• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question for Democrats

Honestly, I don't really care. I'll still vote 3rd Party.

Not caring has got us into a lot of trouble before. Perhaps you should also say we will deserve what we get. That is what Nader said when people voted for him because Gore was not "green" enough and GW Bush got appointed President. I'm afraid you are a lot like those Nader voters.
 
I want someone who will keep lying to me so I can feel like my vote counts for some sort of positive change in America.
 
As a Democrat, are you hoping Hillary wraps up the nomination and gets enough delegates to avoid a contested convention and unify the party?

As an actual progressive to be starkly contrasted with the bastardized neo-liberal uniquely American conception of one, hell no. Furthermore, Hillary will unify nothing on a win short of assimilating significant portions of Bernie's agenda and earning, not being entitled to, his endorsement.

Or are you hoping Bernie keeps building his momentum and essentially forces a contested convention? Perhaps he closes the gap and is only behind in single digits or maybe he takes the lead.

The bigger Bernie's lead the better.
 
As an actual progressive to be starkly contrasted with the bastardized neo-liberal uniquely American conception of one, hell no. Furthermore, Hillary will unify nothing on a win short of assimilating significant portions of Bernie's agenda and earning, not being entitled to, his endorsement.



The bigger Bernie's lead the better.

You should at least admit that if Bernie is NOT in the lead with pledged delegates by the convention he has no chance of getting the nomination and there should be no sour grapes on the Sanders side either. Elections are about votes after all. Super delegates should not determine the winner and they won't.
 
You should at least admit that if Bernie is NOT in the lead with pledged delegates by the convention he has no chance of getting the nomination and there should be no sour grapes on the Sanders side either. Elections are about votes after all. Super delegates should not determine the winner and they won't.

No matter how she wins, she's automatically entitled to neither Bernie's endorsement, nor the votes of his supporters; beyond the enormous squandering of Bernie's political capital unconditional support of Hillary would mean, this would also defy a fundamental tenant of democracy: No votation without representation.
 
Last edited:
No matter how she wins, she's automatically entitled to neither Bernie's endorsement, nor the votes of his supporters; beyond the enormous squandering of Bernie's political capital unconditional support of Hillary would mean, this would also defy a fundamental tenant of democracy: No votation without representation.

It think Barney Frank best expresses my opinion of Bernie. He's a fine man and has set something in motion that I hope has legs but not now..not this year. Should Hillary lose in the general there is little chance of the Sander's "movement" surviving at all. You should think about that a bit.
Frank scoffed at those who he believes put idealism over pragmatism. "The opposite of pragmatism is not idealism," he said. "It's wishful thinking."

The former congressman said he wishes Americans were not so phobic about the word socialism, as Bernie Sanders has been a proud socialist for more than 40 years. But, he noted, for years when Republicans attempted to portray Democrats as socialists, they ran away from the term. "You are not going to turn around now," Frank said, "and say, 'Oh by the way we've been socialist all along,' and win the election."

I asked Frank if he thought Bernie stood a chance. He said no. He then went on to say that with all the attacks on Hillary, her overall poll numbers are much better than Sanders'. He also said that the GOP would love to run against Bernie Sanders.

Sanders' supporters should use Barney Frank's words as a rallying cry, instead of slamming someone who believes in the status quo. Barney Frank is right—until he is not.

Bernie Sanders speaks about requiring a revolution for him to win and to enact the policies he is advocating. If he gets that revolution in thought with the help of a mobilized populace, then Barney Frank would be wrong. Until Bernie Sanders mobilizes, organizes, and broadens the movement, then it's likely Frank is more right than wrong.
Barney Frank has a message Bernie Sanders supporters won't like
 
Last edited:
It think Barney Frank best expresses my opinion of Bernie. He's a fine man and has set something in motion that I hope has legs but not now..not this year. Should Hillary lose in the general there is little chance of the Sander's "movement" surviving at all. You should think about that a bit.

With an embarrassment like Trump in office, assuming Hillary were to win the nomination, and lose the general, why on earth would Sander's movement fail to survive? More likely it would not only continue, but thrive through Elizabeth Warren as the probable Dem nominee in 2020, while the DNC comes to the tragically late realization that it made a mistake in its partisan backing of the wrong, less electable candidate, was punished for it, and is warned off of such meddling in the future.

As for Barney Frank, what does his opinion, like other establishment/pro-Clinton shills and talking heads, mean to me? Socialism is no longer the boogie man it used to be, there is nothing impractical about Bernie, or his vision (from a policy standpoint he's in the exact same legislative quagmire Hillary would be short of a sweeping revolution indeed with respect to the House and Senate), and there is absolutely no reason to settle for Clinton when a real progressive unencumbered by special interests is in the ring; likewise if she refuses to entice Bernie and his voters with overtures of compromise and representation in the event he does not win. You Hillarites keep saying 'not now'; and to that I say why the **** not? The biggest obstacle between Bernie and the White House is and has always been not the ridiculous circus of self-destruction that is the GOP, but a neoliberal corporatist claiming, and thus far quite successfully, to be a progressive.
 
Last edited:
No matter how she wins, she's automatically entitled to neither Bernie's endorsement, nor the votes of his supporters; beyond the enormous squandering of Bernie's political capital unconditional support of Hillary would mean, this would also defy a fundamental tenant of democracy: No votation without representation.

Not really sure what you are saying here...but if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I expect Bernie Sanders to endorse her...perhaps even campaign for her.

I expect some of Bernie's followers to sulk and either not vote or vote for a third party. I expect that most of those will be people who live in states were is most likely will not matter.
 
With an embarrassment like Trump in office, assuming Hillary were to win the nomination, and lose the general, why on earth would Sander's movement fail to survive? More likely it would not only continue, but thrive through Elizabeth Warren as the probable Dem nominee in 2020, while the DNC comes to the tragically late realization that it made a mistake in its partisan backing of the wrong, less electable candidate, was punished for it, and is warned off of such meddling in the future.

As for Barney Frank, what does his opinion, like other establishment/pro-Clinton shills and talking heads, mean to me? Socialism is no longer the boogie man it used to be, there is nothing impractical about Bernie, or his vision (from a policy standpoint he's in the exact same legislative quagmire Hillary would be short of a sweeping revolution indeed with respect to the House and Senate), and there is absolutely no reason to settle for Clinton when a real progressive unencumbered by special interests is in the ring; likewise if she refuses to entice Bernie and his voters with overtures of compromise and representation in the event he does not win. You Hillarites keep saying 'not now'; and to that I say why the **** not? The biggest obstacle between Bernie and the White House is and has always been not the ridiculous circus of self-destruction that is the GOP, but a neoliberal corporatist claiming, and thus far quite successfully, to be a progressive.

How did the Nader and his "Green movement" fair after Bush won because of it? You can kiss Sanders and the "socialist" movement goodbye should Hillary lose. Mark my words. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
Not really sure what you are saying here...but if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I expect Bernie Sanders to endorse her...perhaps even campaign for her.

I expect some of Bernie's followers to sulk and either not vote or vote for a third party. I expect that most of those will be people who live in states were is most likely will not matter.

Bernie has already said that he will endorse Hillary. He has made it perfectly clear that he wants no part of being a spoiler. He will be out on the trail with her too. That does not mean that some of his supporters might feel sour grapes but I think the fallout will be limited to a few hard line stragglers. Hillary had a few of those when she lost in 2008 too.
 
How did the Nader and his "Green movement" fair after Bush won because of it? You can kiss Sanders and the "socialist" movement goodbye should Hillary lose. Mark my words. Be careful what you wish for.

There is not much of a parallel between Nader and Sanders; totally different candidates, totally different approaches, messages, levels of popularity, legislative goals, etc. That is a stretch beneath consideration.

Bernie has already said that he will endorse Hillary. He has made it perfectly clear that he wants no part of being a spoiler. He will be out on the trail with her too. That does not mean that some of his supporters might feel sour grapes but I think the fallout will be limited to a few hard line stragglers. Hillary had a few of those when she lost in 2008 too.

Where did he say that he would give her an unconditional endorsement in the event she wins? He lays out his demands pretty clearly in the interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ggFitmOTSok#t=27

Not really sure what you are saying here...but if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I expect Bernie Sanders to endorse her...perhaps even campaign for her.

I feel it's pretty obvious: if Hillary wants the support of Bernie and his followers should she win, she must assimilate at least part of the former's agenda and thus represent them. No votation without representation.
 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
download
[/FONT]
 
Why not?

She is a much better choice than I am being offered by the other party...and I think she has a better chance than Bernie Sanders at winning the General Election.

I really do not want a Republican in the White House...so having the Democratic Party candidate win is important to me.



I've read through the whole thread and find this is the only reply offered as to why you favor Hillary.

So it's simply a matter of keeping Republicans out?

Sorry, but you are backing a snake to prevent a toad. Hillary Clinton has accomplished NOTHING. Her time at state is riddled with issues, she worsened the situation in several countries, not the least of which was "regime change" in Libya where we now see the replacement as worse than the guy they threw out. S

She is a consummate liar, and has been a hanger-on to her cheating husband's success all her life.

So what character traits do you see that you feel make her presidential timber? What accomplishments has she? As a senator what bills did she put forward. In short, while living in the lap of luxury all these years, exactly what has she given back to the country?
 
I'm an Independent, not a Democrat, but I am a Hillary Clinton supporter...and want her to win.

I have no problem with Bernie Sanders campaign...and since I think he advocates for many things I support, I wish him well in his campaign. I see benefits from what he has been advocating.

If Bernie Sanders were to win the nomination...I would vote for him in the General Election with a huge smile on my face. I just think that the chances of a victory for the Democrats is better with Hillary Clinton than with Bernie Sanders...and I DO NOT want a Republican elected to the presidency.

What he said except I am a registered Democrat.
 
I've read through the whole thread and find this is the only reply offered as to why you favor Hillary.

So it's simply a matter of keeping Republicans out?

Sorry, but you are backing a snake to prevent a toad. Hillary Clinton has accomplished NOTHING. Her time at state is riddled with issues, she worsened the situation in several countries, not the least of which was "regime change" in Libya where we now see the replacement as worse than the guy they threw out. S

She is a consummate liar, and has been a hanger-on to her cheating husband's success all her life.

So what character traits do you see that you feel make her presidential timber? What accomplishments has she? As a senator what bills did she put forward. In short, while living in the lap of luxury all these years, exactly what has she given back to the country?

I'll stick with "She is without a doubt head and shoulders better than any of the other people being offered for the job."

MUCH BETTER.

That should count for something.
 
Not better than John Kasich.

I guess I should have included specifically what should be obvious..."...in my opinion."

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is a much, much better choice for the office of president than John Kasich, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz.

For different reasons, I think she is a better choice for the office than Bernie Sanders.
 
I'll stick with "She is without a doubt head and shoulders better than any of the other people being offered for the job."

MUCH BETTER.

That should count for something.



That is not much of a sell job either. Even if true that's a major indictment against America's future. Voting for someone to keep someone else out IS the lowest common denomator
 
That is not much of a sell job either. Even if true that's a major indictment against America's future. Voting for someone to keep someone else out IS the lowest common denomator

I can understand you feeling that way...although I think the "lowest common denominator" probably was misapplied.

If you had used the one I consider more appropriate "choosing the lesser of two evils"...I would have responded as I have a couple of times already: I do not consider any of the choices evil.

Hillary Clinton just is more likely to champion an agenda I favor than any of the Republican contenders.
 
Back
Top Bottom