And certainly not how many many many people see it.

Do you want the Democratic nominee in the White House on January 20 or do you want the Republican nominee to be in there?

nominating a candidate that is guaranteed to lose to a Republican or nominating a corrupt Democrat that means that it's not even close to black and white...

I know people wish it was, but it's not.

One side will be Trump or Cruz or Rubio or Katich.

On the other side will be Bernie or Clinton.

Ranked in order, for the next four years, which of those people do you want to be President?

For me its simple:

Bernie
Clinton
None of the others.

All of the GOP candidates will work to INCREASE both income and power inequality by ramping up the transfer of wealth and power from the working classes to the plutocracy our parents once took a regulatory ax to.

Neither one of our candidates is "guaranteed to lose". That sounds like right wing BS if you ask me.

All you are spewing is propaganda and using deceptive tactics to try and get your candidate elected. As I said once before, you have been compared to Manny Goldstein, and I tend to agree, you are posting more like him everyday, and once again that is NOT a compliment.

many people know it, pretty much everyone but her supporters, because of the endless (manufactured and real) scandals, the FBI investigation, the fact that she's the least trusted candidate in the race - and that includes Trump, her inability to inspire the youth and lots of other demographic groups, her corruption, the fact that she'll inspire the right-wing to vote in probably record numbers, the fact that her campaign has pissed off so many Democrats - and we're not out of February yet, the fact that she is an incompetent candidate, the fact that she has nothing but negativity and smears to run with, her Goldman handcuffs, her inability to fundraise without big banks and lobbyists, the fact people are rejecting the status quo in 2016, etc., etc., etc.

People don't want someone funded by banks and weapons manufactures and big pharma in 2016. People don't want 4 more years of Clinton drama int he White House. They don't want someone that they can't trust.

She's so incredibly flawed and it's obvious to pretty much everyone except the true believers.

I remember those days well. I think they hated them as much as they hate Obama now. Easily. I don't think you could blame all of it on racism, not by a long shot. Of course they hate any Democrat; they just don't know Bernie as well.

But Hillary is hated much more right now among the voters and I think she will lose. She will almost certainly lose to Trump (whom I actually think won't be so bad, in a dumpster-fire-meets trainwreck sort of way). Rubio is such a lightweight that they would have to steal it for him to win. Without Scalia, I don't think that's likely. And Cruz has hatred problems of his own. He is so deeply unpleasant that only the true believers will vote for him.

But Trump is the problem. Hillary is also a problem.

And remember how it was one scandal after the other and how much Hillary became the antithesis of everything the right supposedly stands for... Well... She's gonna have all of that thrown at her, plus all her centrist crap from her Senate years, plus all of her foreign policy crap from her SOS years. And all the corruption wall St donors crap from now.

Plus all the animosity she's managed to Rev up from her own party.

Plus the almost complete lack of non-manufactured enthusiasm.

It's gonna be bad.

It is the goal of the Republican Party. Ignore it at your own risk.

Just watch. If you do that, you'll get a chance to see if I'm right or you are. You don't have to do anything. Just sit at home on election day.

Or, you can do the opposite and become part of the solution. It's up to you.

for a corrupt candidate that is owned by corporations isn't part of solution... it's what Americans have been doing for decades and it's exactly why America is in such dire straights.

If you want a different outcome behave differently. You can't scare me into voting for who you want to win.

I don't know you. You don't know me. You will do as you choose.

There will be an outcome, depending on who wins in November. That's guaranteed. Which outcome will be better? That's for you to decide. I posted what I believe to be the case. You might have a different opinion. Do as you please, of course.

Thanks for that.

Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

You don't even live in the U.S.A. or am I confusing you with another poster?

like all the soldiers living abroad... though I suppose if it helps your argument you'd through them under the bus as well... because they're living aboard... not real Americans huh?

Way to put words in someone else mouth! Where did I ever say such a thing? I was in the Army and I was stationed in Germany. I served my country and I have no problem with those who live abroad, so knock of the bullshit.

that's going to lose the GE isn't a solution... voting out of fear of the other is the basis for most of America's problems... vote for what you want, not against what you're scared of

and that a nominee must be "electable" is in and of itself voting out of fear. What makes a Democratic nominee electable is the votes of Democrats, and planting the idea in their heads that their candidate *will* lose is deliberate disenfranchisement. This is the same bullshit we heard about Obama in 2008. It got old quickly then, it's already old now.

As for not voting against what you're scared of- if a person is refusing to vote just to prove some nebulous point about how not-scared they are of what are actually very terrifying policies, that person is an idiot. Rational people listen to Republicans and are scared out of their wits. Voting for the person who will be doing the opposite of Republicans is not at all a bad thing. We'll be a lot better off if we stop encouraging people to think otherwise.

I'm able to both tell you that it's pretty obvious that one candidate has no chance AND vote for what I want..

I'd happily vote for Sanders even if he lost, and he could. Hillary would.

And it's not a nebulous point.

America has been largely voting out of fear and cynicism for decades and it's not worked at all.

If something isn't working change it.

That's not nebulous.

Got a lot of Republicans elected. didn't it? What isn't working is not voting for the (D) candidate because people are afraid "they won't win", or are "not excited!!1!" or feel they haven't "earned my vote" or "argh blarg lesser of the evils argle bargle" or any of the other RW propaganda they've inhaled and parroted.

Apt handle, btw. Very apt.

I think people who are invested in a particular candidate may not yet be ready to accept that they might have to vote for the other candidate in November. I'm not interested in pushing a "suck it up" mentality until the appropriate time.

But that said, we really are bright enough to see that whichever way either the Dem or Repub nomination goes, the Dem is going to be light-years better (or less bad, if that's how you see it) than the Repub.

It's really not difficult. It really is simple. Just maybe not to be faced yet.

(for what it's worth, I'm not particularly happy with either Dem left standing, for various reasons. So my time has already come to not give much of a shit which of them I'm pushing the button for in November. In fact it won't be either, actually - it will be the "straight D" button, like almost always.)

If Republicans gain control of all three branches of government, many other things will be possible for them. They could, and will:

1. End reproductive choice for women.
2. Kill any chance whatsoever for any sort of public healthcare.
3. Repeal the ACA within three months of 2017.
4. Get rid of the minimum wage altogether. (Free market and anti-labor)
5. End the estate tax altogether to benefit the wealthy.
6. Give federal funding to religion-based private schools and enable the states to do the same.
7. Remove rights from non-Christian religions since they are not true religions.
8. End all federal educations grants for post-secondary education.
9. End educational tax benefits for parents.
10. Make contraception almost impossible to obtain.
11. Cut support for people in poverty. Food stamps gone.

There's more. You can list your own changes that will harm the population. The list will be long.

1. End reproductive choice for women - they won't
2. Kill any chance whatsoever for any sort of public healthcare - Hillary doesn't want that
3. Repeal the ACA within three months of 2017 - they can't
4. Get rid of the minimum wage altogether. (Free market and anti-labor) - they won't
5. End the estate tax altogether to benefit the wealthy - that's hardly the most important reason to vote
6. Give federal funding to religion-based private schools and enable the states to do the same - hardly the biggest problem with our schools
7. Remove rights from non-Christian religions since they are not true religions - baloney
8. End all federal educations grants for post-secondary education - more nonsene
9. End educational tax benefits for parents - again, hardly the biggest issue facing education in America
10. Make contraception almost impossible to obtain - nonsense
11. Cut support for people in poverty. Food stamps gone - Bill decimated help for the poor - no reason to think Hillary wouldn't do the same


---

Lot's and lots of fear-mongering and nonsense... voting out of fear of Republicans has gotten us to where we are... vote for what you want, not against what you're afraid of.

you are awfully confident without offering any substantiation:
1. End reproductive choice for women - they won't. Why not?
With conservative replacements for Ginsburg and Scalia (which they'll get if they successfully stonewall Obama), there is no question that Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy. Show me evidence to the contrary.

2. Kill any chance whatsoever for any sort of public healthcare - Hillary doesn't want that.
At best a wash since you cannot possibly believe the repubs will pursue public healthcare

3. Repeal the ACA within three months of 2017 - they can't
Why not? It's taken an Obama veto to prevent it this year.
4. Get rid of the minimum wage altogether. (Free market and anti-labor) - they won't
Probably won't but won't be increasing it all either.
5. End the estate tax altogether to benefit the wealthy - that's hardly the most important reason to vote
Actually preventing anything that makes the tax burden even more inequitable is an important reason to vote.
6. Give federal funding to religion-based private schools and enable the states to do the same - hardly the biggest problem with our schools
Keep overlooking the small problems and they just become part of the larger problem.
7. Remove rights from non-Christian religions since they are not true religions - baloney
Not Muslim are you?
8. End all federal educations grants for post-secondary education - more nonsene
Maybe overstated, but given repub proposals for education cuts, not completely nonsensical either
9. End educational tax benefits for parents - again, hardly the biggest issue facing education in America
See above
10. Make contraception almost impossible to obtain - nonsense
Impossible? No. More difficult? Sure
11. Cut support for people in poverty. Food stamps gone - Bill decimated help for the poor - no reason to think Hillary wouldn't do the same
Now you're just making things up. Any evidence?

First you obviously are out of touch with reality if you don't know the great harm Bill did to the poor and how he and Hillary fought against raising the minimum wage. Maybe this is why you're so scared... You genuinely think that Hillary is some sort of progressive. Weird...

I see you've already walked back the contraception claim.

And the grants thing.

And the other education thing.

The Congress and the President are not going to get an anti other religions constitutional amendment passed...which is what you're describing would take...

The ACA - if they remove it without a replacement it will crush the country... They know that. So they'd have to come up with the replacement. Even Trump likes the individual mandate. They've been playing politics with it for years knowing that they couldn't actually get it removed. They won't remove it within three months however you slice it... Pure campaign fundraiser fear mongering.

Taxes.. Americans are perpetually voting to screw themselves with tax cuts for the rich. They'd probably support that in pretty decent numbers. I don't like it but it wouldn't be the end of the world..

Hillary and public health care. Why put it on the list if Hillary or the GOP won't support it? It's not a difference?

Roe vs Wade is not in jeopardy as it would again take court cases that made it to the Supreme Court and then the SC would have to overturn a previous decision. That would take years.

And again, if the Dems nominate Hillary all of this is moot anyway. Shes incapable of winning the GE.

In reverse order:

Roe v. Wade would be in immediate jeopardy. There is an almost never-ending string of cases working themselves through the courts in response to some lame ass state law passed to try to restrict abortion. There is even a petition for certiorari of one case that is currently pending (the Court having put off deciding whether to grant or deny it -- not the Abbott case which the court is hearing). Just last month the Court didn't grant cert in an abortion-related case because, presumably, the risk factor of taking the case was too great. But if there are five solid votes to overturn Roe, then cert will be granted and kiss Roe goodbye. The case doesn't even have to directly present the issue of whether Roe should be overturned. As demonstrated in CU and other cases, the Supremes can decide to ask about whatever issue they think a case raises, and any case involving the constitutionality of a limitation on abortion raises the underlying question of whether there is a right to choose.

As for taxes and healthcare, you can't possibly make the case that under a republican president tax cuts for the rich and for business will be at the top of the list. And as for repealing healthcare, your naiveté is showing again if you don't think that the repubs will repeal first and then use the chaos as an excuse to push through something lousier than the ACA. Your apparent belief that the repubs have the country's long term interests at heart is bizarre.

And will it take a constitutional amendment for the repubs to discriminate against some religions? You want to trust a repub supreme court to rule against laws closing mosques or muslim religious school for security reasons? To rule against laws favoring parochial schools and weakening the separation of church and state? Naiveté once again.

I'm not sure what your point about education was -- but I didn't see a denial of the fact that repubs want to and will cut support for education and return as much control over education to the states as possible.

Poverty and minimum wage. Yes, Bill Clinton played politics with the minimum wage after getting one increase through in 1996. Of course, he was able to get the 1996 increase though because he made trade offs with repubs who controlled both the House and the Senate at the time. But getting another increase through the repub controlled Congress was a non-starter the rest of his term. It only happened again when Bush was president after the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.

Poverty? Under the two most common measures of poverty in this country, the rate declined throughout the most of the Clinton presidency and then pretty consistently moved upwards throughout the bush years. Yes, can expect the same with a new repub administration.

Finally, we can add a few additional items to the list. Maybe in your naiveté you think that the repubs will defend same sex marriage rights rather than try to roll them back or even overturn them. Maybe you think the repubs will work to improve the rights of the disabled or those in need. That women's rights will be protected as fully by repubs as they have been historically by Democrats. Maybe you really think repubs have opposed Obama's executive orders and have tried at every turn to pass truly awful legislation because they just wanted to wait until they were in charge to do the things they say they want overturned and to oppose the things they say want to adopt.

But I get that this is a pointless discussion. You are welcome to live in your reality. I choose mine.

I find it amazing how people can trivialize things if it is of no concern to them. There a concerted effort from the republicons to deny women their rights as humans. They have proven how far they will go. They have tried to get the BC pill categorized as an abortifacent. Jump to hobby lobby and their case heard by the Supreme court, where they were given the right to refuse legal medications based on their beliefs, not science. Including the BC pill because they believe it is an abortifacent. Set aside all the ways the r's are legislating women's rights away and look at the ones that don't make the news. A (now deceased) Georgia legislator introduced a bill that would require a police investigation when a woman has a miscarriage. If she did anything to cause it, she would be arrested for murder. An Alaskan congressman introduced a bill where a woman had to get her husband or father's written permission for an abortion. Doctors in some states are legally allowed to lie to pregnant women about her health if the doctor believes she might have an abortion if she knew the truth. If you can take away a woman's right over her own body, the rest of her rights are easy to deny. Like voting. A lot of men on the republcon side are grumbling that women should not be allowed to vote.

If you want to see how republicans will control the country, look at how they are controlling the states. It is as simple as that.

by revisiting the decision. In short, the US would become a hellhole for millions and millions of Americans who just can't seem to grasp WTF is going on.

You sure take after your posting name, don't you? Spreading propaganda was his speciality if I am not mistaken.

and then there's the truth...

I know Hillary and the truth don't go together too well (she's trying her best, we know), but try not to confuse baseless fearmongering with the truth...

The problem is that truth for you is not the truth for everyone else. What I see from the "anti" everything crowd here on DU is nothing less than "fear mongering". Now I was for O'Malley, but I never once attacked either of the other two candidates like the "anti" everything group has done here on DU. I don't care how much you want your candidate to win, the carp that gets slung around here by that one group, the same group that hated Obama, is beyond belief.

People can promote their candidate without resorting to only bashing and trashing the other candidates. Really they can, and they do. Many of Bernie's supporters post his accomplishments and his background to show why he is a good candidate, and I applaud them for that. Those who only know how to attack the other candidate instead, are not really helping them get elected.

I know that not many people are reading GD these days, but I've shifted over to General Election subjects. We will have a nominee, and I'll be 100% behind that nominee. I don't care which candidate wins the nomination any longer. They'll both face an obstructionist Congress.

We must win the White House, or we lose it all.

I will then agree. I just hope her ego will allow her to drop out if the FBI recommends prosecution.

That will be decided by Democratic voters. This is about the general election. That will be decided by all of the voters, and the outcome will depend on turnout. My focus has now moved beyond the primaries. I don't care which Democrat is the nominee. I can live with either of them. The general election is what I'm looking at now.

I'll leave the decision about the nominee to others, except for my vote in the Minnesota caucus.

She'll likely sew up the nomination on Super Tuesday, I doubt the FBI will have completed their investigations by then.

in the voting booth, you may be right.

I've said that before.
In the primary, we vote for who we think is best.
In the general election, we vote to elect the best government from the choices given us.
The best think I can say about those people who choose not to vote is that they don't care.

candidate you can come up with. And I do mean light years.

Superior to any Republican. I do not understand how anyone does not understand that.

Hopefully, self-centered ideologically twisted egos won't be too much of a problem, and common sense logic will win the day.

DEMOCRAT- 2016

I no longer care who is the Democratic nominee. I can see the Republicans. That is more than sufficient to activate me.

Excellent news!

This is General Discussion. Democratic Primary discussions aren't allowed in this forum on DU.

Vote in the primaries for whomever you prefer. I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee in November and encouraging everyone else to do the same. I'm starting now.

and recs. Truly...

We need to come together to fight the republicans, not continue to fight each other once the primaries are done. Some here are just trying to cause trouble. They really don't want a Democrat in the WH, their goal is to divide DU. If the right wing can convince people to NOT vote in the primary, they know that it will spread. Just like back in 2010 and again in 2014, we have those who are promoting NOT voting in the GE if their candidate does not win. We have to come together to defeat the republicans. NOT voting is not an option. Voting for a third party is not an option. If we want to keep on going down the path that president Obama has put us on, an it's a damned good path, we have to unite and make sure our nominee wins.

It's that simple.

Either way.

I appreciate it more than you know.

when I read I try to let people know unless it's an inflammatory one...then I pass.....there are some republicans in here posting as bernie supporters....so they are pretty divisive....and then there are young very passionate bernie supporters that sometimes get carried away...and so I have learned to try to figure out if they are voting dem no matter what....if they are I stop paying attention to them....but you have the right idea...that is ...it's great to debate the issues...but in the end we understand the importance of the bigger picture have been through enough election cycles to understand that....Cheers, Maggie

No peace...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

Thank you!