The OP question is only really relevant to the primary, not the general. In the general we vote for Clinton to stop Trump. It sucks, but there is literally zero option for most of us, having a part in electing Trump by refusing Clinton is not something I can have on my conscience.
The OP question is only really relevant to the primary, not the general. In the general we vote for Clinton to stop Trump. It sucks, but there is literally zero option for most of us, having a part in electing Trump by refusing Clinton is not something I can have on my conscience.
The thing is, however, at least here on AMT everyone is already assuming it's going to be Trump VS Clinton or BIG evil vs minor evil. It's true, Bernie is a long shot but he's not out of it. If you're like me and see Clinton as just an extension of big money, big business as usual then why not support the candidate who is willing to fight that, even if he isn't perfect in every way (who is?)?
I hope you understand why I asked these questions. I think too many people cave in too easily. I don't mean that as a personal put down, not at all, but rather to encourage to not give up and give in to the "lesser of two evils syndrome". If we accept that, that is what we get.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Hilary is coming to our town tomorrow and I am going to hear her speak. The place will be small and I think she may take questions.
What do you think would be a good question to ask her?
I started thinking about topics this afternoon when I found out I'd be going to this.
How about why she takes money from the fossil fuel industry and why she lied at the last debate about it?
How about why she said she's pro woman but belittles young women for not supporting her?
How about how she's going to create new jobs, when more and more companies are shipping jobs overseas? Verizon and now Intel, closing down in US to give jobs to cheaper labor overseas.
I can see that these issues are important. I can also see that if I asked questions like these it would be very confrontational and it would only cause her to get defensive. It would be like throwing away an opportunity to actually make her think.
I am thinking about issues that could be addressed in a more positive way. For example, I know that the best solutions to many problems are creative solutions that accomplish two or more things at once while solving a problem. An example of this would be how during the depression the CCC employed a lot of unemployed people to solve their unemployment plus get some projects done.
This presidential election is one in which we have to support a candidate who will keep Trump out of office. As much as I like Bernie Sanders, I don't think he can win a general election. I think Clinton might be able to win. As others have mentioned, she is a fighter and might be able to defeat him.
I think she's living in the past (because she doesn't realize that younger people don't really care about whether or not she's the first female president!) and I think she's blinded by her life-long ambition to be president, however, I think she would be a more effective president than Trump.
Now, back to my project...I want to think of something that might inspire her to solve a problem in a good way.
Hilary is coming to our town tomorrow and I am going to hear her speak. The place will be small and I think she may take questions.
What do you think would be a good question to ask her?
I started thinking about topics this afternoon when I found out I'd be going to this.
How about why she takes money from the fossil fuel industry and why she lied at the last debate about it?
How about why she said she's pro woman but belittles young women for not supporting her?
How about how she's going to create new jobs, when more and more companies are shipping jobs overseas? Verizon and now Intel, closing down in US to give jobs to cheaper labor overseas.
I can see that these issues are important. I can also see that if I asked questions like these it would be very confrontational and it would only cause her to get defensive. It would be like throwing away an opportunity to actually make her think.
I am thinking about issues that could be addressed in a more positive way. For example, I know that the best solutions to many problems are creative solutions that accomplish two or more things at once while solving a problem. An example of this would be how during the depression the CCC employed a lot of unemployed people to solve their unemployment plus get some projects done.
This presidential election is one in which we have to support a candidate who will keep Trump out of office. As much as I like Bernie Sanders, I don't think he can win a general election. I think Clinton might be able to win. As others have mentioned, she is a fighter and might be able to defeat him.
I think she's living in the past (because she doesn't realize that younger people don't really care about whether or not she's the first female president!) and I think she's blinded by her life-long ambition to be president, however, I think she would be a more effective president than Trump.
justam, please see my post above. We get what we deserve when we cave into accepting "less of two evils" syndrome.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
justam, please see my post above. We get what we deserve when we cave into accepting "less of two evils" syndrome.
I'm thinking survival though. I'm half hispanic and I'm a woman. I CAN NOT take a chance on someone who might let Trump into office. He is a hate monger and HE is part of the 1%. I have nightmares about what he might do to our country!!!!!!!!
The OP question is only really relevant to the primary, not the general. In the general we vote for Clinton to stop Trump. It sucks, but there is literally zero option for most of us, having a part in electing Trump by refusing Clinton is not something I can have on my conscience.
The thing is, however, at least here on AMT everyone is already assuming it's going to be Trump VS Clinton or BIG evil vs minor evil. It's true, Bernie is a long shot but he's not out of it. If you're like me and see Clinton as just an extension of big money, big business as usual then why not support the candidate who is willing to fight that, even if he isn't perfect in every way (who is?)?
I hope you understand why I asked these questions. I think too many people cave in too easily. I don't mean that as a personal put down, not at all, but rather to encourage to not give up and give in to the "lesser of two evils syndrome". If we accept that, that is what we get.
Well I voted for Bernie and gave him some money, there isn't much more the average person can do. I think most liberals have done the same, but we are pragmatic and we are looking forward. I won't give Clinton any money, or any more support than to deem her the lesser of two evils...
If everyone who even knew the name Jill Stein voted for her, she wouldn't even crack a few percent of the vote total. If Bernie can't pull it out, we are going to have to accept Clinton.
If we think about it, regardless of how candidates "answer questions", how many of these candidates, once elected, follow through? Obama had some great ideas on his platform but how many got to fruition? How many candidates flip and flop on topics to appease certain audiences?
Oh, and another thing for Clinton supporters: she most likely will not be able to win the candidacy with Sanders taking nearly half the delegates. He is literally stopping her from winning, and it will end up a contested convention.
If we think about it, regardless of how candidates "answer questions", how many of these candidates, once elected, follow through? Obama had some great ideas on his platform but how many got to fruition? How many candidates flip and flop on topics to appease certain audiences?
I know. As I've been thinking about it, I think the biggest problem I see with Clinton is that she doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the problem of the discrepancy between the rich and everyone else. She doesn't understand it because she and Bill can get large chunks of money so easily. This problem of disappearing middle class and the growth of people in poverty isn't real to her.
What I can I say to make it real for her? Wouldn't it be helpful if leaders actually understood the problem for so many people? Wouldn't it be helpful if they weren't people who "escaped" into the 1%?
I've been thinking about mentioning to her that the real problems of our world will start showing up more dramatically in 20 years...Most of the young people today who are still able to survive (and get educated) are partially able to survive because of their grandparents' security and foundation (pensions, property, etc.). When that generation with a solid foundation is gone, we'll see more severe problems.
I would have preferred more choices on the Democratic ticket. I'm not afraid to support an underdog--hell, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and does anybody even remember who he was? But I don't like Bernie.
I wouldn't call Hillary right of center on anything other than -some- foreign policy issues like fighting terror. She is certainly leftist liberal on many issues. And I'm too tired to point out how obviously so she is. (Not trying to poke either, really just tired)
Even though I would like to live in Oz, I live in Kansas. That's why I can vote for Hillary. I really don't give a shit that she's a woman, and I don't expect any of my presidents to be super-human saviors. I expect them to do this basic job --meet with world leaders to serve America's *balanced* interests abroad (we have many conflicting), prevent crazy people from blowing up our country, and ensure that the laws made by Congress are executed. That's the president's job, and Hillary is intelligently capable of doing all those things well.
The thing is . . . Most America really is center. It may be hard for you to accept, being the idealist that you are, but most of us are willing to accept imperfection and roll with it. Keeping my own life from falling apart is hard enough. I'm not about to save the world. Especially not with my vote.
You're not the first person here to refer to me as an idealist. What I've tried to do here and in other posts I've made, however, is to show that what some perceive as idealistic can just as easily be argued as pragmatic. Working to create a world that is more equitable for as many people as possible is pragmatic because the end result of doing so would benefit everyone in the long run. Working to help restore an ecological balance as humans being a part of (rather than self imposed ruler of) the world through a biocentric viewpoint is pragmatic: it benefits all species, human or otherwise. A Clinton presidency will not move the world closer to those practical goals. In affect, it would move us further from them. There is nothing idealistic about the goals of egalitarianism, equality and environmental stability. Those goals are both attainable and practical.
Ok, then don't vote for her. Enjoy your egalitarian fantasy. The rest of us will do what we gotta do . . . vote for Clinton so that Trump is not our next president.
You seem to take offense at my take on things yet have not really addressed what I said. That's interesting.
I'm not offended at all. You have misread my tone. I have in fact answered your original question/point multiple times, yet you keep coming back with some version of "that's not a good enough answer." I get it. You're a Bernie fan. You are a far left liberal. Not everybody is.
Relax, friends, Trump is not going to win. And let's not put the cart before the horse. The conventions are not even here yet.
Trump could win if Sanders's supporters don't come out to vote for Clinton after she secures the nomination. I think it's a really foolish move to write off Trump. That's what disturbs me the most about your question and the debate in this thread. You suggest you will not support Clinton in the general and that the rest of us shouldn't either. Like I said once already, I voted for Sanders in the primary, but now that it's practically over, I need to make my bed with Clinton. People expecting some grand reversal of fortune at either party's convention have been hoodwinked by the media's packaging of this election. Talking Heads do not select the candidates. The parties do, and the party delegates have been counted.
If we think about it, regardless of how candidates "answer questions", how many of these candidates, once elected, follow through? Obama had some great ideas on his platform but how many got to fruition? How many candidates flip and flop on topics to appease certain audiences?
I know. As I've been thinking about it, I think the biggest problem I see with Clinton is that she doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the problem of the discrepancy between the rich and everyone else. She doesn't understand it because she and Bill can get large chunks of money so easily. This problem of disappearing middle class and the growth of people in poverty isn't real to her.
What I can I say to make it real for her? Wouldn't it be helpful if leaders actually understood the problem for so many people? Wouldn't it be helpful if they weren't people who "escaped" into the 1%?
I've been thinking about mentioning to her that the real problems of our world will start showing up more dramatically in 20 years...Most of the young people today who are still able to survive (and get educated) are partially able to survive because of their grandparents' security and foundation (pensions, property, etc.). When that generation with a solid foundation is gone, we'll see more severe problems.
I agree, if there was one thing Clinton does not understand is the huge problem of income inequality. and election results maps have shown that rural areas are not in her favor, while those in bigger cities and higher income have been her people. Those in less than rich areas have voted Sanders.
I guess that's why I don't understand those blindly voting for Hillary. "More of the same", is more income inequality with no real solutions to the widening poverty gap and smaller middle class. Because she has no idea what it's like for ordinary people, she doesn't see it as a real problem.
How about just getting real about what it's like for you as an ordinary person and not a billionaire. I doubt she'll understand, I doubt she'll really listen, but she needs to hear it from more of us who are not millionaires and are fed up.
Relax, friends, Trump is not going to win. And let's not put the cart before the horse. The conventions are not even here yet.
Trump could win if Sanders's supporters don't come out to vote for Clinton after she secures the nomination. I think it's a really foolish move to write off Trump. That's what disturbs me the most about your question and the debate in this thread. You suggest you will not support Clinton in the general and that the rest of us shouldn't either. Like I said once already, I voted for Sanders in the primary, but now that it's practically over, I need to make my bed with Clinton. People expecting some grand reversal of fortune at either party's convention have been hoodwinked by the media's packaging of this election. Talking Heads do not select the candidates. The parties do, and the party delegates have been counted.
Oh, and another thing for Clinton supporters: she most likely will not be able to win the candidacy with Sanders taking nearly half the delegates. He is literally stopping her from winning, and it will end up a contested convention.
Just a note, party superdelegates do not even vote until convention. And frankly, anyone listening to the word that Bernie's time is up? They are the ones fooled by media heads. The media's been saying that he cut staff, needs to drop out, is all washed up? They're the fools.
Not saying he will win, just saying it's obvious who's listening to establishment and who's really listening altogether.
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math. It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math. It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
It absolutely is an improbability. Anything can happen, but trends, polls, pledged delegates, and endorsements paint a picture. Super delegates can change their minds, sure. But look at the endorsement picture: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
If Bernie were leading in pledged delegates from the primaries, he may have a chance at turning around some of these endorsements (which are essentially the super delegates). But he's behind in pledged delegates and WAY behind in endorsements. He'll have a role at the convention and a voice in helping shape the platform, but he isn't getting the nomination. I'm guessing he'll win the primary in my state, but our governor, both senators, and I believe all of the dem representatives have already said they're endorsing Hillary and have pledged their votes to her.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.
If I could vote, this is what I'd say too. I wouldn't be a supporter per se, but she's shitloads better than any Republican nominee. Like by miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles. I just hope that those who would have voted for Bernie don't decide to stay home rather than vote for Hillary or maybe spoil their ballots or vote for some third party. I think the ONLY thing that can (and actually could) put Trump or Cruz into the White House is left voter no-shows or third party defaults.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, after thinking about what question I might ask, I wasn't even able to see her in person. The room was already full when we arrived. Everyone who couldn't fit in the room was left to listen to her speech outside on the patio.
It was a good speech but she didn't even come outside where we could see her when she left. She got into her SUV with tinted windows out of sight of the crowd waiting outside to see her!
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math. It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
And we have seen where Math is not accurate. (polls for starters, because they mean nothing). There is no such thing as an "accurate prediction about the future". Hypotheses are educated guesses, not "accurate" educated guesses.
Why have NONE of you acknowledged that with Sanders winning nearly half of all delegates in most states, he is PREVENTING Clinton from winning the candidacy? That's what is accurate.
Why have NONE of you acknowledged that with Sanders winning nearly half of all delegates in most states, he is PREVENTING Clinton from winning the candidacy? That's what is accurate.
Not really... not at all. We know the system is rigged. I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell at this point that he'll win. Even Bernie knows his chances are slim. But as has been said, crazier things have happened, and I'll be thrilled if it happens... but the odds are still against him. You act like no one here supports him and you need to defend him, which is very far from the truth. At any rate, why don't you just think of it as a hypothetical so that you can have a conversation about it?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math. It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
And we have seen where Math is not accurate. (polls for starters, because they mean nothing). There is no such thing as an "accurate prediction about the future". Hypotheses are educated guesses, not "accurate" educated guesses.
Huh? The polls have been pretty accurate indicators this time around with a couple of exceptions (MI was the biggie), so it makes no sense to dismiss them out of hand. And there are accurate predictions about the future. Models exist for all sorts of future events from weather to climate to voting to product launches. They use historical data, polling, and other indicators to make predictions all the time. I'm not sure how you don't know this. This isn't specific to politics. It is used in myriad ways every day by businesses, governments, media, scientists, etc...
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Not getting into the math thing again, man. You may not like it, but math is not a sure thing. As I said before, polls are used to manipulate behavior, swaying any "math" about it.
I don't trust a poll for anything - I've seen them fail too miserably before. And I still think that Bernie has almost no chance of winning. I just don't believe that the shitty democratic primaries will allow for it. They are corrupted in Hillary's favour IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Why have NONE of you acknowledged that with Sanders winning nearly half of all delegates in most states, he is PREVENTING Clinton from winning the candidacy? That's what is accurate.
He's not preventing, he's prolonging. Sanders has to win every --every-- race between now and June for the super delegates to even come into play. While he may win some, it will not be all, and it likely won't be enough for the super delegates to matter.
I do understand your hope. I'm just not there, and I'm okay with supporting Clinton. She will nominate rational judges, she will protect health care, she will promote economic opportunity around the world, she will deal strong blows to America's enemies as necessary, she will do what is practical to make college affordable for those who need help. . . . Only with a friendly Congress who actually make the laws. Quite honestly, I don't see why everyone gets all lathered up about the president who has zero legislative power other than a veto. Neither Sanders nor Clinton can do shit without Congress writing and passing bills, but there are no Congress threads. If people got as worked up about Congressional candidates, we'd be so much better off as a nation.
Comments
In the general we vote for Clinton to stop Trump. It sucks, but there is literally zero option for most of us, having a part in electing Trump by refusing Clinton is not something I can have on my conscience.
I hope you understand why I asked these questions. I think too many people cave in too easily. I don't mean that as a personal put down, not at all, but rather to encourage to not give up and give in to the "lesser of two evils syndrome". If we accept that, that is what we get.
I am thinking about issues that could be addressed in a more positive way. For example, I know that the best solutions to many problems are creative solutions that accomplish two or more things at once while solving a problem. An example of this would be how during the depression the CCC employed a lot of unemployed people to solve their unemployment plus get some projects done.
This presidential election is one in which we have to support a candidate who will keep Trump out of office. As much as I like Bernie Sanders, I don't think he can win a general election. I think Clinton might be able to win. As others have mentioned, she is a fighter and might be able to defeat him.
I think she's living in the past (because she doesn't realize that younger people don't really care about whether or not she's the first female president!) and I think she's blinded by her life-long ambition to be president, however, I think she would be a more effective president than Trump.
Now, back to my project...I want to think of something that might inspire her to solve a problem in a good way.
If everyone who even knew the name Jill Stein voted for her, she wouldn't even crack a few percent of the vote total. If Bernie can't pull it out, we are going to have to accept Clinton.
If we think about it, regardless of how candidates "answer questions", how many of these candidates, once elected, follow through? Obama had some great ideas on his platform but how many got to fruition? How many candidates flip and flop on topics to appease certain audiences?
What I can I say to make it real for her? Wouldn't it be helpful if leaders actually understood the problem for so many people? Wouldn't it be helpful if they weren't people who "escaped" into the 1%?
I've been thinking about mentioning to her that the real problems of our world will start showing up more dramatically in 20 years...Most of the young people today who are still able to survive (and get educated) are partially able to survive because of their grandparents' security and foundation (pensions, property, etc.). When that generation with a solid foundation is gone, we'll see more severe problems.
I guess that's why I don't understand those blindly voting for Hillary. "More of the same", is more income inequality with no real solutions to the widening poverty gap and smaller middle class. Because she has no idea what it's like for ordinary people, she doesn't see it as a real problem.
How about just getting real about what it's like for you as an ordinary person and not a billionaire. I doubt she'll understand, I doubt she'll really listen, but she needs to hear it from more of us who are not millionaires and are fed up.
Not saying he will win, just saying it's obvious who's listening to establishment and who's really listening altogether.
It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
If Bernie were leading in pledged delegates from the primaries, he may have a chance at turning around some of these endorsements (which are essentially the super delegates). But he's behind in pledged delegates and WAY behind in endorsements. He'll have a role at the convention and a voice in helping shape the platform, but he isn't getting the nomination. I'm guessing he'll win the primary in my state, but our governor, both senators, and I believe all of the dem representatives have already said they're endorsing Hillary and have pledged their votes to her.
It was a good speech but she didn't even come outside where we could see her when she left. She got into her SUV with tinted windows out of sight of the crowd waiting outside to see her!
There is no such thing as an "accurate prediction about the future". Hypotheses are educated guesses, not "accurate" educated guesses.
As I said before, polls are used to manipulate behavior, swaying any "math" about it.
I do understand your hope. I'm just not there, and I'm okay with supporting Clinton. She will nominate rational judges, she will protect health care, she will promote economic opportunity around the world, she will deal strong blows to America's enemies as necessary, she will do what is practical to make college affordable for those who need help. . . . Only with a friendly Congress who actually make the laws. Quite honestly, I don't see why everyone gets all lathered up about the president who has zero legislative power other than a veto. Neither Sanders nor Clinton can do shit without Congress writing and passing bills, but there are no Congress threads. If people got as worked up about Congressional candidates, we'd be so much better off as a nation.