Hillary or Bernie? Bernie or Hillary? But Not a Republican!
In just over 3 weeks (May 3, 2016), Hoosiers will get to vote for their choice to be the Democratic and Republican Party presidential nominees. As things presently stand, Indiana’s votes will once again matter, a statement that we can’t often make with regard to our primary. I will need to decide between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or John Kasich. I’m sure readers of this blog will have no problem guessing which three candidates can easily be crossed off my list (no fair looking at the title of this post!).
At present, I’m leaning strongly toward Hillary Clinton, but my mind is not completely made up and I’m persuadable if confronted by honest, well-reasoned, policy-based arguments. In some respects, my current mindset is a bit reminiscent of the period leading up to the 2008 primary that I wrote about in my post Clinton or Obama? Obama or Clinton? I Might Get to Choose After All (March 5, 2008), though I’m leaning much more strongly toward Clinton now than I was toward either she or Obama back then. You might also be interested in my post My First Chance to See a Presidential Candidate (update) (April 23, 2008).
In either event, I will not be voting for Trump, Cruz, or Kasich. No way. Neither the fascist, the Christian Dominionist, nor the far-right politician wearing moderate sheep’s clothing holds any appeal for me.
And that brings me to the point I want to make.
If I vote for Clinton in the primary and Sanders is the winner, I’ll likely experience a bit of disappointment (and the same should I vote for Sanders only to see Clinton win). But here is what matters: No matter which of those candidates I may choose in the Indiana primary in May, when it comes to November, I will vote for the Democratic candidate for President. You see, I recognize that I’m unlikely to have a chance to vote for a candidate with whom I agree on each and every single issue. And I’m equally unlikely to have a chance to vote for a candidate with no baggage or issues that cause me concern. Neither candidate is perfect and neither agrees with me on each and every important issue. But no matter whether the candidate is Clinton or Sanders, that person will be far, far better on the vast majority of issues that matter to me than will any of the possible Republicans. Perhaps I should revise that previous sentence by adding the word “far” several more times (in bold and underline, too, perhaps). And with an exclamation point.
So when I hear some people (in particular, supporters of Bernie Sanders) saying that if their candidate is not the eventual nominee that they won’t vote (or, worse, might vote for Trump), I shake my hade in dismay. No, actually, that’s not entirely right. It might be closer to say that I shake my fist in anger. I have to wonder whether people who express a “my guy or I stay home” mentality understand how elections really work. I have to wonder whether they remember Ralph Nader in 2000 or Ross Perot in 1992.
Most importantly, I have to wonder if they have given any real thought to how issues that concern them would be addressed by a Republican president. Clinton won’t be tough enough on banks for you? OK. But do you think that Trump, Cruz, or Kasich will be better? Clinton won’t be good enough on environmental issues? Do you really think that Trump, Cruz, or Kasich will be better? Do you think that Clinton is really more likely to put American troops into combat situations than Trump, Cruz, or Kasich? Really? And I haven’t even gotten to issues like healthcare, abortion, gay rights, racial equality, minimum wage, net neutrality, campaign finance reform, or … well, virtually every other issue that liberals and progressives care about.
Maybe think about it this way: If Trump, Cruz, or Kasich are elected, what are the prospects that the judges they appoint to the Supreme Court (or other federal courts) will uphold reproductive rights, overturn Citizens United, keep Obamacare in place, and issue opinions that you will approve of? Or, perhaps, think about it this way: In 2000, had a slew of Florida voters not voted for Ralph Nader, then it is highly likely that Al Gore would have been elected President. So ask yourself: Would you have preferred an Al Gore presidency to that of George W. Bush? If so, that should be your history lesson to help you understand that refusing to vote or voting for a protest candidate (or a candidate to “blow up the system”) may be tantamount to helping elect a candidate who will do precisely those things that you are opposed to. Imagine how you’ll feel if Donald Trump is elected by a tiny number of votes … and you stayed home.
Thus, whether you support Hillary or Bernie, Bernie or Hillary, I implore you to do a few things:
- Be sure that you base your support (or opposition) on actual policies and ideas (and not just on attack ads or sound bites);
- Discuss the reasons for your support or opposition with those holding different views, but do so in a civil manner and on the basis of well-reasoned policy ideas and not on the basis of personal attacks;
- Whomever wins, get behind that candidate and the party that will better represent the overall set of policies and ideals that are important to you;
- Get involved (work the phones, go door-to-door, raise money, host a party, work the polls); and
- VOTE.
Update (April 12, 2016): Fixed typos. Sigh.
posted by MSWallack @ 5:30 PM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
Come on brother. You know deep down Bernie is the better choice. Hillary is just too right-wing for a democrat to vote for, honestly. I know Bernie says the same things about her (taking money from wallstreet, voting for Iraq, etc, etc) but these are imporant things man.
Yes, Obama took money from Wallstreet, other Democrats do the same, these are sellout democrats and do not uphold true liberal values. Hillary will continue to repeat her voting for Dodd Frank bill, but that bill was an awful Wallstreet regulation reform that did not help in any significant way. It was full of loopholes and Wallstreet is on the same path towards another needed bailout. There is so much evidence of her taking money from big names and acting in their interest. There is a video of Hillary, very recently, saying "where was Senator Sanders in 1993 when she was advocating for healthcare for all". The video shows this clip (from 2015 or 16) then right after showing her making a speech about healthcare for all in 1993 with Bernie Sanders LITERALLY BEHIND HER. Then, just between 2013 and 2015, Hillary did speeches, paid of course, to the Health industry and now she is against the healthcare for all that Bernie advocates; because they are paying her. She will flat out lie just like a republican, she will change her positions for her own profit, just like a republican. She is not the candidate for democrats who want something to change.
She voted for the Patriot Act, violating the Constitution and our freedom to spy on everyone, just as President Bush wanted to happen.
She changes positions when things are popular, just as a politician would do to seem more likable. Gay marriage is one I can think of but there are others that she one week spoke nothing about, then after Bernie says it and people get on board with him, she will change position and say "I agree with Senator Sanders on this" just because he gets the more popular opinion.
Iraq war alone should make a democrat not vote for Hillary. Honestly, we see how terrible that turned out. Even Obama was against that. She is hawkish as hell, just like a republican. She wants to fight both sides of a civil war in Syria (the rebels ISIS and Al-Nushra and the government Assad). Something I've only heard from Jeb Bush and something that George Dubya Bush did in Iraq. She makes bad, bad decisions. Experience is good, but judgement is better, and she has bad judgement.
I could go on. But brother, please man, the better choice is Bernie Sanders.
check out Secular Talk on YouTube. It's a channel that talks politics and gives facts mostly in the descriptions of their videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/SecularTalk
Listen to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard speak on mostly the military aspect of both candidates. She's a former major in the military. (and beautiful by the way)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VoteTulsi
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks for your comments. And I am sympathetic to some of what you've written. But too much of your comment can be rephrased as the "No True Scotsman" argument as to whether Clinton is a "real Democrat" (and, I'd note, that Sanders wasn't a Democrat until he needed the party's organization and ballot access to run and that he has never done much to help other Democrats win). I'll also note that your mention of Tulsi Gabbard helps move my dial, but not in the direction that you're hoping...
Have you read the transcript of Sanders' recent in depth interview with a New York newspaper (sorry, I can't recall which paper right now, and I'm short of time to find a link). In any event, to me he came off as not really understanding many of the issues in the sort of deep way that I'd hope a candidate understands them.
Finally, I must note that Sanders suggestion that Israel killed 10,000 Palestinians in 2014 really, really sours me on Sanders. That number is about 4 times higher than the even the Palestinians claim were killed. I actually don't mind if Sanders is critical of Israel (it is a factor that I will consider), but when that criticism is so far removed from reality, then it gives me a great deal of heartburn.
I've liked Sanders for a long, long time. I was excited when he entered the race. But so far, he hasn't sold me on his electability or that he would be the better choice. But as I said at the beginning, I remain persuadable.
Oh, and for the record, my mother liked my post. So yeah...
I guess you're right about the No True Scotsman, and Bernie just now being a democrat, but democrat, republican, I see these as labels. The ideology is liberalism, conservatism, etc. So yes she is a democrat in the sense that that is the label she goes under, and Bernie is an independent (for good reason), but Bernie's liberal ideology outweighs Hillary's. The things she does that he makes note of, and that I said, are more aligning with the conservative ideology. Being hawkish about war, changing opinion only when it is popular, taking money from industries, fighting two sides of a civil war, fracking, being pro-gay rights just in 2013, and more.
I say this because, going under the label "democrat" or "republican", people are so quick to tell me how the democrats were anti-civil rights years ago (I'm black). So I proclaim that I am a liberal first, democrat second (because the parties could switch at any time). The ideology is more important.
Also, if Bernie ran as an independent no one would take him seriously enough. He might only have the independents behind him, but since his views align more with democrats of today, then it was better to run as one.
I mentioned Tulsi Gabbard because people will often attack liberals as being "anti-military" or whatever. But having a former major in the military back Bernie Sanders and realize that he is the better candidate, puts this notion to rest, hopefully.
Are you referencing the New York paper where he "didn't have policy" or something. This is misleading by the media. He is the most substantive candidate in the race, man he pounds Hillary on substance every chance he speaks. And these newspaper's are sooo anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary that it's a little digusting, that they will spout dishonest stories and anti-Bernie articles 14 times a day about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2muNVQm24hg
Regarding Palestine, he made a mistake and grouped together the dead with the wounded. So what you said was understandable, but that is why he said 10,000.
Let me first thank you for engaging, as so few do, in civil dialogue rather than name-calling. That gets tiring. Anyway, I think that if you review my blog (I think you commented on my post about Cruz's idea to "abolish the IRS"), you'll see that my liberal credentials are quite strong. But I've been closely involved with politics (especially at the state level) to have a degree of respect for the idea of pragmatism and recognition that no governmental executive can accomplish everything he (or she) promises without the cooperation of the legislature.
I don't see Sanders as having much of a hope of getting his ideas through Congress (whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats). Moreover, I'm concerned that some of his ideas don't really seem to have fleshed out details behind how the proposals would work.
And, yes, Clinton has positions that give me concern, but so does Sanders (especially regarding guns...). I'm also very concerned that Sanders, having the "socialist" sobriquet attached to his name, would be immediately unelectable to vast swaths of the American public (who tune out discussion of what "democratic socialist" means or even what "socialism" really is). To put my eggs in Sanders' basket and risk a President Trump or President Cruz terrifies me.
Finally, he didn't just say "10,000" with regard to casualties in Gaza. He said deaths; his campaign suggested casualties after that number blew up in his face. But he also called Israel's actions indiscriminate and disproportionate, neither of which do I accept. If you're interested, I've written extensively on the topic of Israel and the conflict with the Palestinians.
Yes sir, I did comment on that abolish the IRS post. You raised great, immensely great points. I just can't understand why those and other people think Ted Cruz is seriously a viable candidate. He's worse that Trump. He IS Trump, just much more "religious".
Bernie could definitely get his ideas through, even with a Democrat controlled congress. If it is a majority of Democrats then it won't be as difficult and it won't be as much push back against them, that leads them towards compromising liberal values. His ideas most certainly have the details. Watching the deteriorating old media (establishment media) like CNN and MSNBC or FOX, will not give you facts. Fox is obviously anti-liberal so I won't say anything about them, but CNN and MSNBC have such a Hillary bias it's ridiculous. They will not give you the full story with all the facts, because they want to beat people over the head with their agenda and will dismiss anything factual against that agenda. Same with Washington Post and some other sites. It's best to take those stories, then research them for the merit they have and see if they still hold true. This whole "Bernie has no substance or policy for big banks" or whatever it is, is based off of ONE interview where he did not know the specific article, specific statute, specific text of said statute. No one would have been able to give the answer to the question they asked and Bernie even mentions that he could if he had the papers in front of him, which he didn't have at that time.
Please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2muNVQm24hg
And this is the transcript: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/
Bernie's stance on guns is very reasonable and rational. I assume you're talking about what he says regarding the manufacturers and their responsibility. (And if Bernie's position on guns concerns you, look at Hillary Clinton who takes money (of course) from an ex-NRA lobbyist. She is honestly only about the money, you have to realize this, brother). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-nra-lobbyist_us_56d5e214e4b03260bf784001. But back to the point, manufacturers should not be held accountable for what people do with the guns they buy legally. If the weapons are sold legally, with the buyer having passed background checks and no criminal record, it is not on the manufacturers, or even the salesperson, to take responsibility for what the owner of the gun does. *I hate to make the comparison to cars because often gun nuts compare guns with cars*, but like with cars. When a person is in a wreck or crash and cause the death of someone, it is on the driver/owner of the car, not the car dealership or the automobile manufacturer. They don't have the ability to see into the future, or the ability to mind-read the buyer to see what they are going to do a week from now or a year from now with what they bought, why should they be held accountable when the buyer cleared all the qualifications? I have this same argument with my father who is a sHillary supporter.
Bernie calling himself a socialist really only matters to right-wingers and those who use "identity politics" like the right does. People don't care. *the majority of people don't care*. Unless they're on the right. We've already gotten over the obstacle of electing a black man as president, socialist is another one of those labels, like race, religion, and all that. What matters is his policy. Liberals/democrats are always seen as socialist anyway, so this doesn't matter at all. The right already calls Obama socialist (Obamacare, raising taxes on rich). The American public that really cares about Bernie calling himself socialist, is the right-wing. They wouldn't vote for him anyway. Bernie destroys Trump and Cruz by wider margins than Hillary. The majority of people side with Bernie on the issues he raises, some go for 70% of the American public agreement with him.
On the 10,000 in Gaza. That's what I was saying. He DID say 10,000 deaths. But he confused the number of deaths and casualties and grouped them together. Israel's actions are indiscriminate. They take out hospitals, children centers, and more public places. The people in Palestine have water that is 90% undrinkable. This is one area where it is clear that the line between democrats/liberals/ neoliberals/right wing is sooo evident. Netanyahou represents the Israeli right-wing. This is why republicans here are so defensive of his tactics, why Ted Cruz says he'll "stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel" and why Hillary Clinton is so on his side. These are right wingers and those trying to hide their right wing nature (Hillary) saying these things, and not speaking against the horrible things Israel is doing. It's okay to point out the terrible actions that our allies do.
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/09/israelis-attack-defend-bernie-sanders-saying-israels-mass-killing-civilians-wrong/
Hillary is too much in line with the right-wing that it is obvious who the democratic candidate actually is. Hillary wants to concede upfront to republicans and be weak against them, just as Obama is. She is hawkish just as the right-wing (Libya, Syria, Iraq). sHillary defends her greed and money hungry attitude she has (taking money from big names) by comparing herself to republicans and other sellout democrats (Obama, establishment left). Hillary changes positions when things become popular (gay marriage 2013, black America, healthcare) because she is a good establishment politician. She doesn't stay true to her values. Hillary will defend American allies and make excuses for their and our horrific actions (Israel dehumanizing Palestinian lives, torture).
Bernie Sanders has stayed true to his beliefs and doesn't flip-flop depending on public opinion. He has defended his views since the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, on issues that were seen as "radical" or "not widely accepted" (civil rights in the 60's, gay rights in the 90's and 80's).
I agree with some of what you've said ... and I disagree with some. I'm not sure that I agree with your characterization of MSNBC (which I've always thought of as being a bit anti-Hillary), but I think the larger point is that attacking or blaming the media doesn't really push forward your agenda of explaining why Sanders is better. You need to stick to detailed discussion of the issues that concern you and why Sanders' view on the broad spectrum of issues is better than Clinton.
Taking money from lobbyists or industry is a concern, but (a) I recognize that, until we change the system, money is a necessary evil in politics and (b) absent a showing that the money really did influence positions (as it has clearly done with some politicians and some issues), then it isn't the most important factor, either. I'm more concerned with direct policy concerns, electability, and the likelihood of having any sort of success moving policies forward.
As to guns, I agree and I disagree. First, with regard to manufacturer liability, I agree with your analogy to a car ... but only to a point. If I'm injured by your car, I can sue the manufacturer if some component of that car increased my damages or helped cause the accident. But gun manufacturers have been shielded from liability by statute in a way that virtually no other industry has. I also think that it should be up to a jury to decide whether the manufacturer was a proximate cause of the injury. Manufacturing a product isn't necessarily a proximate cause, but it could be given a particular set of facts. Now, with that being said, I am a very strong supporter of the implementation of other sorts of measures to reduce both gun violence and the availability of guns. Again, take a look at my prior posts under the "Gun Control" tag.
As to "flip flopping", I understand the concern and it is a real issue ... sometimes. When a politician makes a 180 degree turn for no apparent reason (or then changes back), I have an issue. But, politicians are also humans and I recognize that. I've changed my mind from time to time. Have you? I recall my parents being aghast at my expression of anti-abortion views when I was in junior high (don't worry, I grew out of those views quickly enough). Did I flip flop? I don't think so. On a related note, I also prefer a politician that has pragmatic, nuanced views to one with black or white, 100% or nothing views of issues.
Lastly (at least on this subject), to suggest that Hillary Clinton is right wing is simply ridiculous. She has been supporting liberal ideas and liberal causes since (and I'm guessing here...) before you could vote. I became a Hillary fan with her initial efforts at healthcare reform in 1993-94. And to survive 20+ years of vicious Republican attacks is not something that many could do. But she has.
(continued in next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
Finally, Israel. This is a very big, very complicated issue, that is probably out of place in this particular conversation thread. But no, Israel's actions are not indiscriminate. If they were, casualty figures would be far, far higher and the level of destruction would be far, far greater. They don't "take out hospitals". If they did, then Shifa Hospital, under which Hamas has its command center, would be a smoking ruin. But it isn't. If Israel's actions were indiscriminate, the number of women and children killed as compared to the number of men of fighting age would be quite disproportionate; it isn't. And there would be even fewer women and children killed if Hamas didn't hide rockets in schools (including UN schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods). And nobody would have died if Hamas hadn't been firing rockets at Israel. Indiscriminately.
I'm not a fan of Netanyahu. But I am a fan of democracy. Israelis just went through yet another bruising election in which one of the world's most vibrant democracies engaged in the sort of messy work that is at the heart of a democracy, something that the Palestinians have done very, very little of (well, other than the Israeli Arabs who make up about 20% of the population and are represented in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, in the Foreign Ministry, and so forth, and who can and do vote in Israel's elections). Why is that President Abbas is presently in the 11th year of his 4 year term?
The American right wing loves Israel because (a) they don't like Muslims, (b) they need a Greater Israel for the Second Coming, (c) many Christians feel called to "help" Israel. But none of that is reason for American liberals not to support Israel. In fact, I'm (ever so slowly) working on a book on why Western liberals and progressives should support Israel. But that is probably a discussion for another time and place.
So, in conclusion, while I enjoy the discussion we're having, you haven't really offered any points to diminish my support for Clinton or change my support to Sanders. Your non-policy arguments against Clinton (she's "right wing") are the sort of arguments that don't really resonate. And, given my particular stance on Israel (did you read any of my Israel tagged posts that I linked to in my prior comment?), your continued assertion of "bad acts" by Israel is moving my dial away from your candidate even further. And, it is just those sort of arguments that may drive some from the blue camp to the red camp come November. I hope note, but it is a worry.
I almost forgot one other very important point: If Sanders is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him before any of the potential Republican candidates. And I will use this blog and other means to try to convince people to vote for him and other Democratic candidates. There will be a sign in my front yard (in one of the reddest districts in the country). Will you say the same about a Clinton nomination? If she is the nominee, will you vote for her? Will you make the same sort of impassioned pleas to get people to vote for her and other Democrats? If not, why not? If not, are you willing to risk a Trump or Cruz presidency?
MSNBC is mostly pro-Hillary. The main people that come one air: Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Chuck Todd, and some others that regularly come on every day. Except Rachel Maddow, she's pretty pro-Bernie but doesn't show it much, or tries not to. When these channels get Bernie supporters on their shows, they will respond quick and be disruptive and condescending and almost always negatively, but when a Hillary supporter gets on they won't say anything back, not give facts, they won't speak hardly a word against them or her policies/positions that are obviously right wing (I'm not complaining, just pointing out). I'm not blaming the media to push an agenda, just stating what they do and why. I have, or at least tried to, stick to detail, I've been discussing detail and giving reasons why Bernie is the better choice, have I not. He's massively better than Clinton, the proof is in the pudding. (or better, the proof is in the positions).
Money is not a necessary evil, Bernie doesn't do it and he is right behind Hillary. It can be done without being corrupt, as he has shown. Money in politics is one of the most important factors, at least to liberals. To center-right democrats and conservatives, of course not, but these people don't hold the values of liberals. Why do liberals have to compromise our values while the far-right can run amok getting almost everything they want at our expense? Money in politics sways a person's policies. That's why Hillary is against government run healthcare (after taking money from the health industry) when she use to be for it. That's why Hillary supports earth-destroying fracking while being paid by oil companies. Brother, this is the most obvious thing in this race, that Hillary is a corrupt politician, lusting for money. Her foundation (the Clinton Foundation) gives 15% of their money to charity while they pocket the rest, or use the rest for campaign. Having success for us liberals means sticking with our values and ideas and not being soft, like Obama putting forward Merrick Garland for SCOTUS, a "liberal" who has sided with the right more often than not. Why do we need to compromise to the right, while they are trying to hold the country back and fuck people over?
With the car, I would put all the components of the car together under one single entity: the car. The car is the driver's (or owner's) responsibility. Same with guns. The bullet is the actual piece that will hurt you. The manufacturer or seller had nothing to do with you getting hurt, IF they sold the thing legally to someone who has cleared all the requirements. They cannot see what will happen or know the person's motives. It should not be their responsibility. I haven't looked at your gun post yet, but I can already assume that I agree with you. There needs to be less firearms in the public and less gun violence. There are PLENTY of ways guns can be safer and cause less deaths, but the right won't listen. But aside from the control aspect (which we agree), the liability should rest on the actual person doing the action, not the seller who sold it legally.
Flip-flopping is not always bad, as with us regular citizens, but changing positions because of the popular opinion shows some things. 1. they are playing the game of politics, 2. we won't be sure if they will stay true to their beliefs, 3. what is to stop them from changing again? Bernie has supported the same positions (which align more with liberals and progressives) for decades. BEFORE they were popular. Fighting for civil rights in the 60's, gay rights in the 70's and 80's (when the majority of people thought they were sexually hyper, "faggots"), etc. Hillary is a different animal. She will disagree, disagree, disagree, until her voter base has changed it's opinion.
Sorry, she isn't "right-wing" but she is center-right. In the 90's, her and Bill were moderate. The first democrats and left leaning that weren't seen as radical as hippies and "tree-huggers" like they use to call liberals. He played the game of politics well, too. He knew that most people viewed liberals as hippies and soft and "anti-patriotic", so he had to be more center of the spectrum than left (like FDR the "socialist"). Her efforts for healthcare in the 90's is exactly what I am talking about. She supported single-payer system then, but all of a sudden she takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from health industry, and now she is against that. That is a flip-flop, that is corruption, this is what Bernie points out. She is in it for the money, and it's painfully clear. It's like this:
Hillary:
-93/94 - government-run, single-payer healthcare (a social good for the people)
-2013/2015 - speeches to health industry for at least $1,000,000 summed together
-2016 - against government-run, single-payer healthcare
Bernie:
-whole career - government-run, single-payer healthcare
I mean, you can always say that "if X happened, then Y would be worse", but are the casualties and deaths not already too much? Any civilian deaths/casualties are too much. I'm not saying they are targeting hospitals specifically, but they have taken out hospitals and injured civilians in their process, this is unacceptable. I'm not on the side of Hamas, both sides are committing atrocities that should not be committed. And if the defense is "it's war, bad things happen" or something along those lines, this is the right-wing defense of torture and carpet bombing/ indiscriminate bombing, so it should not be something liberals use as a defense. And I'm not on the 100% on the side of Palestine either. Neither side should be defended 100%, when both are doing wrong. We need to remain as neutral as possible and recognize that our allies are doing bad things. We need to be smart about this and not blindly be on one side 100%. 2 state solution.
We should support Israel as much as we can, but that doesn't mean disregarding their terrible actions. Like I said, Palestine has 90% undrinkable water. Why should we condemn the republican governor in Michigan and others here in America, but support Israel who does the same to innocent Palestinians? (the innocent ones have to drink this water as well). Israel cuts off supplies going into Palestine, like water and such. We need to be rational and consistent.
I've been giving points of things Hillary supports or does, and Bernie is against. And these things are not liberal values, or things progressives should be praising. She is a center-right hack and establishment shill who thinks that accepting money "has to happen" to succeed. She would lose to Trump in a general. There are just too many things people can bring up against her in a general. Even liberals can point to things she supports as being not true to the base of the democratic party. Even Hillary herself wants to be compared to republicans (at least in regards to transcripts). Why do we have to wait for the other party, who we already don't agree with, to release such speeches, for her to release hers. Bernie released his zero. Now it's her turn. She won't because she knows just as everyone else does that she is in Wall Street's pocket.
It's okay if you move further towards your candidate, that's fine. It's good to stick to your beliefs and ideas, unlike Hillary Clinton. But it shoes the center-right mentality of sellout democrats to need to support each other and abandon the base of the party and move further right than further left and in the correct direction. You can deny facts, just as the right does, and present the sort of apologist arguments that conservative christians have to do. Denying Israel's bad actions is just as bad as American exceptionalism and denying America's bad actions, as... a right-winger would do. Even you said "drive from the blue camp to the red camp". Proves my point entirely. Abandon liberal values to give more power to the opposition.
I actually live in a very red environment as well, Memphis TN. Everyone around me disagrees completely (in social and economic aspects). I might vote for her, but very unlikely. I'm in Tennessee, so it won't matter anyway since the state would go red anyway (same way if Bernie won). I would write-in Bernie. If her losing to a Trump or Cruz is that much of a problem, it goes to show she can't beat them anyway. I would be risking a Trump or Cruz presidency regardless if she won. Not with Bernie. He has the heart of the party, the majority of Americans agree with him, and he beats them by wider margins. I'd rather put my full effort towards the candidate that would actually win, and fights for the people.
Much love to you though brother.
I'm very short on time today, so let me just offer one thought: In 2008, it had been 32 years since Indiana had voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. So many people thought voting for Obama would be a wasted vote. But guess what? Enough people did make the effort and cast ballots such that Indiana, in an enormous surprise, voted for Obama. Will it happen again this year? I don't know. Could it happen in Tennessee? I don't know. But the best way to be sure that your side doesn't win is to fail to cast a vote. So never, never say your vote doesn't matter because it always, always matters, especially in this sort of electoral climate and especially when our turnouts are regularly so, so low.
Not that it doesn't necessarily matter, but it won't be going to her. TN is different cause it is the deep south. But I'd write in Bernie either way
Tennessee has voted blue more frequently than Indiana. And that write in vote for Bernie may make you feel good ... but unless there are enough write in votes all across the country to swing the election to Bernie (highly doubtful), then that write in vote might make you feel absolutely sick if we wind up with a President Trump or President Cruz on the margin of victory represented by write in protest votes (just as we wound up with President Bush thanks, in large part, to votes cast for Ralph Nader). So think beyond how your individual vote will make you feel and think about the possible repercussions to the country as a whole if you (and others like you) forego pragmatism to stand on a hill of lofty ideals.
And, please remember, that even though there are things that Bernie has said or done, and policies he's articulated with which I disagree, I will still gladly vote for him in November instead of Cruz or Trump.
Please think of the overall policies that really matter to you, what you want our country to look like, how you want to be treated (or have your children treated), and then select the candidate (in November) who has the best chance to help reflect those views.
The write in vote for Bernie would make me feel great because I'm actually voting for the one best candidate in the race and not turning my back on my values to vote for someone or some people who don't deserve it. If Trump or Cruz wins over Hillary because too many people didn't vote for her, it's her own fault. She didn't do anything to deserve the votes, she shouldn't get the votes. It would be awful to have Trump or Cruz as president but Hillary would deserve that loss as a result of the DNC and democratic establishment doing the same vote suppression that the republicans are doing (while bashing them for doing so).
Hillary supporters need to look beyond how voting for her feels good. She has no good policies, she is too in-line with the right-wing and corporations. She isn't for the majority, she is for the top earners and center-right, as evident by her voting record and her changing stances on important issues.
It's great that you would vote for Bernie if he won, you should if you're a liberal. But I and others like me can't bring ourselves to do that voting for a center-right, pro-corporate, pro-establishment, inconsistent, money hoarding, war hawk, outright liar, voter suppressing, shameless politician like Hillary Clinton.
I often think about the policies that matter to me, and Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that is closest to 100% in agreement with them. Hillary is not. I will most certainly select the candidate who reflects the views of actual progressive liberals and not center-right establishment corporations, Bernie Sanders.
Reidel:
So with the election just a few days away, are you still planning to vote for Bernie Sanders and risk a Trump presidency? Or are you going to vote for Clinton in order to do what you can to try to prevent a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, misogynistic, fascist to be elected President?
Post a Comment
Please note that to cut down on spam, I've (sadly) elected to implement a comment moderation procedure.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home