Support NeoGAF

[hammysaurusrex]

It's a pretty amusing world we live in when Hillary is demonized for even talking to Republicans, but the idea of "progressives" that swap their vote to Trump is seen as a perfectly rationale choice.

 

[Silver Arrows]

thatsthejoke.gif

oh I know

just trying to give love to everybody's favorite bernie bro on GAF

 

[Valhelm]

It's a pretty amusing world we live in when Hillary is demonized for even talking to Republicans, but the idea of "progressives" that swap their vote to Trump is seen as a perfectly rationale choice.

Nobody who'd vote for Trump over Clinton is doing so because of progressive ideology

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Ok, just a reminder this is not how you do a debate to support your claims.

1) Make a claim without source but saying you heard it from second hand or some vague thing.

2) Recieve counter point that has a source that directly disproves your claim

3) Completely ignore the counter point and go back saying that the person who gave the counter point must go and do your research to support to refute your own initial claim.

Now step three is where some people go wrong. I know this is hard stuff, but step one is really important because it gives you an initial foundation for your claims and arguments.

 

[Suikoguy]

Nobody who'd vote for Trump over Clinton is doing so because of progressive ideology

I'm actually starting to tire of the whole debate, at least for a few months.
Some other posters have said a large majority of those people are just hyped and revved up over the primary. A couple of months time between the primary will help make discussions less reactionary and more rational.

 

[Karsticles]

It's a pretty amusing world we live in when Hillary is demonized for even talking to Republicans, but the idea of "progressives" that swap their vote to Trump is seen as a perfectly rationale choice.

I think the people that might swap votes are more anti-establishment than progressive, which is why they are willing to make a sacrifice. Similarly, if I vote for Hillary Clinton, it will be because my progressive leanings outweigh my anti-establishment ones.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Nobody who'd vote for Trump over Clinton is doing so because of progressive ideology

You know that and I know that... but they don't know that.

 

[Melkezadek]

Oh, she apologized. All is forgiven, then! You can't take the creation of ISIS, the exodus of entire nations of people, and numerous casualties and forgive it easily. Especially when she still talks about "no fly zones" in Syria and has a generally hawkish disposition.

I was a 20-something in college and it was clear that there was no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It shows she just has poor judgment of ..

While obviously the Iraq War was the wrong course of action, it's a bit reductive to say that it was solely in response to 9/11. It might have been peddled to the public as the reason, there was other precedence for it.

 

[BitStyle]

Ok, just a reminder this is not how you do a debate to support your claims.

1) Make a claim without source but saying you heard it from second hand or some vague thing.

2) Recieve counter point that has a source that directly disproves your claim

3) Completely ignore the counter point and go back saying that the person who gave the counter point must go and do your research to support to refute your own initial claim.

Now step three is where some people go wrong. I know this is hard stuff, but step one is really important because it gives you an initial foundation for your claims and arguments.

Indeed, a common fallacy.

 

[rjinaz]

Er, pretty sure that 44.5% of your party's voters matter. While that's not enough to win the nomination of your party, smug shitposting that tries to erase nearly half of all Democratic primary voters isn't a great look.

Yeah it really seems like the "he's just like Ron Paul" comparisons are getting out of hand in that some people are actually believing that Bernie is so small he has virtually no people voting for him despite the millions that are, even if he is behind Hillary by 3 million. It's no small number and certainly not one to just shrug off.

 

[Mintek]

I think the people that might swap votes are more anti-establishment than progressive, which is why they are willing to make a sacrifice. Similarly, if I vote for Hillary Clinton, it will be because my progressive leanings outweigh my anti-establishment ones.

I don't think people even know what establishment means.

 

[Karsticles]

While obviously the Iraq War was the wrong course of action, it's a bit reductive to say that it was solely in response to 9/11. It might have been peddled to the public as the reason, there was other precedence for it.

Oh, I don't doubt that there were other reasons for 9/11 on the political side of things. Defense contracts, maybe Bush wanting to finish Daddy's war...But Hillary hasn't given riches or vengeance as reasons for her support, has she? I believe she has said she voted as she did because of the terrorist acts, so it seems appropriate to respond to her on those grounds.

If she gave another reason I'm not aware of, please let me know.

I don't think people even know what establishment means.

It means you are part of the group that is supposed to work for the country, but has decided to band together and form a class that acts for its own self-interest instead. It means that when you finish being a legislator, you go work for a lobbyist organization that thanks you for all the bills you passed to increase its revenue. It means you get kickbacks and large donations from corporations in favor of voting in a way other than your conscience. It means you get upset when someone doesn't play by these rules is succeeding in politics.

It doesn't necessarily mean you have been in politics for a long time. It doesn't mean that you ignore lobbyists entirely (they are an important part of our political system). It's not inherent to being rich or holding power. It's about being part of a group that looks after each other before looking after what's best for the nation.

 

[MIMIC]

Maybe it's because they see a double standard that you don't

No. It's used to downplay the KEY differences (Hillary's regrettable low lights) in order to emphasize no-brainer votes and that no one cares about.

They both agreed to provide money to combat AIDS/HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. She's just like him!

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

No. It's used to downplay the KEY differences (Hillary's regrettable low lights) in order to emphasize no-brainer votes and that no one cares about.

They both agreed to provide money to combat AIDS/HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. She's just like him!

It's a misleading argument that's overused here. We all the saw the debates and heard the talking points each candidate actually chooses to speak about. There is a meaningful difference between Clinton and Sanders. No one is convinced by the "they voted 93% of the time" argument other than die hard Clinton supporters and it's silly to continue using it.

 

[Piecake]

It's a misleading argument that's overused here. We all the saw the debates and heard the talking points each candidate actually chooses to speak about. There is a meaningful difference between Clinton and Sanders. No one is convinced by the "they voted 93% of the time" argument other than die hard Clinton supporters and it's silly to continue using it.

I don't think many would argue there arent. The 93% thing is usually brought up when someone tries to claim that Clinton is a secret neoliberal neocon republican who will show her true face once she is elected.

 

[Melkezadek]

Oh, I don't doubt that there were other reasons for 9/11 on the political side of things. Defense contracts, maybe Bush wanting to finish Daddy's war...But Hillary hasn't given riches or vengeance as reasons for her support, has she? I believe she has said she voted as she did because of the terrorist acts, so it seems appropriate to respond to her on those grounds.

If she gave another reason I'm not aware of, please let me know.

Where did you hear that she supported it because of 9/11, specifically?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA

This is her speech in regards to the vote.

Please keep in mind that I believe it was a huge mistake. I'm just curious as to where you got her reasons from.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's a misleading argument that's overused here. We all the saw the debates and heard the talking points each candidate actually chooses to speak about. There is a meaningful difference between Clinton and Sanders. No one is convinced by the "they voted 93% of the time" argument other than die hard Clinton supporters and it's silly to continue using it.

Not really, Clinton and Sanders have the same goals - they just disagree on how to get there.

Sanders and Clinton both want higher wages for lower skilled workers - Clinton just believes that a too high minimum wage can actually lead to less jobs and that a $12 minimum wage is most effective in the short run for growth.

Sanders and Clinton both want to expand access to health care - Clinton just believes you can't overhaul the health care system twice in less than two decades and that there are variety of systems that give universal health care that aren't single payer .

Sanders and Clinton both want to expand access to college education - Clinton just believes that free college for everybody would be too expensive and that free college just makes it much easier for higher income kids to gain access to college and that expanding grants and low interest loans would be a better plan.

The only actual significant differences between Sanders and Clinton on the issues when it comes to goals is on foreign policy.

 

[Karsticles]

No. It's used to downplay the KEY differences (Hillary's regrettable low lights) in order to emphasize no-brainer votes and that no one cares about.

They both agreed to provide money to combat AIDS/HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. She's just like him!

It's a misleading argument that's overused here. We all the saw the debates and heard the talking points each candidate actually chooses to speak about. There is a meaningful difference between Clinton and Sanders. No one is convinced by the "they voted 93% of the time" argument other than die hard Clinton supporters and it's silly to continue using it.

It reminds me when people say that humans and chimpanzees have DNA that is 98% the same. Clearly that 2% is pretty damn important.

Note: in no way am I trying to call either candidate a monkey. I am just giving an example of how "93% the same" isn't exactly reassuring.

Where did you hear that she supported it because of 9/11, specifically?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA

This is her speech in regards to the vote.

Please keep in mind that I believe it was a huge mistake. I'm just curious as to where you got her reasons from.

I'll watch the video - thanks, and I appreciate you being one of the few non-aggressive people here.

It would be more accurate for me to say that I think she got swept into the vote as a result of the Bush Administration working with Fox News to create an association in the public consciousness between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Maybe she caved because she felt pressure from constituents, etc., but what I mean is that 9/11 was the catalyst that led her toward the vote, and so it can don a "because".

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Using debates as a metric is problematic though, because they are designed to focus exclusively on their differences. For example, topics such as abortion and women's rights were specifically ignored because the responses simply wouldn't be that controversial. You aren't seeing the denominator.

Obviously they have differences, especially in priorities, but there's a reason people are getting sick of "neo-liberal" as a meaningless buzzword being applied to every person on the left that doesn't pass an arbitrary purity test.

 

[Mintek]

It reminds me when people say that humans and chimpanzees have DNA that is 98% the same. Clearly that 2% is pretty damn important.

Note: in no way am I trying to call either candidate a monkey. I am just giving an example of how "93% the same" isn't exactly reassuring.

You're right. The percent that is all about protectionist policies isn't something that I am comfortable with.

 

[MIMIC]

I don't think many would argue there arent. The 93% thing is usually brought up when someone tries to claim that Clinton is a secret neoliberal neocon republican who will show her true face once she is elected.

Well that makes more sense to use it then.

 

[Valhelm]

Not really, Clinton and Sanders have the same goals - they just disagree on how to get there.

Sanders and Clinton both want higher wages for lower skilled workers - Clinton just believes that a too high minimum wage can actually lead to less jobs and that a $12 minimum wage is most effective in the short run for growth.

Sanders and Clinton both want to expand access to health care - Clinton just believes you can't overhaul the health care system twice in less than two decades and that there are variety of systems that give universal health care that aren't single payer .

Sanders and Clinton both want to expand access to college education - Clinton just believes that free college for everybody would be too expensive and that free college just makes it much easier for higher income kids to gain access to college and that expanding grants and low interest loans would be a better plan.

The only actual significant differences between Sanders and Clinton on the issues when it comes to goals is on foreign policy.

I disagree that Sanders and Clinton have the same goals. He is further to the left of her when it comes to fiscal policy, because he believes that capitalism is fundamentally a bad thing. She doesn't. Obviously, Bernie Sanders would never be able to turn the United States into a socialist country. Even Bernie recognizes this. But it's a pretty major distinction that marks a lot of their disagreements, if not their voting records.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

I don't think many would argue there arent. The 93% thing is usually brought up when someone tries to claim that Clinton is a secret neoliberal neocon republican who will show her true face once she is elected.

Even so it doesn't mean much. Just stating the number doesn't say what they voted on and they don't have much of choice what does get voted on.

Using debates as a metric is problematic though, because they are designed to focus exclusively on their differences. For example, topics such as abortion and women's rights were specifically ignored because the responses simply wouldn't be that controversial. You aren't seeing the denominator.

Obviously they have differences, especially in priorities, but there's a reason people are getting sick of "neo-liberal" as a meaningless buzzword being applied to every person on the left that doesn't pass an arbitrary purity test.

Definitely. The debates completely ignored TPP and plenty of other important topics.

 

[Elchele]

It's a misleading argument that's overused here. We all the saw the debates and heard the talking points each candidate actually chooses to speak about. There is a meaningful difference between Clinton and Sanders. No one is convinced by the "they voted 93% of the time" argument other than die hard Clinton supporters and it's silly to continue using it.

the 93% vote thing is about bills that actually made it to votation, doesn't it? I imagine most bills that Bernie proposed all over his career didn't even make it to votations so is a pretty stupid metric.

As you said, everyone here watched the debates and know that Bernie and Hillary are a long distance away. Even Obama is closer to Bernie than Hillary is. Like it or not, Hillary is center, leaning to the right. She tries to hide it because she wants to win.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

And of course, every individual is going to have their own personal weird criteria but they have to be able to step back from sometimes. For example, I'm very frustrated Sanders has such an anti-GMO stance, but I'm also willing to not make that a priority because 1) I acknowledge he's under immense political pressure to have that view 2) Even though I think he's wrong, I can recognize he doesn't prioritize it within his platform.

 

[Valhelm]

nvm

 

[nillah]

I honestly could see Sanders supporters not supporting anyone other than Bernie.

Both Sanders and Trump are similar in that they're going against all odds and against the establishment.

 

[JesseEwiak]

the 93% vote thing is about bills that actually made it to votation, doesn't it? I imagine most bills that Bernie proposed all over his career didn't even make it to votations so is a pretty stupid metric.

As you said, everyone here watched the debates and know that Bernie and Hillary are a long distance away. Even Obama is closer to Bernie than Hillary is. Like it or not, Hillary is center, leaning to the right. She tries to hide it because she wants to win.

No, she's really not. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards had one of the most policy free primary races in existence because outside of the Iraq War and some minor policy differences, they didn't disagree on the big issues at all.

The difference is, you like Obama. You don't like Clinton, so she must be a secret Republican. The truth is, they're both center-left on economics, socially liberal, and within the American mainstream on foreign policy.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

When the middle is just sitting there waiting to be taken, you don't turn you back and go back to your small tent club.

 

[ant1532]

Hilarious move Hil, love how you got your supporters, as seen here, perfectly fine again with money in politics especially even if its republican money. Woo. Lol, at the first responses trying to deny connection to her. It's her handlers.

Gaf apparently has no problem with US goverment at this point besides conservative social issues

 

[Piecake]

Well that makes more sense to use it then.

Just because someone does not vote with Bernie Sanders 7% of the time does not make them a conservative republican in disguise.

Even so it doesn't mean much. Just stating the number doesn't say what they voted on and they don't have much of choice what does get voted on.

It matters a whole lot because what constitutes a liberal and a conservative does not boil down to a few issues that you particularly care about. And if Clinton disagrees with you on one of those that does not mean that she is a conservative republican in disguise because she failed that purity litmus test.

 

[ultratruman]

I think Hillary could be one of these uniquely 'great' presidents, those who aggressively confront external challenges abroad while advancing a socially progressive agenda at home. LBJ was probably the last like that.

 

[120v]

i don't understand why this is an issue

some republican donors don't want trump to be president. so surrogates from the other party court their donations. i mean...

 

[ryutaro's mama]

This is the craziest cycle I have ever witnessed. I think with all this confusion, Trump might win the whole thing.

Van Jones was right.

 

[Macam]

Shocking: most of the ex-presidents are quite friendly with one another.

Jimmy Carter is, as far as I know, not quite friendly with any of the other ex-presidents. The Bush's are related so that doesn't count for much. Reagan's dead. The Clintons and Bush's are (especially Bill and Bush Sr), and that's about it.

So not sure why you think this beyond the occasional professional courtesy.

 

[Karsticles]

You're right. The percent that is all about protectionist policies isn't something that I am comfortable with.

That's fine - you can have your priorities.

And of course, every individual is going to have their own personal weird criteria but they have to be able to step back from sometimes. For example, I'm very frustrated Sanders has such an anti-GMO stance, but I'm also willing to not make that a priority because 1) I acknowledge he's under immense political pressure to have that view 2) Even though I think he's wrong, I can recognize he doesn't prioritize it within his platform.

Sanders is anti-GMO? That's disgusting.

I hope that doesn't upset anyone that wants me to only dislike Hillary and Trump!

I honestly could see Sanders supporters not supporting anyone other than Bernie.

Both Sanders and Trump are similar in that they're going against all odds and against the establishment.

To me, an endorsement means more than "lesser of two evils". When I write a letter of recommendation for a student of mine, I'm saying "Yes, I Karst think this person is good for this task", and I am putting my name to that. Consequently, if the person I recommend is not good, I feel blameworthy for having supported that person.

If I vote for Trump, then I need to be able to say "I do support the Wall!", etc.
If I vote for Hillary, then I need to be able to say "I love the idea of a "No Fly Zone" over Syria!"
If I vote for Sanders, then I need to be able to say "Yes, it's a good idea that GMOs are labeled."

I know most of GAF is utilitarian in their thought, and "the lesser of evils" is enough of a justification for their support, but that's not who I am. If the best our country can offer is idiot A, B, and C, then I'm fine not voting for anyone.

 

[Officerrob]

This is the craziest cycle I have ever witnessed. I think with all this confusion, Trump might win the whole thing.

Van Jones was right.

About that:

 

[Macam]

I think Hillary could be one of these uniquely 'great' presidents, those who aggressively confront external challenges abroad while advancing a socially progressive agenda at home. LBJ was probably the last like that.

This is hardly an encouraging viewpoint given Hillary's hawkish tendencies and, LBJ's record on, say, the Vietnam war. It makes the phrase "aggressively confront external challenges abroad" particularly cringe inducing.

 

[Abstrusity]

I'm actually starting to tire of the whole debate, at least for a few months.
Some other posters have said a large majority of those people are just hyped and revved up over the primary. A couple of months time between the primary will help make discussions less reactionary and more rational.

Do you need me to explain what happens to an open wound, left uncovered, uncleaned, to fester?

It doesn't heal very well. Crazies are going to be crazy, and I reaaaally think Dems would be wise to accept some more progressives in, or at LEAST offer them more than lip service.

The DNC has been run pretty badly, from an ideological standpoint. The only thing they're good at proper is getting money in their coffers.

 

[RPGCrazied]

yup

This is the craziest cycle I have ever witnessed. I think with all this confusion, Trump might win the whole thing.

Van Jones was right.

With these numbers? Seriously? Unless she gets in trouble with the FBI, and something happens to Sanders, Trump isn't getting to the white house, not happening.

EDIT: Beat! ;/

 

[chaosblade]

Hilarious move Hil, love how you got your supporters, as seen here, perfectly fine again with money in politics especially even if its republican money. Woo. Lol, at the first responses trying to deny connection to her. It's her handlers.

Gaf apparently has no problem with US goverment at this point besides conservative social issues

Did you see the thread where a ton of people realized that a single payer/govt healthcare system and free college would increase their taxes? Many if not most American posters in that thread noped on that hard.

 

[Melkezadek]

I'll watch the video - thanks, and I appreciate you being one of the few non-aggressive people here.

It would be more accurate for me to say that I think she got swept into the vote as a result of the Bush Administration working with Fox News to create an association in the public consciousness between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Maybe she caved because she felt pressure from constituents, etc., but what I mean is that 9/11 was the catalyst that led her toward the vote, and so it can don a "because".

While I appreciate your response, a lot of what you posted it nothing more than baseless assumptions. What reason to do you have to think this at all?

I'm sorry, but you seem to have this corrupt/opportunist character already painted in your head and you're twisting what we do know to fit that caricature.

If you've never seen the video I posted with her reasoning, why would you assume any of that in the first place?

 

[ryutaro's mama]

About that:

With these numbers? Seriously? Unless she gets in trouble with the FBI, and something happens to Sanders, Trump isn't getting to the white house, not happening.

EDIT: Beat! ;/

Jones actually spoken about Trump's unfavorables and what percentages those numbers he would need to flip to win. They aren't insurmountable. He hardly needs to get everyone or even 50% to come to his side.

He also spoke specifically about the potential trap of people assuming Hillary will win and taking their eyes off the road.

 

[Suikoguy]

Do you need me to explain what happens to an open wound, left uncovered, uncleaned, to fester?

It doesn't heal very well. Crazies are going to be crazy, and I reaaaally think Dems would be wise to accept some more progressives in, or at LEAST offer them more than lip service.

The DNC has been run pretty badly, from an ideological standpoint. The only thing they're good at proper is getting money in their coffers.

But you make the assumption that Sander's platform is that much different.

I don't like Sanders anti-nuclear, anti-gmo and anti-trade positions. Are you referring to those?

Breaking up the Big Banks? But how would you do that? I don't want the Dems adopting a platform where there is no feasible method of doing so.

I'd be curious to see what you think they should adopt, i'm willing to listen and consider most things

 

[TyrantII]

This is more about denying Trump campaign cash than it is a need for money on Clinton's part. Most of the GOP fundraising apparatus runs within Jeb/Romney circle, and he sure as hell isn't going to be coraling the whales for Trump.

Making it harder for Trump to fundraise is a good strategy.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

the 93% vote thing is about bills that actually made it to votation, doesn't it? I imagine most bills that Bernie proposed all over his career didn't even make it to votations so is a pretty stupid metric.

As you said, everyone here watched the debates and know that Bernie and Hillary are a long distance away. Even Obama is closer to Bernie than Hillary is. Like it or not, Hillary is center, leaning to the right. She tries to hide it because she wants to win.

If you want to talk about legislation proposed by Bernie, here's an example. Such a champion of strong progressive legislation.

I've watched the debates enough to know that Clinton treats me like an adult who understands that nuanced discussion of issues and not pivoting to simple populism will help achieve our mutual goals much better than yelling simplistic rhetoric. Luckily, most voters seem to agree. She also doesn't believe in anti-nuclear garbage and wouldn't vote for the PLCAA, so you're right in where the ideological gaps come from.

 

[gondwana]

I think Hillary could be one of these uniquely 'great' presidents, those who aggressively confront external challenges abroad while advancing a socially progressive agenda at home. LBJ was probably the last like that.

yeah, hopefully she starts a war in a third world country and a lot of brown people die and we get our wedge issues passed

#liberalgaf

 

[Suikoguy]

yeah, hopefully she starts a war in a third world country and a lot of brown people die and we get our wedge issues passed

#liberalgaf

Yeah, gotta vote for the candidate advocating for committing War Crimes.
What exactly was your point with this post?

 

[Abstrusity]

But you make the assumption that Sander's platform is that much different.

I don't like Sanders anti-nuclear, anti-gmo and anti-trade positions. Are you referring to those?

Breaking up the Big Banks? But how would you do that? I don't want the Dems adopting a platform where there is no feasible method of doing so.

I'd be curious to see what you think they should adopt, i'm willing to listen and consider most things

Honestly, I really don't think they even need to adopt many positions at all. Rather, they should publicize their victories much, much more than they do. We all know ACA, and its problems, what good it actually does, right? What else have Obama and the Dems done for us? A lot.

How much can the average person name out of hand?

There's a reason people don't vote so much, and it's because they don't feel like they get anything out of it. Obama was elected promising hope and change, that slogan was blasted across the airwaves, on t-shirts and posters, showing that he was savvy enough to get his message out without coming across as desperate, without obviously pandering. And the backlash when people, who, like MOST people, are relatively unlearned on what, exactly, they've managed to accomplish miss the forest for the trees, and people start getting antsy.

When Clinton says she'll continue Obama's policies, all she holds up is the ACA, and the quite literally easier to remember FAILURES than his SUCCESSES. The reason for this? Dems are afraid of their own successes. The loss of both Senate and House, hell, the previous 30 years of Democratic Party politics, has centered around getting more money than their opposition, but being strangely timid about boasting.

The average person knows nothing about nuclear power. Scary towers with white smoke billowing out of them isn't something that people think is good. Nevermind that the steam -- the water vapor -- never even comes in direct contact with the fuel never mind that it's safer.

The average person knows nothing about crops, their yields, or even what 'genetically modified' means. It automatically seems "bad" because it's "different from the norm," except...well, it IS the norm. most of the crops and most of the red meat we eat today are due to genetically modified crops and feed. Otherwise we wouldn't have enough food to be plentiful and cheap. It's caused very little, if any, damage. Does anyone care? Not really, no. The average person thinks it's bad. That's all that matters.

Anyone here know about economics? I happen to think free trade is a wonderful thing,but has consquences that need to be adapted to. Free trade did not kill any industries, the industries killed themselves by failing to adapt to the very free-trade they pushed for. It's not China, India, Canada, or Mexico that are taking our jobs, it's a piss-poor business 'standard' that puts short-term gain in front of long-term sustainability, a trademark of two periods -- the 1920s, and the 1980s.

Breaking up the banks won't really provide much succor to an ailing economy, nor would it have really made it so the recession didn't happen -- that was a failure of oversight, not 'too big to fail.' But again, nobody sees it that way, so the truth doesn't matter.

Politics is nothing BUT perception. If people don't feel like you're fighting for what they want, why SHOULD they vote for you? What, to keep Trump out of office? That'll work for the people that have already consumed the media runaround -- luckily enough, Trump has policy wonks scratching their heads, too -- but it's not going to work for anyone who wants to be neck deep in politicsand still has a head on their shoulders.

The truth is, the DNC needs to be able to keep its voters happy OR afraid. And from there, they also need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Look at the RNC. For generations, it's been nothing but a mess of fear mongering. The muslims want our freedoms. The mexicans want our jobs. The liberals want you to work so they don't have to, the blacks just want free stuff. The hitch is that literally none of this is true. Muslims want to not be slaughtered, Mexicans just want to not be slaughtered, the liberals want to work, AND want to provide people that can't the means to survive until they can, and blacks want that, too.

So we go to the DNC, and what do they offer? "The RNC says that muslims want our freedoms,a nd mexicans want your jobs, and THEY want to make sure that if you're too poor to survive, well you should find a ditch!"

 

[BlastProcessing]

If you want to talk about legislation proposed by Bernie, here's an example. Such a champion of strong progressive legislation.

I've watched the debates enough to know that Clinton treats me like an adult who understands that nuanced discussion of issues and not pivoting to simple populism will help achieve our mutual goals much better than yelling simplistic rhetoric. Luckily, most voters seem to agree. She also doesn't believe in anti-nuclear garbage and wouldn't vote for the PLCAA, so you're right in where the ideological gaps come from.

No fair just posting a summary; you should post the whole Bill.