Support NeoGAF

[AlfonzoPalutena]

Evidently I'm in way too deep. I honestly didn't think my original comment would attract so many replies. I can't keep up. I'm a political idiot. Sorry for bothering you guys.

 

[yanipheonu]

Why does everyone assume I'm voting for Trump? We have other candidates outside the two party system and I didnt explicitly rule anyone out.

Go ahead: throw your vote away.

 

[Steel]

Evidently I'm in way too deep. I honestly didn't think my original comment would attract so many replies. I can't keep up. I'm a political idiot. Sorry for bothering you guys.

It's not a problem. People are rightfully on edge now that we're facing a real possibility that someone like Trump could take the presidency, so the reaction is understandable, if counter-productive.

I sincerely hope you take an honest look at the platforms and policy positions both candidates are bringing to the table before making your decision. And, at absolute least, vote against republican candidates at the local level.

 

[You Know Nothing]

Evidently I'm in way too deep. I honestly didn't think my original comment would attract so many replies. I can't keep up. I'm a political idiot. Sorry for bothering you guys.

In the political climate of the US a vote for a third party is totally a wasted vote.

It's simple math that FPTP systems like ours inevitably lead to a two party system. It can't be prevented. You either vote for the candidate your view most aligns with or you waste your vote. It's that simple.

 

[Cyan]

Some of these are merely embarrassing, but this:

One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters.

if true, should frankly get people fired.

 

[Steel]

Some of these are merely embarrassing, but this:


if true, should frankly get people fired.

It is true.

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

The response email was pretty much "No" if I recall but they should definitely get fired.

 

[Hellwarden]

Some of these are merely embarrassing, but this:


if true, should frankly get people fired.

That's the one thing I look at and think, yeah, someone should lose their job over that.

 

[eyeball_kid]

Someone that actually thinks about what the party is fighting for over getting emotional over Russian fed hacked/leaked emails.

Just because Russians leaked this stuff in an attempt to make Trump look better doesn't negate the fact that this stuff LOOKS REALLY BAD.

It's funny how you mentioned "Hostage Votes" earlier, because I think a lot of us on the progressive side feel like the hostages right now.

I will hold my nose and do my duty come November because the alternative is a fascist, bigoted demagogue with deep ties to the Russian government. What a choice!

 

[GreatestHits]

Some of these are merely embarrassing, but this:


if true, should frankly get people fired.

I don't understand this. You seem as if there isn't a blatant disregard for ethics (as a culture) within the DMC

While certainly the better party, culturally they are as washed and ironed as the repubs. Politics is known as a dirty business for a reason

 

[Palette Swap]

If they're cleaning house, I hope they get rid of the "Bernie is a Jew atheist" guy. That was the most egregious stuff I've read in the whole leak.

 

[takriel]

If you don't vote for Hillary, you vote for Trump. It's that simple. Let's hope the DNC can get its shit together.

 

[Clydefrog]

well, that's fodder for the republicans now, isn't it?

 

[SneakersSO]

And these emails just basically reinforce why I won't be voting for either party this election cycle. Fill in candidateit is. This whole election makes me sick

 

[PdotMichael]

Someone that actually thinks about what the party is fighting for over getting emotional over Russian fed hacked/leaked emails.

There was a lot of pretty dumb stuff in the leaked mails which justifies more than just "getting emotional".

But using "...but Trump" as somekind of boogeyman to wave all kinds of bullshit about the Democrats and Clinton through is quite silly at best.

 

[Krowley]

Obviously I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I may well vote third party, particularly if my state doesn't end up being significant. Which it probably won't. It's generally very safe republican ground, and a presidential vote for a democrat here is like dropping a penny into the ocean.

If Hillary ends up needing my vote, and it's her or Trump, then I'll hold my nose. Otherwise I will probably vote 3rd party, even though I don't particularly like any of those candidates either. I see a 3rd party vote as an entirely legitimate way to register my disapproval of the whole system. At a local and state level, I'll vote for the best candidates available.

Also, I'm very happy to announce that I am not nor have I ever been a reliable vote for any political party. I'm not committed to any party. I'm not a team player for a political party. I'm committed to my own values.

My favorite thing about Bernie, other than his policies, was the fact that he always had a middle finger aimed firmly at this shitty two party system we're stuck with. I loved that he was an insurgent, trying to hijack the democratic party process. It is a shame that he failed..

 

[Armadilo]

And these emails just basically reinforce why I won't be voting for either party this election cycle. Fill in candidateit is. This whole election makes me sick

More power too you man, but vote for marijuana legalization if you live in California

 

[Acorn]

Isn't she pretty horrible and on a right wing (not actual right wing in American terms) island of the dems all by herself? Even compared to other right wing of democratic party people?

I'm scottish so that's why I'm asking. I remember looking her up last year because of another thread here, but I'm not sure.

 

[NullPointer]

An unintended benefit of the leaks.

Oh yes.

 

[TyrantII]

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic Party. I don't know who I'm voting for come November


Why does everyone assume I'm voting for Trump? We have other candidates outside the two party system and I didnt explicitly rule anyone out.

A vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump, unless it's Gary Johnson.

Sorry, but thats how the first past the post system works.

 

[maquiladora]

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic Party. I don't know who I'm voting for come November

This was the entire purpose of stealing those emails and handing them over to Wikileaks to be "leaked". Don't let yourself be played.

 

[Steel]

And these emails just basically reinforce why I won't be voting for either party this election cycle. Fill in candidateit is. This whole election makes me sick

I mean, in context, it's thousands of emails from dozens of individuals and there's a few dozen bad ones that talk about attacking Bernie, which they then don't actually act on, but sure, it's a bastion of corruption. Honestly, I'd expect a little more than what they found.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There was a lot of pretty dumb stuff in the leaked mails which justifies more than just "getting emotional".

But using "...but Trump" as somekind of boogeyman to wave all kinds of bullshit about the Democrats and Clinton through is quite silly at best.

You're on the cusp of the most liberal supreme court in like 50 years. I can't believe liberals are going to defeat themselves yet again and to a fascist nutjob like Trump of all people. I wish I could just spend the next 4 months going around personally begging people to reconsider, this election is the tipping point between 30 years of liberal or conservative judicial dominance. The left has some legitimate gripes but to see them willfully throw this opportunity away is going to be physical agony.

I wish Bernie had just won now, it's easier to get the less ideological wing of the party in line than it is to get the ideologues, I should have known this.

 

[EatinOlives]

This was the entire purpose of stealing those emails and handing them over to Wikileaks to be "leaked". Don't let yourself be played.

But the bait is so beefy and juicy and tasty! How could you deny them savoring it? It's not like the hook hurts for that long.

I mean, in context, it's thousands of emails from dozens of individuals and there's a few dozen bad ones that talk about attacking Bernie, which they then don't actually act on, but sure, it's a bastion of corruption. Honestly, I'd expect a little more than what they found.

You're speaking to someone proudly flaunting their confirmation bias. I doubt you should expect them to actually know the context.

 

[pigeon]

It seriously boggles my mind how people can equate the misgivings of Hilary's campaign to the misgivings (which is extremely generous a term) of Trump's campaign.

It's easy if white nationalism isn't a big deal to you!

You can safely assume all those people would basically be fine if Neo-Nazis took over the country.

 

[GreatestHits]

It is a shame that he failed..

After the initial dust settled, he knew exactly who the two final candidates would be. Look at him passing legislation as a 'failure'. Dude has a lot of experience and a lot of fire in his old age and knows exactly what he is doing. I was taken aback with him a couple years before he decided to go for the presidential run. He knows politics.

And I can empathize with people being flabbergasted with Hillary's corruption being a reason to vote for trump. My sister sanctioned the Hillary's America video today. I repressed the desire to ask what her alternative action was

 

[Krowley]

After the initial dust settled, he knew exactly who the two final candidates would be. Look at him passing legislation as a 'failure'. Dude has a lot of experience and a lot of fire in his old age and knows exactly what he is doing. I was taken aback with him a couple years before he decided to go for the presidential run. He knows politics.

I think he has shifted this country slightly to the left, so definitely his candidacy was not a total failure, I agree.

Also, it is good to see Hillary moving her own policies closer to his. I appreciate that, and I definitely see it as a moral victory of sorts.

 

[PdotMichael]

You're on the cusp of the most liberal supreme court in like 50 years. I can't believe liberals are going to defeat themselves yet again and to a fascist nutjob like Trump of all people. I wish I could just spend the next 4 months going around personally begging people to reconsider, this election is the tipping point between 30 years of liberal or conservative judicial dominance. The left has some legitimate gripes but to see them willfully throw this opportunity away is going to be physical agony.

I wish Bernie had just won now, it's easier to get the less ideological wing of the party in line than it is to get the ideologues, I should have known this.

Yeah, democracy could be so easy if you get rid of all the democratic elements of the voting system.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Imagine you work at a construction company of about 250 people. after 30 years, a vacancy in the ceo position opens up. Bob and Alice are the top two options to fill the vacancy. Bob has been a lower level manager and vice president for about 25 years of being employed with the company. Alice has been a manager at another construction firm for roughly the same amount of time - they're not really competitors, since the two firms typically colaborate on projects together and refer clients to each other. Alice joined your firm about a year ago after those 25-30 years with the other firm.


Don't you think most people in the company would probably lean towards Bob instead of Alice simply by virtue of being more closely associated with Bob over the last several decades? Some office gossip about whether Alice is really qualified compared to Bob might pop up?


Same principle.

This analogy only works if those office people, one of whom is particularly high up on the food chain, 'gossip' about using the fact that Alice is a woman (which many people may respond negitively too) against her. To make Bob the CEO of the company.

But it's totes cool cause nothing happened. Nevermind that the fact that these office fucks were willing to screw Alice over even though they should be impartial.

But That's Just Politics! *Cue Laugh Track*

 

[Steel]

I think he has shifted this country slightly to the left, so definitely his candidacy was not a total failure, I agree.

Also, it is good to see Hillary moving her own policies closer to his. I appreciate that, and I definitely see it as a moral victory of sorts.

Considering that and the fact that Bernie himself endorsed her, I'm kind of struggling to see why you'd vote third party. I mean, the green party has less in common with Bernie than Hillary does at this point.

All the same, since you're not in a swing state it'd only matter for the popular vote count and for moving the state's needle slightly more toward blue, so I don't think you're self-destructive in this case, I'm just honestly curious.

This analogy only works if those office people, one of whom is particularly high up on the food chain, 'gossip' about using the fact that Alice is a woman (which many people may respond negitively too) against her. To make Bob the CEO of the company.

But it's totes cool cause nothing happened. Nevermind that the fact that these office fucks were willing to screw Alice over even though they should be impartial.

But That's Just Politics! *Cue Laugh Track*

I'd honestly expect that, humanity being humanity. But for your analogy to work it'd have to be only a small portion of people gossiping.

 

[gogosox82]

DWS is terrible. The less of her the better I'd say.

If those emails turned you off.

You were not a reliable democratic voter anyway, and are just making excuses not vote for Hillary.

oh please if you're voting for trump then just say so. stop pretending the candidates are anything alike for you to even be considering one or the other.

"I mean, I can't vote for the people that privately wanted a specific candidate. I'm sure they're in the same category as the guy talking about the size of his penis on national television."

In another thread it's pretty established that voting for Trump at worst, makes you a racist, and at best, means you're absolutely fine with racism, just something to think about.

You must be joking. Did you just now realize that people are people? DWS is not the democratic party, she is the current chair of the DNC. There have been many chairs before her and after her. She's one person. And more importantly, politics is not a series of actions carried out by automation without subjectivity or opinion. Politics is messy.

Just because he may not be voting Hilary doesn't mean he's going to vote for Trump. He could be considering voting for Jill Stein.

 

[watershed]

There was a lot of pretty dumb stuff in the leaked mails which justifies more than just "getting emotional".

But using "...but Trump" as somekind of boogeyman to wave all kinds of bullshit about the Democrats and Clinton through is quite silly at best.

The Democrats and Clinton are not one or two monolithic figures. Democrats are a collection of people with shared or similar vested interest. If anything, this primary showed just how not monolithic democrats are. Democrats fight it out and are far less willing to fall in line than republicans who just gave up and caved to Trump instead of actually trying to take him down while they still had time.

DWS has not been a good DNC chair and there is some unethical stuff in these emails. But that doesn't define how The Democrats treated Bernie Sanders. In truth, Bernie was treated with kid gloves throughout the primary and still is.

 

[PdotMichael]

The Democrats and Clinton are not one or two monolithic figures. Democrats are a collection of people with shared or similar vested interest. If anything, this primary showed just how not monolithic democrats are. Democrats fight it out and are far less willing to fall in line than republicans who just gave up and can.

Which says a lot about that "reliable democratic voter" remark.

 

[HariKari]

DWS should have been relieved of her duties after the "#SMH" response.

"My response to that is hashtag SMH," Wasserman Schultz said on CNN. SMH is an acronym used on TWitter for "shaking my head," often meant to show someone does not agree with something said.

 

[You Know Nothing]

Just because he may not be voting Hilary doesn't mean he's going to vote for Trump. He could be considering voting for Jill Stein.

Yes, and a fat lot of good that will do.

You either vote within the restriction of our two party system or you completely waste your vote.

That's just life. I know it's intoxicating to think your non-conforming vote breaks the system, but all it does is strengthen the side you most disagree with. Real life isn't the same as ideals.

 

[Krowley]

Considering that and the fact that Bernie himself endorsed her, I'm kind've struggling to see why you'd vote third party. I mean, the green party has less in common with Bernie than Hillary does at this point.

All the same, since you're not in a swing state it'd only matter for the popular vote count and for moving the state's needle slightly more toward blue, so I don't think you're self-destructive in this case, I'm just honestly curious.

Hillary is an extension of the neoliberal part of the democratic party. She's a big business, free trade democrat. She is a tool of the status quo. She is supported by people in high places who don't want to rattle the boat. She was the obvious safe choice for a reason, because she isn't going to fuck up anybody's gravy train. In this election, the candidate of the 1% is Hillary Clinton.

I also dislike her choice of VP. He's even more conservative than her, and putting him in that position creates a trajectory for the entire democratic party. He becomes a presumptive presidential candidate down the line, and he'll have the deck stacked in his favor just the way Hillary did this time. So we're likely doomed to 16 more years of pro free trade, big business democrats. I just can't support that unless I absolutely have to. Because that means no change. That means status quo, for a very long time. It means the democratic party continues to shift closer and closer to the moderate republicans. Just no.

 

[disastermouse]

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic Party. I don't know who I'm voting for come November


Why does everyone assume I'm voting for Trump? We have other candidates outside the two party system and I didnt explicitly rule anyone out.

It's more than just the presidential candidates. I don't think I'm voting for any Democrats at all this election. And since I'm not usually inclined to vote for Republicans, many of those down-ballot choices will be left blank on my ballot. There'll be two alternate candidates besides Hillary and Trump for President in my state, so that will not be that difficult. However, I'm unaware if there's a third party candidate in Russ Feingold's race. I had been looking forward to voting for him, but I won't in light of these revelations.

 

[TyrantII]

Just because he may not be voting Hilary doesn't mean he's going to vote for Trump. He could be considering voting for Jill Stein.

That's a vote for Trump. Make no mistake, come to terms with it.

 

[watershed]

Hillary is an extension of the status-quo neoliberal part of the democratic party. She's a big business, free trade democrat. She is a tool of the status quo. She is supported by people in high places who don't want to rattle the boat.

I also dislike her choice of VP. He's even more conservative than her, and putting him in that position creates a trajectory for the entire democratic party. He becomes a presumptive presidential candidate down the line, and he'll have the deck stacked in his favor just the way Hillary did this time. So we're likely doomed to 16 more years of pro free trade, big business democrats. I just can't support that unless I absolutely have to. Because that means no change. That means status quo, for a very long time. It means the democratic party continues to shift closer and closer to the moderate republicans. Just no.

Status quo like making college debt-free? Overturning Citizens United? Creating a public option healthcare plan? Passing mandatory paid maternal leave?

These are policies she has proposed. If you know anything about her political career there is no reason to believe she does not fully believe in these positions. These are not status quo policies.

There is not a lot of similarity between moderate republicans and democrats like Clinton and Kaine. I suspect you haven't really looked into these differences.

 

[BigRedOne]

Screw it guess we really are going to have Trump as president now aren't we?

 

[Steel]

Hillary is an extension of the status-quo neoliberal part of the democratic party. She's a big business, free trade democrat. She is a tool of the status quo. She is supported by people in high places who don't want to rattle the boat.

I also dislike her choice of VP. He's even more conservative than her, and putting him in that position creates a trajectory for the entire democratic party. He becomes a presumptive presidential candidate down the line, and he'll have the deck stacked in his favor just the way Hillary did this time. So we're likely doomed to 16 more years of pro free trade, big business democrats. I just can't support that unless I absolutely have to. Because that means no change. That means status quo, for a very long time. It means the democratic party continues to shift closer and closer to the moderate republicans. Just no.

Can you list actual policy positions that back up this list of feelings? Because I don't see where this narrative is coming from other than the fact that she takes super-pac money and was paid for speeches.

For example: she backed off TPP a long while ago. That being said, as an independent myself, I'm very much pro free trade, personally, and I really don't see the rational argument against all free trade.

 

[gutter_trash]

Thank God Obama speaks on Wednesday night to make everyone shut the fuck up

people need a reality check of what is at stake

Barack will slap some sense into you

 

[Dan]

Which says a lot about that "reliable democratic voter" remark.

"Reliable Democratic voters" are the people who still vote for the greater good on election day, rather than throwing a fit over the Democratic nominee not being their first choice or not 100% matching their political beliefs and then voting for someone else out of a destructive impulse.

 

[disastermouse]

Status quo like making college debt-free? Overturning Citizens United? Creating a public option healthcare plan? Passing mandatory paid maternal leave?

These are policies she has proposed. If you know anything about her political career there is no reason to believe she does not fully believe in these positions. These are not status quo policies.

This leads me to believe you must know nothing of her career. Several of these things she's proposing now she has actively opposed before, some of them breathtakingly recently.

 

[Krowley]

Status quo like making college debt-free? Overturning Citizens United? Creating a public option healthcare plan? Passing mandatory paid maternal leave?

These are policies she has proposed. If you know anything about her political career there is no reason to believe she does not fully believe in these positions. These are not status quo policies.

There is not a lot of similarity between moderate republicans and democrats like Clinton and Kaine. I suspect you haven't really looked into these differences.

Go ahead and suspect whatever you like. I was an adult when Bill Clinton was president. I've been following politics since I was a teenager.

I know what the Clintons represent. It's democrat light. Democrats for the Reagan voter. New democrats, not pesky liberals like the old kind.

Bottom line: I don't trust anythings she says. She will say anything to get elected. She will try to thread the needle between her commitments to voters and her commitments to donors and special interests when she's in office, but she'll put special interests first. Everything she says is lip service. She changes her mind so often, who knows what she really believes? She puts her finger to the wind, and checks the polls, then finds a way to re-position herself for maximum political benefit.

She might accomplish a few things in office, because the Clintons are good at playing hardball, but I don't want a democratic party that aims so low. I want an inspirational, New Deal, kind of democratic party. I want to raise taxes on the rich, drastically strengthen the saftey net. Massive infrastructure spending. That should be the aim. She is not going to rock the boat like that, and wouldn't even if she had the power to,

 

[Lord_Byron28]

There are plenty of fence sitters and they do not consider themselves racist bigots. Painting the race as black and white (and then telling said fence sitter they are a racist)is a sure way to have them vote republican. Whether you believe the issues are black and white or not, I'm just saying it's starting to look like Undecideds may be pretty important this election so reaching out to them in a non confrontational way ... It's important.

I'm not American myself so I have no stake in the game, just offering advice.

Edit: actually I do have some stake, I'm pretty sure Trump would be bad for Canada/NAFTA/Canadian trade agreements with US

This. I'd say maybe 10% of the people that vote actually fully understand the political process, ramifications of candidate's policies and are informed voters. Most of these "both sides are the same" are people that don't pay attention to politics and instead just see headlines in passing on their social media outlets or what's on the television. Unfortunately the reality is that it is most of America. Our mainstream media doesn't help in creating biases and our social media has only further enhanced it by creating echo chambers.

I'd say you made a fairly accurate statement about Americans and how people handle the situation. Even though I think it is a fairly black and white issue, people ignorant to politics will try to be fair and give both sides the benefit of the doubt.

I honestly doubt there are any real fence sitters this election. Most people who are outwardly presenting themselves as a fence sitter and undecided are probably do it because they are too cowardly to openly express their racist/bigoted views. These people will vote Trump. All the other fence sitters are the ones who are completely obliviously to what is going on in the world of politics.

I don't think you understand how many Americans are oblivious to the world of politics. I can't tell you the amount of people I know that have gone to both candidates websites and just viewed that to make their decisions. There also are a significant amount of people that blindly believe everything they see and hear on the TV, radio and internet without thinking critically about it. On top of the fact that there is an understandably growing distrust in our media and establishment politics so people are blindly going to alternative sources, again without thinking critically.

How so? Even someone who only has a cursory knowledge of the issues this election cycle should know that Donald Ttump wants to build a wall and ban Muslims in some fashion.

Yes, however given the amount of attention surrounding all of Clinton's "scandals" I could see how someone with a lack of knowledge and care about politics seeing both sides are bad, which again unfortunately describes most Americans and the voting population in general.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This leads me to believe you must know nothing of her career. Several of these things she's proposing now she has actively opposed before, some of them breathtakingly recently.

What possible benefit is there for her not following through on these promises? She would have to run for reelection and face the liberal base again.

Go ahead and suspect whatever you like. I was an adult when Bill Clinton was president. I've been following politics since I was a teenager.

I know what the Clintons represent. It's democrat light. Democrats for the Reagan voter. New democrats, not pesky liberals like the old kind.

Bottom line: I don't trust anythings she says. She will say anything to get elected. She will try to thread the needle between her commitments to voters and her commitments to donors and special interests when she's in office, but she'll put special interests first. Everything she says is lip service.

She might accomplish a few things in office, because the Clintons are good at playing hardball, but I don't want a democratic party that aims so low. I want an inspirational, New Deal, kind of democratic party. I want to raise taxes on the rich, drastically strengthen the saftey net. Massive infrastructure spending. That should be the aim. She is not going to rock the boat like that, and wouldn't even if she had the power to,

That doesn't explain the healthcare fight of the 90s at all though. Why would they have done it and taken political damage for it?

 

[disastermouse]

"Reliable Democratic voters" are the people who still vote for the greater good on election day, rather than throwing a fit over the Democratic nominee not being their first choice or not 100% matching their political beliefs and then voting for someone else out of a destructive impulse.

You haven't described reliable voters, you've described reliable dupes. In order to expect 'reliable Democrat voters' to reliably vote Democrat, the Democratic Party has to be itself be reliable. It has to show itself as something worthy of support.

 

[Mully]

Imagine what the Republican emails say, particularly around Hillary Clinton...

I'd like to point out that the hack of the DNC was likely done by state sponsored Russian hackers who passed on the data to Wikileaks who is hungry for any US dirt.

The reason why this stuff is getting out is because Putin and Co. want a Trump presidency.

 

[Steel]

Go ahead and suspect whatever you like. I was an adult when Bill Clinton was president. I've been following politics since I was a teenager.

I know what the Clintons represent. It's democrat light. Democrats for the Reagan voter. New democrats, not pesky liberals like the old kind.

Bottom line: I don't trust anythings she says. She will say anything to get elected. She will try to thread the needle between her commitments to voters and her commitments to donors and special interests when she's in office, but she'll put special interests first. Everything she says is lip service. She changes her mind so often, who knows what she really believes? She puts her finger to the wind, and checks the polls, then finds a way to re-position herself for maximum political benefit.

She might accomplish a few things in office, because the Clintons are good at playing hardball, but I don't want a democratic party that aims so low. I want an inspirational, New Deal, kind of democratic party. I want to raise taxes on the rich, drastically strengthen the saftey net. Massive infrastructure spending. That should be the aim. She is not going to rock the boat like that, and wouldn't even if she had the power to,

That's a lot of conjecture with no evidence. Let me be clear though: I don't think she's honest. I don't think any politician is honest, and I think that people who think their favorite politician is honest are kinda gullible(Every politician tries to make themselves seem honest, some are better at it than others).

In either case I'm kind of wondering what you mean by "Status-Quo" seeing as the status-quo is the republicans murdering any legislation they get their hands on in Congress which Bernie would also get crucified by.

This was also the case in the Bill Clinton years to a lesser extent, btw.

 

[Kin5290]

If you're willing to ignore sleezy stuff done by the "good" side, how are you any better than the bad one

Let's see, you aren't a facist, homophobic adherent of white nationalism and nativism that happily pals with white supremacists and may possibly be in league with autocratic Russia?