3 ms·

Were you going to vote for the guy who later endorsed the corporate-owned neoconservative warhawk? Because, given that, it seems like his principles weren't wor

Were you going to vote for the guy who later endorsed the corporate-owned neoconservative warhawk? Because, given that, it seems like his principles weren't worth very much.

socialist_coder 10y ago
Such a bad and tired argument. He was doing it to try and stop Trump from getting elected. As a hardcore Sanders supporter, I am behind that decision 100%.
- jeff_petersen 10y ago
  I fail to see how stopping Trump from winning is a palatable outcome if the alternate option is Clinton winning. She is diametrically opposed to just about every progressive position, I don't see how any progressive could support her in good conscience. Unless of course it's more important that the team you identify with wins than what the principles that team stands for are.
  - socialist_coder 10y ago
    If you truly consider yourself a progressive, take a minute to really think rationally about the situation. Put aside your emotions for Sanders. I know it's hard, and it took me a long time to come to grips with the situation before I could do that. I was very close to voting for Trump because of how terrible I thought Clinton was. But, if you really think rationally about it, supporting Clinton is clearly the best option. Under Clinton you still get many progressive policy pushes - paid leave, higher minimum wage, protecting abortion, stopping Republican voter suppression, and most importantly, SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS! The supreme court nominations alone should be enough to convince you, and the rest is just icing on the cake. Not the mention, Trump supporters feel like they can be openly racist (which was my fear if Trump won, and sure enough, it has become a reality). So yes, Clinton is a great option when compared to Trump.
    - jeff_petersen 10y ago
      > The supreme court nominations alone should be enough to convince you They did. I do not want Hillary Clinton appointing judges to the supreme court any more than I want Trump doing it. Again, Hillary is not a progressive, so I see no reason to believe that her justice picks would be. You haven't really made a convincing argument in her favor, you've essentially said "yes, she would have been an awful authoritarian who would continue and amplify the bad policies we already had, but at least she paid lip service to some inconsequential social wedge issues that serve as uniforms for my team!" edit: It's especially disappointing that Hillary didn't lose by an even wider margin. Perhaps if the Democrats got bitten hard enough by their failed strategy we could have a chance at some real reform in four years. Instead people like you rewarded their avarice and deceit, so we can expect things to continue like this.
    - masonic 10y ago
      "...paid leave, higher minimum wage, protecting abortion, stopping Republican voter suppression..." When she was a Senator, she did absolutely nothing on any of those fronts (or immigration)... even when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
      - bbatsell 10y ago
        George W. Bush was president during her entire Senate career (save one day, technically). When Obama was elected, she became Secretary of State.
        masonic 10y ago
        Technically, she was also Senator for two weeks while Bill was still President in January 2001. The broader point is that she made no efforts in those areas on the legislative front, even when Democrats held the majority in both houses.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 10y ago
His only other alternative would have been to run on the Green ticket, and that probably wouldn't have worked out well for a number of reasons. As things shook out, he somehow ended up the de facto leader of a Democratic party that he hasn't even officially joined yet. If things had come out the other way, he would have pull for having brought his followers around and the chairmanship of a Senate committee. If he had been a failed Green party candidate, he would have been out of politics by now. As it was, his answers to specific questions about what he endorsed about Clinton were so carefully phrased that he sounded like Clinton talking about emails.

Were you going to vote for the guy who later endorsed the corporate-owned neoconservative warhawk? Because, given that, it seems like his principles weren't worth very much.

socialist_coder 10y ago

Such a bad and tired argument. He was doing it to try and stop Trump from getting elected. As a hardcore Sanders supporter, I am behind that decision 100%.

jeff_petersen 10y ago
I fail to see how stopping Trump from winning is a palatable outcome if the alternate option is Clinton winning. She is diametrically opposed to just about every progressive position, I don't see how any progressive could support her in good conscience. Unless of course it's more important that the team you identify with wins than what the principles that team stands for are.
- socialist_coder 10y ago
  If you truly consider yourself a progressive, take a minute to really think rationally about the situation. Put aside your emotions for Sanders. I know it's hard, and it took me a long time to come to grips with the situation before I could do that. I was very close to voting for Trump because of how terrible I thought Clinton was. But, if you really think rationally about it, supporting Clinton is clearly the best option. Under Clinton you still get many progressive policy pushes - paid leave, higher minimum wage, protecting abortion, stopping Republican voter suppression, and most importantly, SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS! The supreme court nominations alone should be enough to convince you, and the rest is just icing on the cake. Not the mention, Trump supporters feel like they can be openly racist (which was my fear if Trump won, and sure enough, it has become a reality). So yes, Clinton is a great option when compared to Trump.
  - jeff_petersen 10y ago
    > The supreme court nominations alone should be enough to convince you They did. I do not want Hillary Clinton appointing judges to the supreme court any more than I want Trump doing it. Again, Hillary is not a progressive, so I see no reason to believe that her justice picks would be. You haven't really made a convincing argument in her favor, you've essentially said "yes, she would have been an awful authoritarian who would continue and amplify the bad policies we already had, but at least she paid lip service to some inconsequential social wedge issues that serve as uniforms for my team!" edit: It's especially disappointing that Hillary didn't lose by an even wider margin. Perhaps if the Democrats got bitten hard enough by their failed strategy we could have a chance at some real reform in four years. Instead people like you rewarded their avarice and deceit, so we can expect things to continue like this.
  - masonic 10y ago
    "...paid leave, higher minimum wage, protecting abortion, stopping Republican voter suppression..." When she was a Senator, she did absolutely nothing on any of those fronts (or immigration)... even when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
    - bbatsell 10y ago
      George W. Bush was president during her entire Senate career (save one day, technically). When Obama was elected, she became Secretary of State.
      - masonic 10y ago
        Technically, she was also Senator for two weeks while Bill was still President in January 2001. The broader point is that she made no efforts in those areas on the legislative front, even when Democrats held the majority in both houses.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 10y ago

His only other alternative would have been to run on the Green ticket, and that probably wouldn't have worked out well for a number of reasons. As things shook out, he somehow ended up the de facto leader of a Democratic party that he hasn't even officially joined yet. If things had come out the other way, he would have pull for having brought his followers around and the chairmanship of a Senate committee. If he had been a failed Green party candidate, he would have been out of politics by now. As it was, his answers to specific questions about what he endorsed about Clinton were so carefully phrased that he sounded like Clinton talking about emails.