primary, they should run independent or endorse another good candidate. That other good candidate might in theory be their primary opponent, but it also might not.

As for who gets rewarded by this: it's much more serious an error to reward Democrats for not representing the left than it is to reward Republicans for running against Democrats who don't represent the left. Republicans never pretended to represent the left; they are thus not the principal obstacle to appropriately representing leftist views in government. The primary obstacle is those who claim to represent the left but don't. That is who must be destroyed.

Wait: to be clear, you consider it a lesser issue to reward the right-wing? That this is preferable to rewarding a non-leftist Democrat?

If that's the case, and it is the right-wing that is consistently rewarded by this voting habit, why in hell should the political class conclude that they need to shift to the left? You're presenting a carrot and expecting the message to be to move away from it. It's bizarre.

bastardofmelbourne:

The biggest obstacle to left-wing political reform in the US is not insufficiently left-wing Democrats. It's the Republicans, who are far less progressive and control the other one-half of the electorate at any given time. I find it really kind of crazy to say otherwise.

The US won't ever have an actual left-wing movement if the Democrats are not reformed, quite frankly. Even if there was a democrat in the White House and a democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the country would still continue to slip into a right-wing hellhole, just more slowly.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

I think people should engage in primaries. And general elections. For example: if a good candidate loses their Democratic primary, they should run independent or endorse another good candidate. That other good candidate might in theory be their primary opponent, but it also might not.

As for who gets rewarded by this: it's much more serious an error to reward Democrats for not representing the left than it is to reward Republicans for running against Democrats who don't represent the left. Republicans never pretended to represent the left; they are thus not the principal obstacle to appropriately representing leftist views in government. The primary obstacle is those who claim to represent the left but don't. That is who must be destroyed.

Wait: to be clear, you consider it a lesser issue to reward the right-wing? That this is preferable to rewarding a non-leftist Democrat?

If that's the case, and it is the right-wing that is consistently rewarded by this voting habit, why in hell should the political class conclude that they need to shift to the left? You're presenting a carrot and expecting the message to be to move away from it. It's bizarre.

Because rewarding the Democrats for what they're doing is rewarding the right wing.

crimson5pheonix:

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

I think people should engage in primaries. And general elections. For example: if a good candidate loses their Democratic primary, they should run independent or endorse another good candidate. That other good candidate might in theory be their primary opponent, but it also might not.

As for who gets rewarded by this: it's much more serious an error to reward Democrats for not representing the left than it is to reward Republicans for running against Democrats who don't represent the left. Republicans never pretended to represent the left; they are thus not the principal obstacle to appropriately representing leftist views in government. The primary obstacle is those who claim to represent the left but don't. That is who must be destroyed.

Wait: to be clear, you consider it a lesser issue to reward the right-wing? That this is preferable to rewarding a non-leftist Democrat?

If that's the case, and it is the right-wing that is consistently rewarded by this voting habit, why in hell should the political class conclude that they need to shift to the left? You're presenting a carrot and expecting the message to be to move away from it. It's bizarre.

Because rewarding the Democrats for what they're doing is rewarding the right wing.

Pretty much, rewarding right-wing incrementalism might not be as bad as rewarding right-wing extremists, but yeah, it still is rewarding the right-wing.

bastardofmelbourne:
You said this in your earlier post, and I declined to address it then, but this position is...mostly nonsense.

The biggest obstacle to left-wing political reform in the US is not insufficiently left-wing Democrats. It's the Republicans, who are far less progressive and control the other one-half of the electorate at any given time. I find it really kind of crazy to say otherwise.

I mean, even if you had a candidate who was only 10% left-wing, that's still less of an obstacle to left-wing policies than a candidate who is 0% left-wing, because he will vote on a left-wing policy 10% of the time as opposed to 0%. If Congress was nothing but centrist Democrats and progressive Democrats, it would be a hell of a lot easier for progressives to get shit done. But the fact is that at any given time, a huge portion of Congress is stacked with right-wing people who just want to keep cutting their own taxes and who hate welfare on a conceptual level. That's the freaking obstacle.

This is a misunderstanding of the roles the two parties play in the two-party system.

1)A legislature with a composition of 60% progressive Democrats and 40% Republicans is in its legislative impact essentially the same as 60% progressive Democrats and 40% corporate Democrats.
2)Progressive Democrats have a natural constituency that is larger than either Republicans or centrist Democrats.
3)Corporate Democrats, by being slightly closer to the left than off-the-deep-end Republicans, displace attempts at representing the poor and working class.

Corporate Democrats will neither achieve policy which will remain effective and popular (and thus be resistant to attempts at repeal, like social security and medicare) nor will they reform the electoral system to be sufficiently democratic to make themselves obsolete. What they will do is capture votes from better candidates further left and prevent the rise of a politics based in working class solidarity. They are paid primarily to prevent leftist politics. That is why they are the biggest obstacle to change. They must be destroyed.

Republicans, as terrible as they are, at least aren't standing in the way of having the OPTION of good candidates to vote for. Corporate Democrats are.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

I think people should engage in primaries. And general elections. For example: if a good candidate loses their Democratic primary, they should run independent or endorse another good candidate. That other good candidate might in theory be their primary opponent, but it also might not.

As for who gets rewarded by this: it's much more serious an error to reward Democrats for not representing the left than it is to reward Republicans for running against Democrats who don't represent the left. Republicans never pretended to represent the left; they are thus not the principal obstacle to appropriately representing leftist views in government. The primary obstacle is those who claim to represent the left but don't. That is who must be destroyed.

Wait: to be clear, you consider it a lesser issue to reward the right-wing? That this is preferable to rewarding a non-leftist Democrat?

If that's the case, and it is the right-wing that is consistently rewarded by this voting habit, why in hell should the political class conclude that they need to shift to the left? You're presenting a carrot and expecting the message to be to move away from it. It's bizarre.

Democrats were rewarded by tea-party extremism. And yet here we are.

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:
If you cared about left-wing values, you would do anything to keep Trump out of power.

Sister, Hilary's campaign didn't do everything to keep trump out of power. And the country doesn't automatically become a left-wing paradise once he leaves office.

No, it doesn't, because Trump's damage will be felt for decades, this Supreme Court situation is proof enough.

I will never forgive Bernie and his supporters.

If you wanted to push further left, then letting Trump take us extreme right is NOT THE ANSWER.

Nearly 2 years and you are still banging this drum I see.

There is precisely one person to blame for the Democrat's loss to the least qualified candidate in modern history. It's not Bernie, it's not any of the Bernie Bros, it's not Putin and it's not Trump. It's Hillary Clinton. She's the one who showcased for the entire world just how profoundly corrupt the Democrat party institution is down to its very core by literally buying the support of the DNC. No body of people that profoundly corrupt deserves power. Of course, Trump and his ilk are profoundly corrupt too, but they had not had the chance to showcase their corruption.

Literally, nothing short of a full breakdown and rebuilding of the Democrats will restore their image to any after the damage that Hillary and only Hillary had done. All because she felt she was ENTITLED to the job.

I know that you will never be persuaded of any of this but you are continually blaming the wrong people for the Dems loss and it's exhausting sometimes.

jklinders:
Of course, Trump and his ilk are profoundly corrupt too, but they had not had the chance to showcase their corruption.

They did. They had been doing so for years. People just didn't care.

There's blame to go around, but to say all of it is Clinton's is absurd. Hell, even if the problem really was corruption amongst the Democrats, that's a lot more people than one.

jklinders:
It's Hillary Clinton. She's the one who showcased for the entire world just how profoundly corrupt the Democrat party institution is down to its very core by literally buying the support of the DNC.

To be fair, saying Clinton bought the DNC minimises the DNC's guilt of being an active partner in this grubby little affair. Institutionally, the DNC was vastly in favour of Clinton already (e.g. consider the superdelegate split), and happy to rig the system for her in a quid pro quo. And even had the DNC been neutral, Clinton was miles ahead in the polls and very likely to have won anyway.

jklinders:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

Sister, Hilary's campaign didn't do everything to keep trump out of power. And the country doesn't automatically become a left-wing paradise once he leaves office.

No, it doesn't, because Trump's damage will be felt for decades, this Supreme Court situation is proof enough.

I will never forgive Bernie and his supporters.

If you wanted to push further left, then letting Trump take us extreme right is NOT THE ANSWER.

Nearly 2 years and you are still banging this drum I see.

There is precisely one person to blame for the Democrat's loss to the least qualified candidate in modern history. It's not Bernie, it's not any of the Bernie Bros, it's not Putin and it's not Trump. It's Hillary Clinton. She's the one who showcased for the entire world just how profoundly corrupt the Democrat party institution is down to its very core by literally buying the support of the DNC. No body of people that profoundly corrupt deserves power. Of course, Trump and his ilk are profoundly corrupt too, but they had not had the chance to showcase their corruption.

Literally, nothing short of a full breakdown and rebuilding of the Democrats will restore their image to any after the damage that Hillary and only Hillary had done. All because she felt she was ENTITLED to the job.

I know that you will never be persuaded of any of this but you are continually blaming the wrong people for the Dems loss and it's exhausting sometimes.

Trump is still President and has been getting worse over those two years, so pardon me if I am 'still banging that drum'.

You are blaming the wrong side for the Dems loss and it is exhausting sometimes.

jklinders:

Saelune:

jklinders:

Nearly 2 years and you are still banging this drum I see.

There is precisely one person to blame for the Democrat's loss to the least qualified candidate in modern history. It's not Bernie, it's not any of the Bernie Bros, it's not Putin and it's not Trump. It's Hillary Clinton. She's the one who showcased for the entire world just how profoundly corrupt the Democrat party institution is down to its very core by literally buying the support of the DNC. No body of people that profoundly corrupt deserves power. Of course, Trump and his ilk are profoundly corrupt too, but they had not had the chance to showcase their corruption.

Literally, nothing short of a full breakdown and rebuilding of the Democrats will restore their image to any after the damage that Hillary and only Hillary had done. All because she felt she was ENTITLED to the job.

I know that you will never be persuaded of any of this but you are continually blaming the wrong people for the Dems loss and it's exhausting sometimes.

Trump is still President and has been getting worse over those two years, so pardon me if I am 'still banging that drum'.

You are blaming the wrong side for the Dems loss and it is exhausting sometimes.

What side? The anti-corruption cronyism side. All Clinton had to do was show herself to be a better human being than Trump and somehow by an act of utter incompetence she failed. try again, apologists. The DNC and Clinton failed your country and the world not those who dared to support a breath of fresh air. You would rather corrupt mediocrity forever rather than change. Change comes with pain. Maybe this utter collapse was needed to make a truly just counter to the GOP. But I'm not holding my breath, not as long as we have people who would rather suffer the yoke of 2 different flavours of corporatism forever.

Good to see your perspective is as limited and calcified as ever.

Clinton did show herself to be better than Trump. If you do not think so, then I guess the propaganda worked.

crimson5pheonix:

Because rewarding the Democrats for what they're doing is rewarding the right wing.

This isn't an explanation. If somebody wants to avoid rewarding the right-wing, then rewarding the further right wing does not accomplish a leftward shift. It accomplishes the opposite.

Seanchaidh:

Democrats were rewarded by tea-party extremism. And yet here we are.

Did the Tea Party voters withhold their votes from the Republican Presidential nominee in significant numbers, then? Because if not, this isn't a meaningful comparison.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

Democrats were rewarded by tea-party extremism. And yet here we are.

Did the Tea Party voters withhold their votes from the Republican Presidential nominee in significant numbers, then? Because if not, this isn't a meaningful comparison.

Did Romney or McCain win?

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

Democrats were rewarded by tea-party extremism. And yet here we are.

Did the Tea Party voters withhold their votes from the Republican Presidential nominee in significant numbers, then? Because if not, this isn't a meaningful comparison.

Did Romney or McCain win?

Intellectually dishonest much?

The Tea Party as a national group started after the 2008 election...

Even ignoring that, the fact that McCain and Romney lost doesn't prove anything about the Tea Party. You've literally just stated what should be the conclusion of your logical analysis ("and therefore Romney and McCain lost because of the Tea Party") and seem to expect us to fill in the rest when its obvious you didn't even try to do so; just because you started at your wanted conclusion doesn't mean everyone else will turn off their brains and agree.

Silvanus:

crimson5pheonix:

Because rewarding the Democrats for what they're doing is rewarding the right wing.

This isn't an explanation. If somebody wants to avoid rewarding the right-wing, then rewarding the further right wing does not accomplish a leftward shift. It accomplishes the opposite.

Well if you don't want to reward the right-wing, you're kinda SOL if both sides put up right-wing candidates. But one party might go left if they're punished for pushing a right-wing candidate.

Let's not pretend Kennedy was some kind of centrist moderate when it came to economic issues. He would always vote against the people in favor of corporations. The court was always right leaning, at best Kennedy was a moderate on social issues.

Saelune:
A vote for anyone but Democrats is a vote for Trump. Voting for Bernie was voting for Trump. Voting for Bernie caused this. Stein didn't help either.

The SC should be a democratically elected seat. The SC is supposed to be a check and balance against Congress and the Presidency, not it's pawn, which is literally is clearly, as Congress and the President have the SC by the testicles.

We literally need a new government, this one is broken.

No, no, no. You're wrong. Sure there were people who voted for Sanders in the primary also voted for Trump in the general, but they're lower then the amount of Hillary voters who voted for her in the primary in 2008, before defecting to John McCain in the general. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.b1c483b23061

You and other Hillary voters need to stop blaming Bernie supporters for Trump winning the presidency, she was just a bad candidate period.

WolvDragon:
Let's not pretend Kennedy was some kind of centrist moderate when it came to economic issues. He would always vote against the people in favor of corporations. The court was always right leaning, at best Kennedy was a moderate on social issues.

Saelune:
A vote for anyone but Democrats is a vote for Trump. Voting for Bernie was voting for Trump. Voting for Bernie caused this. Stein didn't help either.

The SC should be a democratically elected seat. The SC is supposed to be a check and balance against Congress and the Presidency, not it's pawn, which is literally is clearly, as Congress and the President have the SC by the testicles.

We literally need a new government, this one is broken.

No, no, no. You're wrong. Sure there were people who voted for Sanders in the primary also voted for Trump in the general, but they're lower then the amount of Hillary voters who voted for her in the primary in 2008, before defecting to John McCain in the general. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.b1c483b23061

You and other Hillary voters need to stop blaming Bernie supporters for Trump winning the presidency, she was just a bad candidate period.

Trump was worse.

crimson5pheonix:

Well if you don't want to reward the right-wing, you're kinda SOL if both sides put up right-wing candidates. But one party might go left if they're punished for pushing a right-wing candidate.

Or, much more realistically, both parties will take the more likely message from a voterbase which rewards the furthest right of the two parties-- that the voterbase favours a right-wing platform. To expect them to take anything else away from it is a little bizarre.

Seanchaidh:

Did Romney or McCain win?

If the answer to my question is "no", this is an irrelevance.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:
Let's not pretend Kennedy was some kind of centrist moderate when it came to economic issues. He would always vote against the people in favor of corporations. The court was always right leaning, at best Kennedy was a moderate on social issues.

Saelune:
A vote for anyone but Democrats is a vote for Trump. Voting for Bernie was voting for Trump. Voting for Bernie caused this. Stein didn't help either.

The SC should be a democratically elected seat. The SC is supposed to be a check and balance against Congress and the Presidency, not it's pawn, which is literally is clearly, as Congress and the President have the SC by the testicles.

We literally need a new government, this one is broken.

No, no, no. You're wrong. Sure there were people who voted for Sanders in the primary also voted for Trump in the general, but they're lower then the amount of Hillary voters who voted for her in the primary in 2008, before defecting to John McCain in the general. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.b1c483b23061

You and other Hillary voters need to stop blaming Bernie supporters for Trump winning the presidency, she was just a bad candidate period.

Trump was worse.

He is, but Hillary is still an awful person as well.

Silvanus:

crimson5pheonix:

Well if you don't want to reward the right-wing, you're kinda SOL if both sides put up right-wing candidates. But one party might go left if they're punished for pushing a right-wing candidate.

Or, much more realistically, both parties will take the more likely message from a voterbase which rewards the furthest right of the two parties-- that the voterbase favours a right-wing platform. To expect them to take anything else away from it is a little bizarre.

Then it's their fault for only looking at the general election results and not the wealth of information showing the popularity of left-wing ideals. Or failing to notice that third parties get more votes every election. Since blaming third parties for your loss, but then turning around and saying that people clearly like right-wing ideals is both incredibly dumb and absolutely on brand for the Democrat party.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:
Let's not pretend Kennedy was some kind of centrist moderate when it came to economic issues. He would always vote against the people in favor of corporations. The court was always right leaning, at best Kennedy was a moderate on social issues.

No, no, no. You're wrong. Sure there were people who voted for Sanders in the primary also voted for Trump in the general, but they're lower then the amount of Hillary voters who voted for her in the primary in 2008, before defecting to John McCain in the general. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.b1c483b23061

You and other Hillary voters need to stop blaming Bernie supporters for Trump winning the presidency, she was just a bad candidate period.

Trump was worse.

He is, but Hillary is still an awful person as well.

Our choices were Hillary or Trump. Trump was worse.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Trump was worse.

He is, but Hillary is still an awful person as well.

Our choices were Hillary or Trump. Trump was worse.

Along with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and other candidates, not just those two.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

He is, but Hillary is still an awful person as well.

Our choices were Hillary or Trump. Trump was worse.

Along with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and other candidates, not just those two.

When it came to the final election, it was Trump vs Hillary. Johnson and Stein did not get far enough, nor did Bernie for all his supporters talk of 'he would have won', well he didn't.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Our choices were Hillary or Trump. Trump was worse.

Along with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and other candidates, not just those two.

When it came to the final election, it was Trump vs Hillary. Johnson and Stein did not get far enough, nor did Bernie for all his supporters talk of 'he would have won', well he didn't.

He would've beaten Trump, most post election polls show him beating him by double or single high digits. Thank the DNC for not giving Bernie a fair chance in thee primary. Plus he did well against an establishment figure who was well known then Bernie.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Along with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and other candidates, not just those two.

When it came to the final election, it was Trump vs Hillary. Johnson and Stein did not get far enough, nor did Bernie for all his supporters talk of 'he would have won', well he didn't.

He would've beaten Trump, most post election polls show him beating him by double or single high digits. Thank the DNC for not giving Bernie a fair chance in thee primary. Plus he did well against an establishment figure who was well known then Bernie.

So your saying that Bernie was a shoe in cause polls said so, but was cheated out of their election?

Like Hillary was?

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
When it came to the final election, it was Trump vs Hillary. Johnson and Stein did not get far enough, nor did Bernie for all his supporters talk of 'he would have won', well he didn't.

He would've beaten Trump, most post election polls show him beating him by double or single high digits. Thank the DNC for not giving Bernie a fair chance in thee primary. Plus he did well against an establishment figure who was well known then Bernie.

So your saying that Bernie was a shoe in cause polls said so, but was cheated out of their election?

Like Hillary was?

I wouldn't say he was a shoo in, but he definately would've motivated the progressive base to come out and vote, and dissuade voters from midwestern states for voting for Trump since Bernie actually has that populist streak. Basically he would've had a much easier time then Hilary.

And yes Bernie was cheated, the DNC under the tyranny of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, rigged the primaries against Bernie.

Hillary lost fair and square, she wasn't cheated out of the election.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

He would've beaten Trump, most post election polls show him beating him by double or single high digits. Thank the DNC for not giving Bernie a fair chance in thee primary. Plus he did well against an establishment figure who was well known then Bernie.

So your saying that Bernie was a shoe in cause polls said so, but was cheated out of their election?

Like Hillary was?

I wouldn't say he was a shoo in, but he definately would've motivated the progressive base to come out and vote, and dissuade voters from midwestern states for voting for Trump since Bernie actually has that populist streak. Basically he would've had a much easier time then Hilary.

And yes Bernie was cheated, the DNC under the tyranny of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, rigged the primaries against Bernie.

Hillary lost fair and square, she wasn't cheated out of the election.

Hillary had more votes than Trump. If you believe Bernie should have beat Hillary, then you cannot argue that Trump deserved the Presidency.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

He would've beaten Trump, most post election polls show him beating him by double or single high digits. Thank the DNC for not giving Bernie a fair chance in thee primary. Plus he did well against an establishment figure who was well known then Bernie.

So your saying that Bernie was a shoe in cause polls said so, but was cheated out of their election?

Like Hillary was?

I wouldn't say he was a shoo in, but he definately would've motivated the progressive base to come out and vote, and dissuade voters from midwestern states for voting for Trump since Bernie actually has that populist streak. Basically he would've had a much easier time then Hilary.

And yes Bernie was cheated, the DNC under the tyranny of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, rigged the primaries against Bernie.

Hillary lost fair and square, she wasn't cheated out of the election.

Hillary had more votes than Trump. If you believe Bernie should have beat Hillary, then you cannot argue that Trump deserved the Presidency.[/quote
He won the electoral college, so yes he deserves to be president.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here