• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Bernie defects...

What happens when Bernie supports Hillary?

  • It means Hillary wasn't as bad as you thought.

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • It means Bernie isn't as amazing as you thought.

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • It means your head is going to explode.

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
Sanders is against the crappy trade deals pushed by the Clintons and Obama. Some of Sanders voters might well cross over to Trump, the only other candidate who's against Nafta, Transpacific partnership.
 
demsoc70 said:
Sanders is against the crappy trade deals pushed by the Clintons and Obama. Some of Sanders voters might well cross over to Trump, the only other candidate who's against Nafta, Transpacific partnership.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope that doesn't have to happen. The better Sanders does, the worse off Trump is.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
1)Actually Yes that's exactly what I think will happen. The people in my immediate friend circle who are his most enthusiastic supporters believe the system is rigged aganst them, and Bernie's loss will prove that, and yes they will stay home and stew and complain the system is rigged against them when they lose and so what's the point?
Click to expand...

i don't agree. maybe militant supporters will go Sanders or bust, but most will vote for Clinton to keep Trump out when it comes down to it.

EMNofSeattle said:
2) Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it, there are two effective parties because most people are not single issue voters, and most third parties do not wish to win anyway.
Click to expand...

gerrymandering has a lot to do with it. no way could some of these morons hold their seats for life if they hadn't had it specifically drawn for them by corrupt, friendly politicians on the same team. ****, congress has an approval rating of 13 - 17%, depending on the source. most of them will still get to keep their jobs, though. gerrymandered safe districts are a big part of that.
 
Northern Light said:
Might be worth a separate topic, but how? How can the electorate possibly change the establishment politics, and the pre-selected candidates by the elites?
Click to expand...

i support drawing all districts nationwide using computer software which takes only census population density data into account. districts would be redrawn automatically every ten years.

i realize that this isn't going to happen. however, it's the solution to gerrymandering.
 
Helix said:
i don't agree. maybe militant supporters will go Sanders or bust, but most will vote for Clinton to keep Trump out when it comes down to it.



gerrymandering has a lot to do with it. no way could some of these morons hold their seats for life if they hadn't had it specifically drawn for them by corrupt, friendly politicians on the same team. ****, congress has an approval rating of 13 - 17%, depending on the source. most of them will still get to keep their jobs, though. gerrymandered safe districts are a big part of that.
Click to expand...

Most districts will be nature be safe unless you reverse gerrymander them not to be.

Gerrymandering is a meaningless term thrown around by people who do not understand legislative process. In fact I never hear someone complain about gerrymandering if their party is in the majority.

Most people who have a negative view of congress love their particular congressman, this is a well established phenomenon
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Most districts will be nature be safe unless you reverse gerrymander them not to be.

Gerrymandering is a meaningless term thrown around by people who do not understand legislative process. In fact I never hear someone complain about gerrymandering if their party is in the majority.
Click to expand...

it's one of the best illustrations of conflict of interest, so i bring that fact up no matter which team is winning.

EMNofSeattle said:
Most people who have a negative view of congress love their particular congressman, this is a well established phenomenon
Click to expand...

most people are more interested in supporting their team, as is evidenced here every day. it's probably a vestige of tribalism. it makes for piss poor, artificially limited choices most election cycles. that much is beyond debate.
 
MrWonka said:
When Clinton and Sanders were in the Senate together they voted exactly the same 93% of the time. This notion that they are radically different is invented out of nothingness. Keep in mind it was Clinton who was the primary supporter of single payer health care for most of the last two decades. She only gave up on it after she lost the 2008 primary and Obama was able to get his bill passed.

The differences between Sanders and Clinton have been highlighted repeatedly by their supporters in the primary, but in the grand scheme of things their policy beliefs are actually pretty close. Rejecting either candidate because they're radically different than the one you prefer is ridiculous and counter productive.
Click to expand...
Were most of the bills represented in that 93% consequential or were they primarily inconsequential bills that are easy to get consensus on?

On things like the Iraq War, breaking up the banks, the death penalty and other "big" issues, Clinton and Sanders have deep philosophical differences. Sanders is a democratic socialist and Clinton is a centrist. They have deep philosophical differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom