The Democratic Divide

I'm not sure you and others believe me, not that I care, but what might be more or just as interesting is the appeal Sanders has to some (as you guys would call me) far right wackos.

I support Sanders because he is change. Obama, G.W.B., Hillary, he hubby Bill, and all other candidates and past Presidents really aren't that different. Bush and Obama are really not that different in how they govern. Essentially, on the vast majority of things, they do the same thing, just in a slightly different way.

The reason I want a Trump v Sanders election is because no matter who wins we will finally have someone in the oval who will do things very differently.

Hillary is a continuation of this chain of Republican and Democrat oligarchy that really aren't leaders for the country. They have their own agendas and want power and will sell out the people and this country if it suits them.

Sanders isn't like that. Trump isn't like that. I agree with trump more than sanders, but I think Sanders would make the better POTUS because of his temperment. I don't think trump has the right temperment for the job.

Clinton, she is just more of the same, and I think we can agree that the same isn't working.

ThickStemz said:

I'm not sure you and others believe me, not that I care, but what might be more or just as interesting is the appeal Sanders has to some (as you guys would call me) far right wackos.

I support Sanders because he is change. Obama, G.W.B., Hillary, he hubby Bill, and all other candidates and past Presidents really aren't that different. Bush and Obama are really not that different in how they govern. Essentially, on the vast majority of things, they do the same thing, just in a slightly different way.

The reason I want a Trump v Sanders election is because no matter who wins we will finally have someone in the oval who will do things very differently.

Hillary is a continuation of this chain of Republican and Democrat oligarchy that really aren't leaders for the country. They have their own agendas and want power and will sell out the people and this country if it suits them.

Sanders isn't like that. Trump isn't like that. I agree with trump more than sanders, but I think Sanders would make the better POTUS because of his temperment. I don't think trump has the right temperment for the job.

Clinton, she is just more of the same, and I think we can agree that the same isn't working.

Click to expand...

so hillary is no good even though she votes with bernie 93% of the time?

i won't even bother with the rest of the sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies in that bullshit-laden diatribe of yours.

fuck a dog.

Great original post, @Padawanbater2 !

My position is that from all I've seen of what Mrs Clinton says and has supported throughout her long political career, that she simply isn't a progressive/traditional democrat/liberal in any meaningful way, and never has been.

Since I feel like I have an extremely liberal perspective by comparison to the current political climate, I'm going with the leading candidate who most closely matches my outlook- but really, much more than that; Bernie Sanders says he's going to take on the big banks, reinstate Glass-Steagall, raise taxes on the wealthy and restrict the power of corporations to bribe our government to do their bidding in so many ways.

All of this is much overdue. If it isn't done, we'll get more of this current economic malaise, where the country has a nasty strain, sucking the life out of it right thru the new aristocratic class. Or worse; depression and war, like we've seen before- well, our grandparents did.

Gates isn't a lot different from Cornelius Vanderbilt was. The Koch smokers aren't much different from Rockefeller. They were- and their families remain- America's aristocratic class, helped along by a tax structure that allows them to keep their money and pay less tax than those earning mere wages. This is quite simply robbery of our nation's future by stealing the engine of wealth and putting it in the hands of trust fund babies... who grow up to recognize that they enjoy a life without work yet with ultimate privilege.

Our Founding Father's forebears sailed under canvas on wooden boats across an ocean as daunting to them as interplanetary travel is to us today TO GET AWAY FROM ARISTOCRACY AND BUILD A NATION OF EQUALS.

NO ONE should get a free ride on taxes. Capital gains SHOULD BE higher than tax on wages, so it stays at work, helping build our country. Instead, it slops around chasing one financial chimera after another... creating artificial financial instability and economic crashes over and again.

So why am I talking about dead people and sailboats? Because history will repeat itself every chance it gets. We as a nation have been here before and we need only ask members of the Greatest Generation- quick! Before they're all gone!- about the trials of the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression and what the shared prosperity and widely distributed massive economic growth of the egalitarian 50s and 60s meant to them.

Even the minimum wage argument fails to address the real travesty of corporate CEOs who bomb at their jobs, yet not only get sent packing with millions in retirement money- but are actually hired again?

Why is it okay that a trust fund baby can fail high school but get into Harvard anyway, wreck his Ferrari but not have to get a job, be a useless lout his whole life- and STILL end up better off than the hard working son or daughter of a middle class family who pays his bills, his dues, his car payment and yet gets kicked out of the same company 3 months before his retirement account is vested? What the fuck is fair about that? Why are we whining about who deserves minimum wage in the face of THAT?

So I'm a Bernie Sandernista. Because history will have its say, and it speaks right when everyone is most deaf to it.

I've been ahead of my time for a long time now.

@Fogdog ,this might be a calmer place to discuss policy.

I found it fascinating how often Colorado politicians kept coming up in this article;

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.huffpost.com/us

I really think we're a bellwether state.

Listen to the hue and cry going on right now and tell me that a significant majority of people want universal health care coverage or the reform of the banking and investment system. The candidate on the far right even denies there is a drought in California, deliberately sets up confrontations between the police and people protesting his hate speech. The losers who want him in office want him exactly because they are losers and want to vote for a winner. Policy and facts are not even part of their conversation.

I don't understand the deep hatred people have for Hillary. She is all the things Paddy says but she's not the criminal that people on the right and left say she is. From my perspective, she is willing to work with people to get her objectives and theirs done. While the things that Ty and Paddy say about her are not wrong, Hillary has shown that she is willing to move if the moment requires it. For example, in Bill's first few years of holding office he proposed shifting the healthcare system to one of a single payer or universal heathcare model. Hillary was such a proponent of this plan she became practically the face of it. Not only did the initiative fail, it ushered in the Republican congress we are plagued with to this day. Hillary learned her lesson and she's not touching universal healthcare at all.

What's my take-away from this? Clinton is not committed to anything other than her own career. While that is not admirable, it is better than the kind of ideology-based leadership demonstrated by the Bush administration or the narcissistic, fascist monomania evinced by Trump.

We have on the right, an uncompromising Fascist uprising. We have on the left, an equally uncompromising stance that insists all or nothing. I'll put Ty down as the face of this. The Fascists are not an option, can't go there and won't support negotiations with them because Fascists do not negotiate. They only understand power. On the left, all I hear is "should" because that is all they can honestly say. They have no power today. I see a middle way where the Sandernistas use the threat of holding out to drive some of Bernie's and their agenda forward. I also see this happening in today's news. And that's enough for me. Some of Bernie's agenda and I'll wait to see what he can hammer out. And don't forget he will be in the Senate with a pretty strong national mandate behind him.

If enough Sandernistas say "no way no how, not now not ever" then Bernie's bargaining power is lost. So I say, "maybe" and will let things play out for a few more months. I don't know exactly what it will take to make my decision but I'll know it when I see it.

Today is not all about big picture and what should happen. That kind of talk is fine but right now is the time to discuss what's important and do-able.

Incrementalism is not going to help our country recover. It will simply allow the powers that be to continue sucking our country dry and hollow until it implodes. AGAIN.

Action and movement is essential to avoid this outcome. The Chump is an obvious disaster; Mrs Clinton is a less obvious one, but a disaster for the average American nonetheless.

The right wingers negotiate with no one, so Incrementalism has been going all their way since 1980.

We'll have this conversation again in 4 years, and I'll be saying, 'I told you so'.

Mrs Clinton is not going to do well against the Chump troopers;

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.huffpost.com/us

UncleBuck said:

so hillary is no good even though she votes with bernie 93% of the time?

i won't even bother with the rest of the sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies in that bullshit-laden diatribe of yours.

fuck a dog.

Click to expand...

I don't care what a person thinks or what their voting record is.

I care why they think that way or why they vote that way.

Hillary and Sanders may have very similar whats, but their whys are way different.

ttystikk said:

Incrementalism is not going to help our country recover. It will simply allow the powers that be to continue sucking our country dry and hollow until it implodes. AGAIN.

Action and movement is essential to avoid this outcome. The Chump is an obvious disaster; Mrs Clinton is a less obvious one, but a disaster for the average American nonetheless.

The right wingers negotiate with no one, so Incrementalism has been going all their way since 1980.

We'll have this conversation again in 4 years, and I'll be saying, 'I told you so'.

Click to expand...

Four years of disagreement? That's OK with me. Maybe by then you can drag the words "you were right" out of me. But I'm pretty stubborn.

Fogdog said:

Four years of disagreement? That's OK with me. Maybe by then you can drag the words "you were right" out of me. But I'm pretty stubborn.

Click to expand...

I won't have to drag them.

ttystikk said:

Incrementalism is not going to help our country recover. It will simply allow the powers that be to continue sucking our country dry and hollow until it implodes. AGAIN.

Action and movement is essential to avoid this outcome. The Chump is an obvious disaster; Mrs Clinton is a less obvious one, but a disaster for the average American nonetheless.

The right wingers negotiate with no one, so Incrementalism has been going all their way since 1980.

We'll have this conversation again in 4 years, and I'll be saying, 'I told you so'.

Click to expand...

Sanders is my first choice. Trump is my second. Why? That power structure you're referring to, both Sanders and Trup, either one of them, will make it So much weaker. Even if trump is the disaster you claim, we can survive 4 years of him making that power structure weaker.

A Hillary win makes it stronger. I have my prefrences, but any outsider will do, even trump.

ThickStemz said:

I don't care what a person thinks or what their voting record is.

I care why they think that way or why they vote that way.

Hillary and Sanders may have very similar whats, but their whys are way different.

Click to expand...

So you'd rather support someone who does the wrong thing for the right reasons than someone who does the right thing for the wrong reasons?? I am literally the EXACT opposite. I don't give one ounce of a flying fuck WHY someone does what they do, all I care about is WHAT they do. I don't care if your reasons are selfless or selfish, I want you to do the right thing.

Ace Yonder said:

So you'd rather support someone who does the wrong thing for the right reasons than someone who does the right thing for the wrong reasons?? I am literally the EXACT opposite. I don't give one ounce of a flying fuck WHY someone does what they do, all I care about is WHAT they do. I don't care if your reasons are selfless or selfish, I want you to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

We can all make mistakes. If someone does the wrong thing for the right reasons , they will likely get it right the next time and more often than not. If the person has the proper goals and motives they can be trusted.

The person who does the right thing for the wrong reasons may be just by happenstance on your side, this time. But there is no reliability with this person. They will likely end up going a way that is not helpful to you at all, eventually they will betray you.

Hillary Clinton just wants to be president. If she had married a Republican she would he just as happy out there fighting with Sarah Palin if it gave her a path to the white house. She is in it for the power. I'll take someone who is in it for the results, every time.

She is emblematic of what is wrong with our country.

Padawanbater2 said:

So I think this election cycle has highlighted something important on the democratic side I'd like to discuss; the clear divide between Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bernie Sanders Campaign, with a primary focus on policy positions and issues and how each camp's supporters have behaved throughout.

I think Sanders represents traditionally progressive positions; universal healthcare, universal college, campaign finance reform & much stronger regulation of the financial industry while Clinton represents more moderate positions; Individual mandate, not universal, single payer healthcare, doesn't support universal college, doesn't support reinstating Glass-Steagall, etc. Judging by the primary election results, this assessment would seem to be somewhat accurate since Clinton dominated the south and most of the eastern seaboard while Sanders made substantial gains in the midwest and northwest with a possibility of reeling in the west coast on June 7.


To Clinton supporters, do you believe Sanders positions are too far left? Are they unrealistic and you believe he wouldn't be able to get anything done? Why would you side with the more moderate democrat over the more progressive democrat? Don't you align more with progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

To me, Sanders doesn't seem like someone who will do whatever it takes to get things done. His unrelenting ideology leads me to believe that he will often fail, because, to him, Best will always be the enemy of Better. Hillary seems like she would be willing to do whatever it takes to get things done. I think she is better at compromising, and I think she is more equipped to play the game to her advantage. I think that, at their core, the things they want are broadly similar (hence the 93% similarity in voting records), I just think that she has more effective tactics for getting that done. I also dislike that Bernie kowtows to groups within the far left that are absolutely ridiculous and out of touch with reality (like the pro-Iran, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel crowd, who are so blinded by propaganda they actually think the people they are supporting are "liberal"), and that he does not seem to have any power to his presence (He couldn't even take the stage back from BLM protesters who were too stupid to know that he's their best friend). As someone who considers himself neither far left nor far right (I consider myself left-leaning centrist or third way politically) she is genuinely the more attractive candidate, because she won't waste time and effort fighting for lost causes that I don't support anyways.

ThickStemz said:

We can all make mistakes. If someone does the wrong thing for the right reasons , they will likely get it right the next time and more often than not. If the person has the proper goals and motives they can be trusted.

The person who does the right thing for the wrong reasons may be just by happenstance on your side, this time. But there is no reliability with this person. They will likely end up going a way that is not helpful to you at all, eventually they will betray you.

Hillary Clinton just wants to be president. If she had married a Republican she would he just as happy out there fighting with Sarah Palin if it gave her a path to the white house. She is in it for the power. I'll take someone who is in it for the results, every time.

She is emblematic of what is wrong with our country.

Click to expand...

And you think Donald Trump is better? He does things for the "right" reasons? I totally disagree about who is trustworthy too, true-believers who do the wrong thing for the right reasons will never listen to reason, they will just continue to do whatever the fuck they think is right even though they are wrong over and over. At least the person doing the right thing selfishly can identify what the right thing is, and they can be trusted to do it as long as we make sure it is in their self interest. I'd rather have a dog that does what I tell it do do because it selfishly wants a treat than a dog that doesn't listen to anything I say and attacks everyone I bring into my house because it thinks it's protecting me.

ThickStemz said:

We can all make mistakes. If someone does the wrong thing for the right reasons , they will likely get it right the next time and more often than not. If the person has the proper goals and motives they can be trusted.

The person who does the right thing for the wrong reasons may be just by happenstance on your side, this time. But there is no reliability with this person. They will likely end up going a way that is not helpful to you at all, eventually they will betray you.

Hillary Clinton just wants to be president. If she had married a Republican she would he just as happy out there fighting with Sarah Palin if it gave her a path to the white house. She is in it for the power. I'll take someone who is in it for the results, every time.

She is emblematic of what is wrong with our country.

Click to expand...

you must have sucked some nasty dick to get such good heroin.

as a contractor, i would not work for someone who has declared multiple bankruptcies. that check will not be good.

in the same vein, i would not trust a word you have to say, because you are a thief. you stole from your own parents to get high.

it is true that you were sexually molested as a child, so i also feel sorry for you. probably explains why you think it is OK to fuck dogs.

but i would not trust a thief or con artist like you or donald trump. scumbags like you two who lie, cheat and steal cannot be trusted, and for good reason.

so if you advocate voting against someone, i will take that as an endorsement for that person. based on the fact that you are a scumbag with his head up his ass.

What an outside perspective
on our election sounds like;

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/election-160526102649958.html

Padawanbater2 said:

So I think this election cycle has highlighted something important on the democratic side I'd like to discuss; the clear divide between Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bernie Sanders Campaign, with a primary focus on policy positions and issues and how each camp's supporters have behaved throughout.

I think Sanders represents traditionally progressive positions; universal healthcare, universal college, campaign finance reform & much stronger regulation of the financial industry while Clinton represents more moderate positions; Individual mandate, not universal, single payer healthcare, doesn't support universal college, doesn't support reinstating Glass-Steagall, etc. Judging by the primary election results, this assessment would seem to be somewhat accurate since Clinton dominated the south and most of the eastern seaboard while Sanders made substantial gains in the midwest and northwest with a possibility of reeling in the west coast on June 7.


To Clinton supporters, do you believe Sanders positions are too far left? Are they unrealistic and you believe he wouldn't be able to get anything done? Why would you side with the more moderate democrat over the more progressive democrat? Don't you align more with progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

There are two kinds of politicians, those who think they can run your life better than you can and those who think they can run your life better than you can.

Ooops, guess there's only one kind.