The implication being that people posting takes like that shouldn't be allowed to post on this forum.
Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden for President
- Thread starter ValiantChaos
- Start date
Again, I think Trump is a unique incumbent because I can't remember the last Republican President Democrats (and even Independents) openly despised as much. So you might be right. And, morbidly, Trump might cause enough damage with COVID-19 that people decide four more years of his administration is too horrifying of a concept to bear, so it's possible voters turn out against him. This is probably the election with the most unique and, frankly, bizarre circumstances in decades, so nothing is certain for me.
Trump won off of racial resentment and there are a wealth of studies that back this up.
Why? Why shouldn't someone with takes like that be allowed to post here? Is he breaking any rules?
Or are you just angry with what he said?
That still involves the concept of shame. If someone shouldn't be allowed to post here, that implies that they have done something the community does not condone. When someone does such an action, punishment is often paired with shaming.
Shame is a social means to dissuade people from actions considered undesirable in a given community.
Do you think I'm talking about The Adder? I'm not. He can have whatever opinion he wants about shame. I'm talking about some of the people in the other pages that are currently duration pending.
No, look at the votes. Hillary Clinton had more votes than Donald Trump.
You guys are arguing but you're both right. There's no one single reason why Trump won — there's a variety of factors. The electoral college, America's rampant racism and bigotry, Russian interference, GOP voter obstruction efforts, Fox News propaganda, how goddamn stupid half this country is, etc
You both can be right.
The racial resentment drove his numbers in the states that went to him and moved the electoral college.
The thing about Trump is that he's weaponized that kind of resentment that Republicans wield in a way that no other Republican had. If he had been about 3/4s as poor a leader a he's been during his term I wouldn't think he could be unseated. A Trump that didn't fuck it up, even if he was otherwise ineffective, wouldn't motivate enough fear in the population needed to turnout to unseat him. Fortunately he did fuck it up. He's been stoking his bas's fears with all the deep state conspiracy rhetoric. They genuinely believe it. They have to in order to maintain their victimhood even when they're in total control. But he's got people who were chill on him last election scared.
Yes, Clinton ran up the score in places where Trump's racial resentment tactics scared people into voting against him. Places like California, that we were always going to win. Unfortunately, it stirred up people in the rural areas of places we needed to win (see the surge in Florida) without scaring the suburbanite white folks away.
You were replying to him, so that was my natural conclusion.
If you meant differently, you weren't clear about it in your posts.
You say he has opinions about shame, but I think he's merely stating fact.
Mmmmm, I'm not sure tbh. I feel like a lot of fence-sitting Republicans have tasted blood and love it and are all in on the wanna-be white nationalist gig, and are ready to fall in line for Trump if they didn't before. And incumbents haven't lost in 30 years. I wouldn't mind being wrong though. Hillary chipping at the blue wall was kind of demoralizing (this is coming from someone who vastly preferred Bernie but sucked it up and told everyone to vote Hillary), but if Biden swings it back... it'll be impressive. We'll see. I may not like Biden but it'd be a nice kick in the balls to Trump and the party that they lost because they fucked up so badly.
Last edited:
i have no idea why anyone even thinks this after 2016 and then seeing 2020.
People should vote however they want. I'm just kinda tired for accelerationism arguments for it.
I'm with you in this regard. I'm also concerned that the media narrative about Hillary being inevitable in 2016 may have depressed turnout from some Trump sympathetic people who might show up this time. And I hope I'm wrong. I don't think there's any data backing it up but ii think Democrats must consider all variables that could cost them in November.
On topic, good on Bernie for ending his campaign and endorsing Biden. Despite people's reservations about Biden, I think he understands that party unity is key to defeating Trump although I also think Bernie and Biden are good friends so his endorsement was probably inevitable anyway.
I don't think I would characterize anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 as having done so "depressed" aside from maybe Mitt Romney. They were havin' a good ol' time hootin' and hollerin' over getting to ride out with the boys to a "rally" where no one would tell them to keep it down when they started chanting racist slogans for once. Trump's base was nothing if not enthusiastic.
Biden is a garbage candidate but I suppose since Sanders is a Dem then this was always going to happen if he lost. What I am interested in is if he exerted any leverage on Biden to change some of his awful positions. If not, then very disappointed in Sanders. Either way, Sanders has had his time. Now the left needs to look for greater inspiration, and it certainly exists. Formal politics is incredibly resistent to change. To some degree the political orthodoxy needs to be broken...maybe Corona will exert some pressure there, but it may be we need more disruption. Entrenched power doesn't conceed much, unless it is destabilised...
I mean I would prefer Biden over Trump, but even with Biden, he would need to be held to the fire, since a lot of his policy positions aren't that good and what is is a bit fluffy. His record isn't promising either, despite hanging on Obama's coat tails for dear life. Sadly the state of much of public consciousness is terrible, but that is what manufacturing consent and an extremely disengaged political system does to you.
I mean I would prefer Biden over Trump, but even with Biden, he would need to be held to the fire, since a lot of his policy positions aren't that good and what is is a bit fluffy. His record isn't promising either, despite hanging on Obama's coat tails for dear life. Sadly the state of much of public consciousness is terrible, but that is what manufacturing consent and an extremely disengaged political system does to you.
I cannot understand why more progressives/leftists are getting upset and throwing their arms up in disgust at electoralism.
We have never had this many leftwing/leftist/progressives in the democratic party at any point in our time. You just helped us get rid of Lipinski with Newman!
We have never had this many leftwing/leftist/progressives in the democratic party at any point in our time. You just helped us get rid of Lipinski with Newman!
Not really referring to Trump's base, who would've shown up regardless and will do so this year, but the less enthusiastic people that might have thought the media narrative of Trump's loss and therefore voting was wasting their time but who might feel differently this time. These are people who like Trump but believed that Hillary was going to win. I'm speculating off course but many off us, including myself, were caught off guard by Trump's victory and I wouldn't be surprised if there were people on the right who felt the same.
And we were fought by every step of the way by the DNC and the DCCC. The truth is more conservative/centrist leaning candidates only have to worry about the other party. Leftists have to worry about the other party, their own party, and the media. That's a rough outlook. Not insurmountable, but rough.
The major party backers are not goi g to back a far left candidate without a major block of far left congressfolks in office to support that agenda.
and even so, they would never back someone who hadn't carted the flag so to speak, in other words a party veteran over and independent running for their nomination.
This is why Warren losing was rather a sore point. She had the experience and the clout, and waved the dem flag for years, yet never found traction. If Bernie hadn't run then who knows?
now the biggest challenge is how to rally enough to the polls to counter the lockstep voting block that is the gop. The massive propaganda push is just goi g to make that task even harder.
and even so, they would never back someone who hadn't carted the flag so to speak, in other words a party veteran over and independent running for their nomination.
This is why Warren losing was rather a sore point. She had the experience and the clout, and waved the dem flag for years, yet never found traction. If Bernie hadn't run then who knows?
now the biggest challenge is how to rally enough to the polls to counter the lockstep voting block that is the gop. The massive propaganda push is just goi g to make that task even harder.
If you're Sanders, either you spend the next four years with a president who will sign any bill you manage to get through Congress (even if you would've preferred a more leftwing president who would've been actively rallying people around Sanders-style bills) or you get Trump, who will veto anything you ever pass.
And the same logic really holds for anyone who supported Sanders' policies. No, you're not getting an actual leftist in the White House. You're not getting someone you agree with. It sucks, it's a bitter pill to swallow, and I totally get if the wounds are a bit too raw to swallow it here in the next few weeks. But ultimately, you still have lots of leftist reps in Congress, who only have one option for president if you want anything they do for the next four years to matter. Otherwise, all the work people have put into electing those people gets wasted as more meaningless opposition to Trump.
And the same logic really holds for anyone who supported Sanders' policies. No, you're not getting an actual leftist in the White House. You're not getting someone you agree with. It sucks, it's a bitter pill to swallow, and I totally get if the wounds are a bit too raw to swallow it here in the next few weeks. But ultimately, you still have lots of leftist reps in Congress, who only have one option for president if you want anything they do for the next four years to matter. Otherwise, all the work people have put into electing those people gets wasted as more meaningless opposition to Trump.
Any Leftist incumbents would get the same party support from the party against a centrist primary challenge. Party always defends the incumbent.
You fight for the direction of the party in the primaries and then everyone comes together in the general election to stop Republicans. It is the only way anything left will ever get done.
It's on moderates to unify and come together when a more progressive candidate wins the primary and it's on the progressives to unify and come together when a moderate wins the primary.
It is the only way we will get new healthcare or environmental policy through.
The Tea Party elected a bunch of hardcore conservatives to Congress, and Republicans became far more conservative and obstructive after losing power everywhere.
I feel like citations are needed with this, "Democrats get more moderate." The only thing I can think of was Clinton, which is one data point for a point in time that's different than now. Democrats went with the moderate and lost in 2004 instead of going for the guy who actually could draw contrasts on the big issue at the time. In 2006, Democrats were jumping over themselves to oppose the War in Iraq and more and more were articulating problems with the PATRIOT Act. That led to Obama eagerly going after McCain on the same issue and campaigning on big spending and universal health care in a time of economic crisis.
FDR came after three terms of Republicans and was one of the most liberal presidents of the 20th Century with the New Deal. JFK and LBJ came after two-term Eisenhower and ushers in the Great Society.
The "moderates" were running on $15 minimum wage and expansive health care initiatives. This also ignores how progressive challengers did better than previous moderate candidates did in the same position. I live in Florida, and Gillum did the best a Democrat did since 1994 when the Democrat won the governor's mansion. Every moderate we threw out there did worse in 98, 02, 06, 10, and 14. Same with Abrams. "But Abrams lost!" Look at how the "moderates" did in governors' races before her.
There were some people calling themselves moderates who supported M4A. You have to look past what pundits label them and look actually at what they believe, lest we keep pretending people like Susan Collins are moderates.
Bingo. For example the DCCC are fully backing Rashida Tlaib against her primary opponent. Her opponent who happens to be the more moderate congresswoman that Tlaib beat in the 2018 primary.
The DCCC doesn't back moderates. It supports whoever their incumbent is. It works like a union. It protects its members.
Bernie understands that this election is more important than having the ideal progressive candidate on the ballot or a perfect platform. No, we probably won't get M4A in the next 4 years. Hell, we likely wouldn't have gotten it even if Bernie had won. But this is bigger than M4A. Look at who is currently occupying the White House. An egomaniacal, authoritarian madman who is the absolute antithesis of everything progressives stand for, whose policies and general incompetence have been incredibly harmful. Defeating Trump should absolutely be our #1 priority in November. Our only choices are "Vote to remove Trump from office" or "Don't vote to remove Trump from office."
What has me extremely worried is that we've already been hearing some progressives once again flirt with the idea of sitting at home or voting third-party on Election Day. Bernie lost, fair and square. Most Democratic primary voters once again wanted someone other than Sanders. But some progressives think that the results of the primaries are an outrage and want to once again protest the results by not voting Democrat in November. This is madness. Have we not yet learned our lessons from 2000 and 2016? Our elections are zero-sum contests! Every progressive that doesn't vote Democrat puts the Republicans one vote closer to victory. In our system of government, with our system of rules, this is the reality. You play the game by the rules as they are, not by how you wish the rules to be.
I'm old enough to have voted in the 2000 election. I remember it quite clearly. Nearly 3 million voters, mostly progressives angry that Gore got the nomination over Bill Bradley (even though Gore won 75% of the primary vote to Bradley's 20%), voted for Ralph Nader. This was enough to cost Gore the states of Florida and New Hampshire, and thus the election. Had just 2% of Nader voters instead decided to switch to Gore on Election Day, there wouldn't have been the Bush v. Gore case in the first place. The Supreme Court case gets most of the focus over Gore getting screwed in 2000, but that was only the proximate cause. The ultimate cause was that there were enough progressives who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a moderate Democrat. Al Gore didn't pass their litmus test. They refused to vote for anyone other than a "real progressive." They cared more about having an ideal candidate than they did about defeating Republicans. And this happened once again in 2016, with Trump winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by razor-thin margins, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to win those states in decades. Had more progressives voted for Hillary instead of sitting at home or voting third-party, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The spoiler effect is very, very real, and we cannot afford to treat it as if it's not.
Republicans don't have this mentality. They may rail against "RINOs," and they may seek to subject them to a primary challenge, but they'll vote for them come the general election. The conservative base is far less likely to turn their noses up at a candidate that's not quite far right enough. Why? Because they want to win! However much they dislike a Republican candidate, they hate the Democrats infinitely more. They want to see as many Democrats removed from office as possible. And since they want to win, they believe that it's their responsibility to vote Republican to try to make that outcome happen. They know that, even if the Republican candidate isn't as conservative as they'd like, that said candidate would still nominate conservative Supreme Court justices and push for legislation that advances the conservative agenda, or at minimum at least stop the Democratic agenda in its tracks. Many Republicans were "Never Trump-ers" during the 2016 primaries, but once Trump secured the nomination, they were quick to put on the red MAGA caps and rally behind their new leader.
What do progressives think they'll gain by not voting Biden? Do they think they're sending a message/teaching a lesson to the DNC? Do they think the DNC is obligated to prohibit moderate candidates from running? Should the DNC consult only progressive members of the base and make sure any candidates pass muster with them. Do moderate Democratic voters not get a say in any of this? The Democratic base is not as progressive as we would like (though it's gradually getting there). The DNC didn't owe us a Bernie Sanders nomination. They didn't even have to let him run as a Democrat in the first place, because he isn't one. He chose to run as a Democrat because it was the sensible thing to do, and the DNC let him. But most Democratic voters still don't want him, even more so than last election. In every primary so far, Sanders had a smaller share of the vote than he did in 2016, even in states where it was just him and Biden. Progressives need to realize that not every Democrat shares the same enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders as they do. Moderate Democrats are more likely to vote for moderate/establishment candidates. African-American voters are more likely to vote for establishment candidates. Progressives need to stop blaming the DNC for everything. Bernie simply didn't appeal to a broad enough segment of the Democratic base.
I may not know what progressives think they stand to gain by not voting for moderate Democrats, but I do know what they stand to lose: EVERYTHING! The longer Republicans stay in power, the more damage they can do. The GOP is constantly chomping at the bit to undo every progressive reform at least as far back as the New Deal. If we gave them half the chance, they'd do it in a heartbeat. These elections are not a game. It is counterproductive to sit at home or vote third-party out of protest because you're pissed that most of your fellow Democrats didn't want to vote for the progressive candidate.
If you're currently a fence-sitting progressive not sold on Biden, or you think there's no difference between a moderate Democrat and a right-wing Republican, or you're even considering thumbing your nose at the majority of Democratic voters that, once again, voted differently from you, ask yourself these questions:
Which presidential candidate is more likely to nominate right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, and which one is more likely to nominate moderate or even liberal justices? Which party is the one that's responsible for Neil Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court instead of Merrick Garland?
Which party is the one always seeking to implement supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy, thus causing the U.S. to have worst income inequality of any developed nation, as well as budget deficits that are used as an excuse to avoid spending on social programs?
Which party is the one that accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change and it most likely to take actions that would reduce carbon emissions? Which one is the one that claims that climate scientists are lying to us and that global warming is a hoax designed to harm our economy, and is working to gut necessary environmental regulations on the basis of those claims?
Which party is the one actively going out of its way to make it harder for people (esp. poor people, who are disproportionately non-white) to vote? Which party is the one more likely to support voter rights?
Which party is the one actively seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade and bring an end to reproductive freedom for women? Which one is the one that is most likely to defend reproductive rights?
Which party is the one that has been defending LGBT rights, and which one has fought expansion of those rights at every turn?
Which party is the one actively seeking to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (which was better than the system we had before, even if it wasn't ideal)? Which party is more likely, at least in the long run (and with continued pressure), to implement universal health care?
Which party is the one most likely to treat immigrants as human beings with rights? Which party is the one intentionally splitting up immigrant families and putting the children in cages because they believe people who don't come to this country without doing the proper paperwork are an invading horde? Which party has a leader that has repeatedly, openly, and gleefully made racist comments that have effectively dehumanized people seeking a better life?
Which party is more likely to increase the minimum wage, and which one is the one that believes that increasing the minimum wage (or even having one at all) is bad for businesses?
Who is more likely to treat the mere act of governance itself seriously, to believe that the government has an obligation to help its people, and to believe that, yes, government solutions to national problems can work?
In short, who is more likely to enact policies that you approve of, and who is more likely to enact policies you don't approve of? The Democrats or the Republicans? If you think there's no difference between the two, you haven't been paying attention. If you're a progressive, the Democrats may give you only 80% of what your want, but the Republicans will give you zero percent of what you want and actively work to undo existing progressive reforms, because the GOP hates everything you support.
Our choices this November couldn't be any more stark. Trump is our national nightmare. He needs to be voted out of office. The only way for that to happen is for everyone who hates Trump to be on the same page and vote for Biden in November. And not just Biden, but for every Democrat in every down-ballot race. We need to make Moscow Mitch the ex-Senate Majority Leader. We need to hold on to the House. We need to flip as many state legislatures and governor's mansions blue as possible. We need to ensure that the person picking Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement is a Democrat, and not Donald Trump. If you believe Trump, his administration, and the GOP in general are bad for America, then you have a moral responsibility to vote to remove them from office. Spare me the "lesser of two evils" arguments. Innuendo Studios addressed this argument, and the entire issue of refusing to vote for a less-than-ideal candidate, in his most recent video.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries both this year and in 2016 because I felt he was the best candidate, because he's the best on the issues, and because he comes across as a genuinely good person at heart, something in short supply these days. But he's not who the majority of Democratic voters want. It sucks, but we have to live with it, and we are not entitled to have our ideal candidate win the nomination. Defeating Trump and Republicans should be our absolute #1 priority. We absolutely cannot afford four more years of that lying, egomaniacal, narcissistic, ignorant, incompetent wannabe dictator. Even a centrist Democrat like Biden is still infinitely better that the lunatic currently sitting in the Oval Office. We cannot afford to have a conservative Supreme Court supermajority for the next 20-30 years. We cannot afford four more years of inaction and even downright pro-pollution action on matters of climate. We cannot afford to have authoritarian religious ideologues dictating social policy. We cannot afford to lose the gains we made in the House in 2018. We cannot afford to leave the Senate in the hands of Mitch McConnell's obstructionist GOP faction.
In November, vote straight-ticket Democrat. I've done so for the past two decades. I view it as not only my right, but as my obligation. Even when I don't get the ideal candidates, I still vote for them, because I care more about defeating the Republicans than I do about having the most progressive candidate possible. Letting Trump spend another four years as President of the United States is not doing the right thing. I owe it to myself, to every American, to every human being impacted by what America does, to vote Trump out of office.
And that's all I have to say about that.
What has me extremely worried is that we've already been hearing some progressives once again flirt with the idea of sitting at home or voting third-party on Election Day. Bernie lost, fair and square. Most Democratic primary voters once again wanted someone other than Sanders. But some progressives think that the results of the primaries are an outrage and want to once again protest the results by not voting Democrat in November. This is madness. Have we not yet learned our lessons from 2000 and 2016? Our elections are zero-sum contests! Every progressive that doesn't vote Democrat puts the Republicans one vote closer to victory. In our system of government, with our system of rules, this is the reality. You play the game by the rules as they are, not by how you wish the rules to be.
I'm old enough to have voted in the 2000 election. I remember it quite clearly. Nearly 3 million voters, mostly progressives angry that Gore got the nomination over Bill Bradley (even though Gore won 75% of the primary vote to Bradley's 20%), voted for Ralph Nader. This was enough to cost Gore the states of Florida and New Hampshire, and thus the election. Had just 2% of Nader voters instead decided to switch to Gore on Election Day, there wouldn't have been the Bush v. Gore case in the first place. The Supreme Court case gets most of the focus over Gore getting screwed in 2000, but that was only the proximate cause. The ultimate cause was that there were enough progressives who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a moderate Democrat. Al Gore didn't pass their litmus test. They refused to vote for anyone other than a "real progressive." They cared more about having an ideal candidate than they did about defeating Republicans. And this happened once again in 2016, with Trump winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by razor-thin margins, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to win those states in decades. Had more progressives voted for Hillary instead of sitting at home or voting third-party, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The spoiler effect is very, very real, and we cannot afford to treat it as if it's not.
Republicans don't have this mentality. They may rail against "RINOs," and they may seek to subject them to a primary challenge, but they'll vote for them come the general election. The conservative base is far less likely to turn their noses up at a candidate that's not quite far right enough. Why? Because they want to win! However much they dislike a Republican candidate, they hate the Democrats infinitely more. They want to see as many Democrats removed from office as possible. And since they want to win, they believe that it's their responsibility to vote Republican to try to make that outcome happen. They know that, even if the Republican candidate isn't as conservative as they'd like, that said candidate would still nominate conservative Supreme Court justices and push for legislation that advances the conservative agenda, or at minimum at least stop the Democratic agenda in its tracks. Many Republicans were "Never Trump-ers" during the 2016 primaries, but once Trump secured the nomination, they were quick to put on the red MAGA caps and rally behind their new leader.
What do progressives think they'll gain by not voting Biden? Do they think they're sending a message/teaching a lesson to the DNC? Do they think the DNC is obligated to prohibit moderate candidates from running? Should the DNC consult only progressive members of the base and make sure any candidates pass muster with them. Do moderate Democratic voters not get a say in any of this? The Democratic base is not as progressive as we would like (though it's gradually getting there). The DNC didn't owe us a Bernie Sanders nomination. They didn't even have to let him run as a Democrat in the first place, because he isn't one. He chose to run as a Democrat because it was the sensible thing to do, and the DNC let him. But most Democratic voters still don't want him, even more so than last election. In every primary so far, Sanders had a smaller share of the vote than he did in 2016, even in states where it was just him and Biden. Progressives need to realize that not every Democrat shares the same enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders as they do. Moderate Democrats are more likely to vote for moderate/establishment candidates. African-American voters are more likely to vote for establishment candidates. Progressives need to stop blaming the DNC for everything. Bernie simply didn't appeal to a broad enough segment of the Democratic base.
I may not know what progressives think they stand to gain by not voting for moderate Democrats, but I do know what they stand to lose: EVERYTHING! The longer Republicans stay in power, the more damage they can do. The GOP is constantly chomping at the bit to undo every progressive reform at least as far back as the New Deal. If we gave them half the chance, they'd do it in a heartbeat. These elections are not a game. It is counterproductive to sit at home or vote third-party out of protest because you're pissed that most of your fellow Democrats didn't want to vote for the progressive candidate.
If you're currently a fence-sitting progressive not sold on Biden, or you think there's no difference between a moderate Democrat and a right-wing Republican, or you're even considering thumbing your nose at the majority of Democratic voters that, once again, voted differently from you, ask yourself these questions:
Which presidential candidate is more likely to nominate right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, and which one is more likely to nominate moderate or even liberal justices? Which party is the one that's responsible for Neil Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court instead of Merrick Garland?
Which party is the one always seeking to implement supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy, thus causing the U.S. to have worst income inequality of any developed nation, as well as budget deficits that are used as an excuse to avoid spending on social programs?
Which party is the one that accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change and it most likely to take actions that would reduce carbon emissions? Which one is the one that claims that climate scientists are lying to us and that global warming is a hoax designed to harm our economy, and is working to gut necessary environmental regulations on the basis of those claims?
Which party is the one actively going out of its way to make it harder for people (esp. poor people, who are disproportionately non-white) to vote? Which party is the one more likely to support voter rights?
Which party is the one actively seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade and bring an end to reproductive freedom for women? Which one is the one that is most likely to defend reproductive rights?
Which party is the one that has been defending LGBT rights, and which one has fought expansion of those rights at every turn?
Which party is the one actively seeking to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (which was better than the system we had before, even if it wasn't ideal)? Which party is more likely, at least in the long run (and with continued pressure), to implement universal health care?
Which party is the one most likely to treat immigrants as human beings with rights? Which party is the one intentionally splitting up immigrant families and putting the children in cages because they believe people who don't come to this country without doing the proper paperwork are an invading horde? Which party has a leader that has repeatedly, openly, and gleefully made racist comments that have effectively dehumanized people seeking a better life?
Which party is more likely to increase the minimum wage, and which one is the one that believes that increasing the minimum wage (or even having one at all) is bad for businesses?
Who is more likely to treat the mere act of governance itself seriously, to believe that the government has an obligation to help its people, and to believe that, yes, government solutions to national problems can work?
In short, who is more likely to enact policies that you approve of, and who is more likely to enact policies you don't approve of? The Democrats or the Republicans? If you think there's no difference between the two, you haven't been paying attention. If you're a progressive, the Democrats may give you only 80% of what your want, but the Republicans will give you zero percent of what you want and actively work to undo existing progressive reforms, because the GOP hates everything you support.
Our choices this November couldn't be any more stark. Trump is our national nightmare. He needs to be voted out of office. The only way for that to happen is for everyone who hates Trump to be on the same page and vote for Biden in November. And not just Biden, but for every Democrat in every down-ballot race. We need to make Moscow Mitch the ex-Senate Majority Leader. We need to hold on to the House. We need to flip as many state legislatures and governor's mansions blue as possible. We need to ensure that the person picking Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement is a Democrat, and not Donald Trump. If you believe Trump, his administration, and the GOP in general are bad for America, then you have a moral responsibility to vote to remove them from office. Spare me the "lesser of two evils" arguments. Innuendo Studios addressed this argument, and the entire issue of refusing to vote for a less-than-ideal candidate, in his most recent video.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries both this year and in 2016 because I felt he was the best candidate, because he's the best on the issues, and because he comes across as a genuinely good person at heart, something in short supply these days. But he's not who the majority of Democratic voters want. It sucks, but we have to live with it, and we are not entitled to have our ideal candidate win the nomination. Defeating Trump and Republicans should be our absolute #1 priority. We absolutely cannot afford four more years of that lying, egomaniacal, narcissistic, ignorant, incompetent wannabe dictator. Even a centrist Democrat like Biden is still infinitely better that the lunatic currently sitting in the Oval Office. We cannot afford to have a conservative Supreme Court supermajority for the next 20-30 years. We cannot afford four more years of inaction and even downright pro-pollution action on matters of climate. We cannot afford to have authoritarian religious ideologues dictating social policy. We cannot afford to lose the gains we made in the House in 2018. We cannot afford to leave the Senate in the hands of Mitch McConnell's obstructionist GOP faction.
In November, vote straight-ticket Democrat. I've done so for the past two decades. I view it as not only my right, but as my obligation. Even when I don't get the ideal candidates, I still vote for them, because I care more about defeating the Republicans than I do about having the most progressive candidate possible. Letting Trump spend another four years as President of the United States is not doing the right thing. I owe it to myself, to every American, to every human being impacted by what America does, to vote Trump out of office.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Last edited:
Gotta love how the discourse went from they dont need Bernie voters to if you dont switch from Bernie to Biden your literally voting trump.
I've said before in another thread that you aren't being realistic, asked you to explain how Biden would be replaced without making those who voted for him feel disenfranchised. You ignored my post.
I've said many times, if people around him and his supporters actually cared about victims they would personally and publicly shame and attack him like they would any other right wing rapist and destroy his will to continue in general. He would drop out like the weak pile of shit he is if people stood up to him over this. Most of his voters didn't even know who Tara Reade was when they cast their vote and things have changed since then. Hes a predator, any voter that takes exception with holding him responsible for that can kick rocks with the Trumpers. He is not inevitable unless people make him and so far people are making him. They circled the wagons by looking the other way, that is is a choice. No one's hands are forced here, people are taking the easy way out and CONSCIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY throwing victims under the bus with their silence.
But why does that question matter so much here? Rather- why is that feeling the main concern? Yes, because they can't exactly redo the primaries, people who voted for him would definitely feel that and that feeling would be legitimately bad. But is that more important than appropriate treatment of a rapist? Despite there being ways to avoid it, we should commit to the rapist candidate just because people voted for him (almost entirely before knowing he was one)?
Besides, plenty of people still haven't voted at all. So one answer for minimizing that feeling is just "the sooner the better", I guess? But I don't really mean to be flippant - it is a terrible situation, and even as someone who voted for Bernie I would certainly feel like a replacement nominee would be picked without my voice being heard. I certainly wouldn't expect a replacement to be someone I like! But I don't think that feeling is necessarily more important than the rather simple idea that it's bad for a rapist to become president.
Plus, legitimate question here: if the way the primaries went had resulted in this all only getting settled at the convention, couldn't this same situation of suddenly picking a nominee have happened anyway? And we know they were already kinda looking to replace him, which is why I'd realistically expect any replacement to be said to be for health and such reasons rather than actually acknowledging the allegations, so... shouldn't they already have a plan for how to deal with that feeling anyway?
Did you know that most presidents follow through on campaign promises? They do. If they don't they're usually punished in elections. This is part of why trump is throwing major tantrums over the economy.
High Five. And I think even though you are super concerned, you don't need to be. There are differences from 2000. It took a widespread issue of people refusing to vote (much larger than the small contingent we see so far this cycle) on top of Nader to do it. And even then, please remember the loss was RAZOR thin. Gore barely lost even with all that. Those variables aren't so stacked this time, and the situation of Trump's presidency is a hot mess on top of it. So we need not worry about a repeat of 2000, but I really appreciate the message. Its so true and I remember that election as clear as a bell. Learned hard lessons watching the fallout after it.