• 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!

Voted for Clinton, can't vote for Biden

bullseyelqcs said:
Bottom line for Bernie supporters is this....if he doesnt win the nomination and you take your ball and go home, dont be surprised when the games ends and the guys who come with the new ball totally change the rules and you get nothing.

Its really that simple.
Click to expand...

Yep. If Trump wins, the court will be packed with conservatives who will rule any progressive change unconstitutional. Medicare-for-all? Unconstitutional. Wall Street reform? Unconstitutional. Combating climate change? Unconstitutional.

It will be impossible to change anything significant for the next 20 years.
 
JasperL said:
Great, if his policies are immensely popular versus Biden's, shouldn't be a problem for Bernie to wipe the floor in the primaries.

BTW, I agree about Biden, and do does about 75% of the Democratic party because his support is something like 26% or so last I checked. That's not the issue. The question is if he wins the nomination will I vote for him and I will because of what I laid out in several posts and that you've either ignored or moved the goal posts on me. There is IMO no question ANY Democrat will sign virtually everything sent to him by a presumably Democratic congress.

I basically agree with this principle, applied to the Democrats: Grover Norquist on the GOP candidates: All we need is someone who can 'handle a pen'
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's surely how primaries work: not only does policy popularity among the general population translate directly into candidate popularity on a one to one basis specific to Bernie alone, and not others who have taken up similar policies (such as Warren), but it also does so in a crowded primary where all candidates are of course treated equally and impartially, and other considerations don't factor at all. Biden benefiting from the coattails of his popular best friend whose name he can't even remember? Not really a thing. Selective reporting, like the omission of Biden's most alarming gaffes which are nowhere to be found in the MSM save conservative publications, even as said MSM by and large tries its best to hammer away at Sanders with Orwellian level hatchet job journalism like the Washington Post's 3 Pinocchios debacle? Nope.

If Warren or Sanders working with whoever is the Sen. majority leader (a Democrat we'll assume) gets e.g. MFA through, IMO any Democrat will sign it, and all the rest those two are promising.
Click to expand...

That's a lie and you know it, or is only the office of the president above such things as industry cronyism on par with that which caused Joe Lieberman's singlehanded denial of the public option?
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Yes, because that's surely how primaries work: not only does policy popularity among the general population translate directly into candidate popularity on a one to one basis specific to Bernie alone, and not others who have taken up similar policies (such as Warren), but it also does so in a crowded primary where all candidates are of course treated equally and impartially, and other considerations don't factor at all. Biden benefiting from the coattails of his popular best friend whose name he can't even remember? Not really a thing. Selective reporting, like the omission of Biden's most alarming gaffes which are nowhere to be found in the MSM save conservative publications, even as said MSM by and large tries its best to hammer away at Sanders with Orwellian level hatchet job journalism like the Washington Post's 3 Pinocchios debacle? Nope.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know all that stuff matters, but the bottom line for me is we have President Trump. Virtually the entire GOP ran against him in the primary, many of them openly hostile to him winning, never Trumpers from the beginning, called him names, and he won the primary. I'm not sure how many opinion pages endorsed him in the general, but it's approaching NONE over Clinton, and it didn't matter.

So at what point does failure become Bernie's fault and not the system, or the media, or the DNC, or the elites, or the corporatists sellouts? He's telling us he'll take on the healthcare industry, take $hundred billion health insurance giants to market caps of half that or worse, take on Wall Street, the real estate industry with nationwide rent control, and he can't handle the media well and mobilize the public enough to win a primary? How's that supposed to work?

That's a lie and you know it, or is only the office of the president above such things as industry cronyism on par with that which caused Joe Lieberman's singlehanded denial of the public option?
Click to expand...

It's a lie that if Congress presents MFA to virtually any Democratic president, he or she will IMO sign it? No it's not because if it gets through Congress, it's got near 100% support from Democrats in office, which will mean broad public support. Why would any Democrat veto something that virtually all his cohorts in Congress supported?

I might be wrong, but it's not DISHONEST for me to believe that. Come on - you don't need to insult me by calling me a liar just to disagree. That's pathetic, and needlessly divisive. I'm guessing we're about 90% in agreement on policy. If that's not enough, then nothing matters because you and Bernie will need people a LOT more disagreeable to vote for him and Democrats up and down the line to get ANYTHING done.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, I know all that stuff matters, but the bottom line for me is we have President Trump. Virtually the entire GOP ran against him in the primary, many of them openly hostile to him winning, never Trumpers from the beginning, called him names, and he won the primary. I'm not sure how many opinion pages endorsed him in the general, but it's approaching NONE over Clinton, and it didn't matter.

So at what point does failure become Bernie's fault and not the system, or the media, or the DNC, or the elites, or the corporatists sellouts? He's telling us he'll take on the healthcare industry, take $hundred billion health insurance giants to market caps of half that or worse, take on Wall Street, the real estate industry with nationwide rent control, and he can't handle the media well and mobilize the public enough to win a primary? How's that supposed to work?
Click to expand...

Bernie of course has culpability for his failures and success; I don't deny that whatsoever. However, if you want to point at Trump as being an example of someone who succeeded despite bad mainstream press, and party conspiracy, I'm not so sure that's a great example; in fact Trump's success may be attributed more to the massive free publicity he received, negative or otherwise, than anything else. Bernie doesn't really say controversial things, and suffers more from omission in balance, than negative press, and certainly is not a well of drama in the way Trump is because he's a thoughtful policy centric candidate as opposed to a raving manchild. It goes without saying that the nature and temperament of the Democratic party is wildly different from that of the GOP as well (I like to think we're not as supportive of crass tactics; Castro being so heavily punished for his aggression against Biden affirmed that).

Ultimately, my point is that it is asinine to assert that policy alone, particularly policy in a crowded field which others have adopted their own versions of it, is somehow the golden ticket to success; that's of course not true. Clearly there are other factors that are at least, and almost certainly more important. Between him, Warren, and others in the primary who have largely adopted them, his ideas cumulatively have clearly won over the party, so he's already won the battle on policy, but he has to overcome the many other elements that stand between him and the nomination, many of which are indeed a consequence of simple ideological disdain/opposition; he's not a wizard that can somehow make Bezos or the WP editors post favourable stories or increase his exposure and mentions if he wants to remain true to his ideas and the sort of candidate he is. Dismissing the primary as being necessarily and significantly easier than the general is also wildly inaccurate I feel, particularly given the many-fold splitting of the progressive vote (such that he can be argued a victim of his own success), and Sander's especial appeal among independents.



It's a lie that if Congress presents MFA to virtually any Democratic president, he or she will IMO sign it? No it's not because if it gets through Congress, it's got near 100% support from Democrats in office, which will mean broad public support. Why would any Democrat veto something that virtually all his cohorts in Congress supported?

I might be wrong, but it's not DISHONEST for me to believe that. Come on - you don't need to insult me by calling me a liar just to disagree. That's pathetic, and needlessly divisive. I'm guessing we're about 90% in agreement on policy. If that's not enough, then nothing matters because you and Bernie will need people a LOT more disagreeable to vote for him and Democrats up and down the line to get ANYTHING done.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm frustrated because I figure you know better; you're not a conservitard regurgitating bile mindlessly, or even a Bidenbro. Yes, maybe my phrasing was a bit much, but I do find this assertion, that any Democrat would sign off on MFA, to be at the very least somewhat disingenuous.

I disagree that such a bill would necessarily have near 100% support if it managed to get past Congress, and even if it did, it's certainly no guarantee of a presidential sign off. While I don't think abstention from signing would be as tactless as a blunt denial, such a refusal would obviously be coached in diplomatic language over 'concerns' about provisions of the bill, affordability, and in general all the usual tired talking points we've come to expect in opposition to MFA, and so it is very conceivable that a conservative Dem president such as Biden would constantly kick it back downstairs until it has mutated and watered down to the point of defying many of its core goals and intentions.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Bernie of course has culpability for his failures and success; I don't deny that whatsoever. However, if you want to point at Trump as being an example of someone who succeeded despite bad mainstream press, and party conspiracy, I'm not so sure that's a great example; in fact Trump's success may be attributed more to the massive free publicity he received, negative or otherwise, than anything else......

Ultimately, my point is that it is asinine to assert that policy alone, particularly policy in a crowded field which others have adopted their own versions of it, is somehow the golden ticket to success; that's of course not true. Clearly there are other factors that are at least, and almost certainly more important. Between him, Warren, and others in the primary who have largely adopted them, his ideas cumulatively have clearly won over the party, so he's already won the battle on policy, but he has to overcome the many other elements that stand between him and the nomination, many of which are indeed a consequence of simple ideological disdain/opposition; he's not a wizard that can somehow make Bezos or the WP editors post favourable stories or increase his exposure and mentions if he wants to remain true to his ideas and the sort of candidate he is. Dismissing the primary as being necessarily and significantly easier than the general is also wildly inaccurate I feel, particularly given the many-fold splitting of the progressive vote (such that he can be argued a victim of his own success), and Sander's especial appeal among independents.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that, but the bottom line is he's threatening to essentially tear down or severely harm several MAJOR industries, so of course he's going to experience massive opposition to all that, and if he can't find a way to break through the media 'guardians' at this point, I don't see how we can expect those efforts to succeed. It will be far worse if he's the nominee, far worse if he's President, and there's a bill on the table to restrict rent nationwide, or to levy big trading taxes, or that will vaporize $hundreds of billions in market cap for the health insurance industry, and cost 10s of thousands of jobs in that industry and more.

I guess I'm frustrated because I figure you know better; you're not a conservitard regurgitating bile mindlessly, or even a Bidenbro. Yes, maybe my phrasing was a bit much, I do find this assertion, that any Democrat would sign off on MFA, to be at the very least somewhat disingenuous.

I disagree that such a bill would necessarily have near 100% support if it managed to get past Congress, and even if it did, it's certainly no guarantee of a presidential sign off. While I don't think abstention from signing would be as tactless as a blunt denial, such a refusal would obviously be coached in diplomatic language over 'concerns' about provisions of the bill, affordability, and in general all the usual tired talking points we've come to expect in opposition to MFA, and so it is very conceivable that a conservative Dem president such as Biden would constantly kick it back downstairs until it has mutated and watered down to the point of defying many of its core goals and intentions.
Click to expand...

I just flatly don't agree. I just think it's basically impossible for a President to veto major legislation coming from his own party. What they can do is fail to support it and that might be enough to prevent a 60 vote margin, so I get why we want someone who DOES support, say, MFA versus Biden. I'm not voting for Biden. I don't think MFA is possible, feasible, but I'd rather start with that (or UHC more broadly) as a goal, versus "Let's tinker on the edges" as the opening bid. If the goal is to bring the uninsured from 28 million to 'only' 18 million, that's a bad strategy IMO.

But as I have said in other places, the problem IMO will be in Congress not the WH. If Democrats don't win at least 60 and preferably more than that, it's all academic because major legislation just will never get done, and it won't matter if POTUS will or won't sign this stuff that won't get through Congress. In that case, it's all about what can be done with EOs and the like, and foreign policy, and judges, and we can forget college, UHC, etc.

Anyway, what I hope is everyone who cares about any of this votes for Democrats, whoever they are, up and down the line, President, Congress, state, local, in 2020, and 2022 and 2024, and 2026.... Trump will hopefully be gone by 2021. What's next? If history is a guide and Democrats sit home in 2022, it will be a GOP Congress starting January 2023.... That's what HAS to change or we're all just wasting time.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
In any election, there are dozens of candidates who are eventually culled down to a few. When you choose not to vote because you don't like the options you hurt the democratic process.
Click to expand...

No, lack of voter turnout is part of the democratic process. It doesn't skew the results, it is part of the results. That's democracy.

You're helping Trump get reelected.
Click to expand...

I'm not forcing the Democrats to choose Biden, or for Biden to not campaign for my vote (Hillary actually did). He has made a beeline towards Trump voters and center-right moderates. That's his gamble. That he'll pull more votes from the right than the left.

And the idea that Biden is racist is absurd. I think you're reading too much into what he said.
Click to expand...

Biden is racist in the sense that he thinks black people don't know how to raise their children. He almost explicitly said so, since the question was about reparations and his dismissal of America's responsibility.

I'm Black and I'll tell you that in poor communities the problem with education is the parents.
Click to expand...

No, it's because poor communities (which I am NOT conflating with black people, unlike Biden) have to deal with parents working two or three jobs to sustain a family. It has nothing to do with black people, it has to do with poor people and the conditions and struggles of being poor.

Poverty has a lot of ils and one of those is bad parenting.
Click to expand...

It's not bad parenting to be poor.

It's not that Black people are poor parents. It's a symptom of poverty.
Click to expand...

The question Biden was asked was about his own comments regarding America's responsibility to address slavery, which Biden rejected was a responsibility. It was not about bad parenting. Why Biden went there is beyond me. Or rather, it isn't.
 
JasperL said:
I agree with most of that, but the bottom line is he's threatening to essentially tear down or severely harm several MAJOR industries, so of course he's going to experience massive opposition to all that, and if he can't find a way to break through the media 'guardians' at this point, I don't see how we can expect those efforts to succeed. It will be far worse if he's the nominee, far worse if he's President, and there's a bill on the table to restrict rent nationwide, or to levy big trading taxes, or that will vaporize $hundreds of billions in market cap for the health insurance industry, and cost 10s of thousands of jobs in that industry and more.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's impossible for Bernie to 'break' through the media guardians and gate keepers. He has before, and he can continue to, but as ever, they'll certainly be a formidable obstacle to his detriment; recognising that isn't synonymous with despair in the face of such opposition.

I just flatly don't agree. I just think it's basically impossible for a President to veto major legislation coming from his own party. What they can do is fail to support it and that might be enough to prevent a 60 vote margin, so I get why we want someone who DOES support, say, MFA versus Biden. I'm not voting for Biden. I don't think MFA is possible, feasible, but I'd rather start with that (or UHC more broadly) as a goal, versus "Let's tinker on the edges" as the opening bid. If the goal is to bring the uninsured from 28 million to 'only' 18 million, that's a bad strategy IMO.

But as I have said in other places, the problem IMO will be in Congress not the WH. If Democrats don't win at least 60 and preferably more than that, it's all academic because major legislation just will never get done, and it won't matter if POTUS will or won't sign this stuff that won't get through Congress. In that case, it's all about what can be done with EOs and the like, and foreign policy, and judges, and we can forget college, UHC, etc.

Anyway, what I hope is everyone who cares about any of this votes for Democrats, whoever they are, up and down the line, President, Congress, state, local, in 2020, and 2022 and 2024, and 2026.... Trump will hopefully be gone by 2021. What's next? If history is a guide and Democrats sit home in 2022, it will be a GOP Congress starting January 2023.... That's what HAS to change or we're all just wasting time.
Click to expand...

Sure, given the alternative I'd vote for Biden, if he was the choice forced upon me, despite doing so with great dismay, and any democrat obviously, as should everyone in the party.

Personally I think you overestimate a determined president's ability to say no. Having said that, I agree, the real opposition would likely be in the Congress, and that yes, the first line of defense for Biden would undoubtedly be to work behind the scenes to marshal his allies to either kill MFA there or water it down substantially, if only to spare him the embarrassment of having to veto; either way, I would be surprised if he did sign off on a draft that didn't undergo substantial diminishment.

The fact and bottom line is that either way, Biden would be absolutely terrible news for any kind of progressive policy, it's really not a question of whether he would undermine it, but how, and moreover I find that yes, he may even be willing to go so far as a veto if all other options had failed.
 
lwf said:
This is true as well. There are numerous reasons Hillary lost. But it is true that democrats did not embrace Hillary the way they embraced Obama. Many democrats didn't like her.
Click to expand...

Obama was seen as God to them in the beginning. The great healer-in-chief, the fresh face of Washington. The problem for Clinton is that she was seen as corrupt (bingo), but then again, so was the other guy.

Trump marketed his campaign around being a champion for blue collar country and going after older Americans. He and his team worked hard gaining their trust and promised to give outsourcing companies a kick in the you know what. Clinton on the other hand assumed the rust belt wouldn't fall for Trump's promises. But campaigning is all about not taking any swing state for granted. If you're within a 12% margin, you don't write-off states.

Liberals cry about how the electoral college was unfair to their girl Clinton, but in reality, they should be angry at their nominee.

Here was the realclearpolitics map before election night: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Counting only the LIKELY states: Clinton 203, Trump 164.
Counting the LIKELY and LEANING: Clinton 238, Trump 173.

There were 14 toss states. Wisconsin was the only lean state which went to a different candidate. RCP had Wisconsin at 6.5% in favor of Clinton.

Ignoring pivotal swing states and assuming they would vote for you, is not the fault of Biden or the electoral college, is squarely on Clinton. You would think that Biden would be smarter than Clinton.
 
Fletch said:
If hes the nominee, he will get the support of those who hate Trump. Will that be enough? I dont think so. I think people need someone to vote FOR.

"Joe Biden, less Crazy than Trump" doesnt strike me as a winning slogan.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you in normal times, everyone knows we're far from normal times.

Although it'll never be an official slogan, it's what every non-cult member's (except Sander supporters) small voice is telling them. 'Anyone but Numnuts', will motivate tens of millions of voters to do the right thing...
 
SoCal said:
I would agree with you in normal times, everyone knows we're far from normal times.

Although it'll never be an official slogan, it's what every non-cult member's (except Sander supporters) small voice is telling them. 'Anyone but Numnuts', will motivate tens of millions of voters to do the right thing...
Click to expand...

Thats what you HOPE happens. Unlike BIden, Trump has the ability to bring people out in affirmative support for him and his policies. Whats odd is that in an election where 'Anyone but Numnuts' is the standard, you guys may select a numnuts of your own in Biden.
 
Dans La Lune said:
The 2016 election was a dumpster fire. I almost didn't vote, but ended up pulling for Clinton because she signed on to much of the platform Bernie wrote. And for a few other reasons.

I can't and won't vote for Biden under any circumstances. He's demonstrably worse than Clinton in every way. And yes, while Biden is better than Trump, the calculation is not sufficient to get me on Biden's team. What sealed it for me was the last debate.

His suggestion that black people don't know how to raise their children was just out-and-out racist, and his answer from then veered into an incoherent ramble on Venezuela. If this is the best Dems can do, I'm out. Let the moderates save the country from Trump, if they can.

Biden's incoherent ramble...

...

Nina Turner's epic response.
Click to expand...

It's rather apparent that your viewpoints are rather questionable. You'd vote for Clinton but you won't vote for Biden? Really? Many blacks don't know how to raise their children. That's not racist, it's a fact. I applaud Biden for having the courage to call a spade a spade. The far left do want to turn us into Venezuela. Which moderates do you think will save the country from Trump? Oh yeah, Biden is a moderate but you won't vote for him. Anyway, I want to thank you for having this attitude so that we can elect Trump to one more term, thanks to people such as yourself who helped elect Trump in 2016.
 
Fletch said:
Thats what you HOPE happens. Unlike BIden, Trump has the ability to bring people out in affirmative support for him and his policies. Whats odd is that in an election where 'Anyone but Numnuts' is the standard, you guys may select a numnuts of your own in Biden.
Click to expand...

Anyone with any intelligence, including you and millions of other cult members, know Don is a slow-witted, petty man who doesn't know **** from Shinola. I understand you prefer his policies and that it's instinctive to ignore or deny any of the danger a petty man brings to the most powerful position in the world.

It's obvious Biden makes the occasional inappropriate remark, why can't you acknowledge the obvious downsides most everyone knows about Don?
 
Carleen said:
You took the words right out of my mouth!!
Click to expand...
Yep. Anyone but Trump. but I'm thinking Warren is looking pretty good to me at the top of the ticket, with either Pete or Kamala pulling up the rear.

If we do it right, we can get a highly-progressive old-guard to take the mantel, laying the foundation for a VP new guard young turk to carry the torch forward in 2028. Then maybe we can finally get rid of the last gasps of the authoritative Religious Right xenophobic racist haters, and get back to the pluralistic free society our founders imagined.
 
Linc said:
There are two kinds of Faux Bros DEMolition Squad troll farms. All of the newbies dreaming up new ways to divide potential Democratic voters, like this OP; and those from 2016 who will NEVER get over their Faux Burn.

Then we have naive anti-trumpers actually paying attention to known trumpers. Let’s face it, the damage is already done from this lazy/loser left voting malfeasance from anti-trumpers since REDMAP 2010.

I hope they enjoy the McConnell/Trump Federal Judiciary for the next three decades, when you and I will be long gone and no longer able to change their diapers. They deserve it for their voting patterns. **** the Naderites especially, along with the Ru$$ian enabler Jill Stein.
Click to expand...
Some harsh words there, my friend. But I do admire your passion to the cause.

But yes, I do believe many Americans don't realize the larger ramifications & implications of their vote - or lack thereof. However - in our democratic egalitarian society everyone is entitled to the representative vote, whether informed or not.

I was fortunate that I was born into a hyper local political juggernaut, where I was active in my precinct - literally - since I was 10 years old! After decades of intense participation, I then geographical & politically removed myself and dissociated myself from my former political milieu.

Consequently my kids have only limited understanding or experience with my former political life, except for a week or two when they reached their early teens, when I sent each back into the city to briefly help-out my old political buddies for the experience. None of the kids got the bug at all, though I had high hopes for one who initially showed some interest.

However, while my kids never took an interest in street-level precinct & ward politics, they did develop interests in national politics as observers. So they seem to be reasonably informed voters as they reached the age of majority, and politics is a major topic of discussion for us as a family. I couldn't turn the kids into activists, but I did turn them into informed and active voters. So I suppose, I can't really complain.
 
And this is why I will never vote for Biden under any circumstance. He's not interested in good politics, what's popular among Democrats, or in helping people outside of his donor base. He's a bum.

 
Dans La Lune said:
The 2016 election was a dumpster fire. I almost didn't vote, but ended up pulling for Clinton because she signed on to much of the platform Bernie wrote. And for a few other reasons.

I can't and won't vote for Biden under any circumstances. He's demonstrably worse than Clinton in every way. And yes, while Biden is better than Trump, the calculation is not sufficient to get me on Biden's team. What sealed it for me was the last debate.

His suggestion that black people don't know how to raise their children was just out-and-out racist, and his answer from then veered into an incoherent ramble on Venezuela. If this is the best Dems can do, I'm out. Let the moderates save the country from Trump, if they can.

Biden's incoherent ramble...

...

Nina Turner's epic response.
Click to expand...

If you're claiming to be a socialist and can't vote for biden, you're a troll or a bot, nice try though.
 
Mr Person said:
Can't vote for Biden if he's the nominee? Then don't you dare complain about Trump.
Click to expand...

Of course that kind of "Just hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil" attitude in the interests of preserving the precious duopoly is one of the main reasons you got Trump in the first place...
 
Mr Person said:
Can't vote for Biden if he's the nominee? Then don't you dare complain about Trump.
Click to expand...

Mithrae said:
Of course that kind of "Just hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil" attitude in the interests of preserving the precious duopoly is one of the main reasons you got Trump in the first place...
Click to expand...

Ah, no, it's why we got Trump. But every now and then, when the alternative to standing on principle is so much worse for so many people, it's not necessarily wrong to hold one's nose.



But then, that wasn't the entirety of my point. Principles cost something. It is deeply repugnant for someone to sit at home because they don't like Hillary then whine about Trump. Regardless of what ideology one has, the simple fact of the matter is that a third party or non-vote is a vote for the candidate winning in that state. That's it. Can't escape it. People want to. They want to say "They both sucked and (aren't I awesomely principled), I stayed at home! HAH!"

That would be fine if they didn't then go on and on and on about how horrible Trump is, as if they had no part in it. Reality almost never fully matches principles...
 
Dans La Lune said:
The 2016 election was a dumpster fire. I almost didn't vote, but ended up pulling for Clinton because she signed on to much of the platform Bernie wrote. And for a few other reasons.

I can't and won't vote for Biden under any circumstances. He's demonstrably worse than Clinton in every way. And yes, while Biden is better than Trump, the calculation is not sufficient to get me on Biden's team. What sealed it for me was the last debate.

His suggestion that black people don't know how to raise their children was just out-and-out racist, and his answer from then veered into an incoherent ramble on Venezuela. If this is the best Dems can do, I'm out. Let the moderates save the country from Trump, if they can.

Biden's incoherent ramble...

...

Nina Turner's epic response.
Click to expand...


If you don't vote Democrat, you effectively vote Republican.
 
Dans La Lune said:
The 2016 election was a dumpster fire. I almost didn't vote, but ended up pulling for Clinton because she signed on to much of the platform Bernie wrote. And for a few other reasons.

I can't and won't vote for Biden under any circumstances. He's demonstrably worse than Clinton in every way. And yes, while Biden is better than Trump, the calculation is not sufficient to get me on Biden's team. What sealed it for me was the last debate.

His suggestion that black people don't know how to raise their children was just out-and-out racist, and his answer from then veered into an incoherent ramble on Venezuela. If this is the best Dems can do, I'm out. Let the moderates save the country from Trump, if they can.

Biden's incoherent ramble...

...

Nina Turner's epic response.
Click to expand...

I was also a Sanders supporter in 2016. Biden is a flawed candidate, no doubt about that. However, the re-election of Trump could mean the end of democracy in this country. Trump is that awful and that dangerous.

This is no time for foolish ideological purity tests among liberals and Democrats. That obviously hurt us during the 2016 election. If I have to choose between Biden and Trump in the 2020 election, I'm voting for Biden no questions asked. Just like I voted for Clinton in 2016. Staying home or voting for some third party candidate is a vote for Trump.
 
Last edited:
Kerry Won Ohio said:
This is no time for foolish ideological purity tests among liberals and Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure folk were saying the same thing in every previous election.



Mr Person said:
Ah, no, it's why we got Trump. But every now and then, when the alternative to standing on principle is so much worse for so many people, it's not necessarily wrong to hold one's nose.


But then, that wasn't the entirety of my point. Principles cost something. It is deeply repugnant for someone to sit at home because they don't like Hillary then whine about Trump. Regardless of what ideology one has, the simple fact of the matter is that a third party or non-vote is a vote for the candidate winning in that state. That's it. Can't escape it. People want to. They want to say "They both sucked and (aren't I awesomely principled), I stayed at home! HAH!"

That would be fine if they didn't then go on and on and on about how horrible Trump is, as if they had no part in it. Reality almost never fully matches principles...
Click to expand...

I don't understand your reasoning here: In order to have some kind of right to whine about a perceived bad candidate, you have to vote for a different perceived bad candidate instead? Perhaps folk in Somalia are also repugnant if they complain about one warlord, unless they are actively supporting a different warlord instead.

And this approach - messaging to the duopoly that they can be as crappy as they please as long as they are the 'lesser evil' in the eyes of their base - is supposed to be the laudable and pragmatic thing to do, in your opinion?

I would have thought that Clinton's loss (to Trump of all people, how fed up must the American people be to make that decision!) would be taken as a wake-up call, not a justification to double down on attitudes that helped drag politics that low in the first place.

 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
I'm pretty sure folk were saying the same thing in every previous election.
Click to expand...

And your point is? What was said during previous elections doesn't matter. None of the previous Presidents were nearly as bad as Trump. None of the previous Presidents threatened the future of democracy in this country like Trump does.

If you can't see that, then you simply don't understand the threat that Trump poses. It's not all about you and your self-absorbed, nonsensical liberal purity tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom