I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

[untermensche]

I'll stick with Hillary because I believe she has a better handle on how to get things done

A better handle than a long sitting Senator?

Where does she get this magic knowledge?

Hillary will act as hawkish as Bush the junior to prove that women can be tough.

She's an ignorant fool.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Hillary will get things done

That is what worries me.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hillary will get things done

That is what worries me.

What is it that you are concerned that she will do? As a side issue, Trump is trying to get Bernie to run as an independent.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders/index.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll stick with Hillary because I believe she has a better handle on how to get things done

A better handle than a long sitting Senator?

While Sanders has been in Congress much longer, Clinton has a political juggernaut machine behind her. That won't exactly make things easy to 'get stuff done', but it will be an asset for her that Sanders clearly won't have. Politics is political and having political power does make a difference.

Hillary will act as hawkish as Bush the junior to prove that women can be tough.

She's an ignorant fool.

It seems a bit hypocritical to make that two statements consecutively. The US doesn't have a military to invade Syria. We didn't have one for Iraq, which is why Iraq was a failure. Powell and lots of other generals thought the magic number was 800,000 troops (if memory serves). We don't have that capacity and it'd take quite a while to even mobilize such a force in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hillary will get things done

That is what worries me.

What? Is she going to ban abortion? Is she going to continue restricting voting access to minorities?

 

[Terrell]

Hopefully one of the things Hillary gets done is a good SCOTUS nominee to replace Scalia. I think it would also be nice if she can replace Stephen Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsberg with younger justices. In my opinion Merrick Garland is too old; I want a Democrat to put someone in there that's going to be there for a good 30 years or so.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hopefully one of the things Hillary gets done is a good SCOTUS nominee to replace Scalia. I think it would also be nice if she can replace Stephen Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsberg with younger justices. In my opinion Merrick Garland is too old; I want a Democrat to put someone in there that's going to be there for a good 30 years or so.

This is one thing that the Nader and Sander supports forget: the importance of the supreme court.

 

[Terrell]

Hopefully one of the things Hillary gets done is a good SCOTUS nominee to replace Scalia. I think it would also be nice if she can replace Stephen Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsberg with younger justices. In my opinion Merrick Garland is too old; I want a Democrat to put someone in there that's going to be there for a good 30 years or so.

This is one thing that the Nader and Sander supports forget: the importance of the supreme court.

Exactly, long term strategy. You can't get what you want all at once in this arena, it takes planning and perseverance. Keep a Democratic president in office to replace existing Justices as they die or retire, even if they're not as liberal as you want, they'll be better than anything you'll get from the Republicans. Work at the local and state level to get your state legislature to repeal existing laws you don't like, pass laws you like, and block future laws you don't like from ever getting a chance to get passed. This will require you to get candidates to your liking in those legislative seats. Work to get a governor who will sign/veto bills to suit your political views.

Work to get Congressmen & Senators to your liking elected, this means you'll have to have good primary challengers for sitting Congressmen & Senators. It might not be a good idea to do them all at once, but to work over time to nudge the party in the direction you want to go. You'll eventually get presidents to your liking over the long term. You'll have to build from the ground up, then work to keep that structure in place to replace the politicians you like with younger ones. Between term limits, retirement, and death, you'll need a bench to replace the ones that leave. In time you'll even get a SCOTUS you like. Once you get those things, you'll have to work to keep them.

 

[Deepak]

Hopefully one of the things Hillary gets done is a good SCOTUS nominee to replace Scalia. I think it would also be nice if she can replace Stephen Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsberg with younger justices. In my opinion Merrick Garland is too old; I want a Democrat to put someone in there that's going to be there for a good 30 years or so.

This is one thing that the Nader and Sander supports forget: the importance of the supreme court.

Who are these supporters, and what is the fear here? That Sanders or Nader would nominate Trump, or that they'd forget to nominate anyone?

Of all the arguments that are made, this makes me furrow my brow in a vain attempt to understand the most.

 

[Tristan Scott]

This is one thing that the Nader and Sander supports forget: the importance of the supreme court.

Who are these supporters, and what is the fear here? That Sanders or Nader would nominate Trump, or that they'd forget to nominate anyone?


Of all the arguments that are made, this makes me furrow my brow in a vain attempt to understand the most.

Can't speak for Harry, but I can say that when Nader ran in 2000 he essentially helped W win the election. If Sanders were to run as a third party it would split the democratic vote and help Trump win, which isn't likely because Sanders knows this, however, if Sanders supporters decide not to vote at all they could be handing Trump the election.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Who are these supporters, and what is the fear here? That Sanders or Nader would nominate Trump, or that they'd forget to nominate anyone?


Of all the arguments that are made, this makes me furrow my brow in a vain attempt to understand the most.

Can't speak for Harry, but I can say that when Nader ran in 2000 he essentially helped W win the election. If Sanders were to run as a third party it would split the democratic vote and help Trump win, which isn't likely because Sanders knows this, however, if Sanders supporters decide not to vote at all they could be handing Trump the election.

You know who elected W in 2000? The people who voted for W

 

[Tristan Scott]

Can't speak for Harry, but I can say that when Nader ran in 2000 he essentially helped W win the election. If Sanders were to run as a third party it would split the democratic vote and help Trump win, which isn't likely because Sanders knows this, however, if Sanders supporters decide not to vote at all they could be handing Trump the election.

You know who elected W in 2000? The people who voted for W

It can be rationalized any which way. A person is elected when that person gets more votes than their opponents. Sure, the people who voted for Nader could have just not voted at all. The result would have been the same.

All I can say is what Ill do: If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination I will most certainly vote for him.

 

[Rhea]

Can't speak for Harry, but I can say that when Nader ran in 2000 he essentially helped W win the election. If Sanders were to run as a third party it would split the democratic vote and help Trump win, which isn't likely because Sanders knows this, however, if Sanders supporters decide not to vote at all they could be handing Trump the election.

You know who elected W in 2000? The people who voted for W

And those who didn't vote at all also made a difference in Bush's favor.

But those who voted for Nader, I wonder of them the same thing that I asked of you. What do you suppose they intended to accomplish by voting for Nader and do you think they accomplished it?

Did they move Washington to the left based on their turnout? Did they break up the two-party system? Did they accomplish the thing they intended to accomplish by declining to stop Bush?

I know some of them actually believed that a Gore Presidency would have been IDENTICAL to the Bush presidency (e.g. Gore would have appointed Alito or someone identical to him), and therefore their voice protested that system and brought about change. I don't know if they ALL thought that, or only some. I'd be curious to know.

I'm still curious about the "only Bernie" voters. I'm still in the dark about what they hope to accomplish (**IF** Bernie doesn't get the nimonation and **IF** they then decide to not vote for Hillary.) If you're willing, I would be interested in your thoughts.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This is one thing that the Nader and Sander supports forget: the importance of the supreme court.

Who are these supporters, and what is the fear here? That Sanders or Nader would nominate Trump, or that they'd forget to nominate anyone?

Of all the arguments that are made, this makes me furrow my brow in a vain attempt to understand the most.

I believe (but don't have proof) that some of the Nader voters believed that Gore would beat Bush, so they voted for Nader to make a point. Funny thing is that Gore did beat Bush in the popular vote. But not in Florida.

My worry is that Bernie will run third party, and people will vote for him assuming that Clinton will be beat Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't speak for Harry, but I can say that when Nader ran in 2000 he essentially helped W win the election. If Sanders were to run as a third party it would split the democratic vote and help Trump win, which isn't likely because Sanders knows this, however, if Sanders supporters decide not to vote at all they could be handing Trump the election.

You know who elected W in 2000? The people who voted for W

You must mean the Supreme Court??!

 

[Harry Bosch]

You know who elected W in 2000? The people who voted for W

And those who didn't vote at all also made a difference in Bush's favor.

But those who voted for Nader, I wonder of them the same thing that I asked of you. What do you suppose they intended to accomplish by voting for Nader and do you think they accomplished it?

Did they move Washington to the left based on their turnout? Did they break up the two-party system? Did they accomplish the thing they intended to accomplish by declining to stop Bush?

I know some of them actually believed that a Gore Presidency would have been IDENTICAL to the Bush presidency (e.g. Gore would have appointed Alito or someone identical to him), and therefore their voice protested that system and brought about change. I don't know if they ALL thought that, or only some. I'd be curious to know.

I'm still curious about the "only Bernie" voters. I'm still in the dark about what they hope to accomplish (**IF** Bernie doesn't get the nimonation and **IF** they then decide to not vote for Hillary.) If you're willing, I would be interested in your thoughts.

To add to your point, I would be curious why so many people on the left didn't like Gore. I support Hillary and will willingly vote for her. I've supported her campaign. However, I do understand why some on the left prefer Sanders over HRC. But I've never understand why not Gore. I think that he would have been a great president.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

For some reason, Democrats need to believe that if only all the democrats would just fall into lock step, then the GOP wouldn't matter and the dems would just win the White House for next 1000 years.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

And as for the we-must-save-the-supreme-court argument, save it from what? for what?

Roe v. Wade is still case law in these United States and yet getting an abortion in the vast majority of the states of the former confederacy is all but impossible.

The worst SCOTUS decision with regards to the protection of voting rights of African Americans in this nation in decades just happened and it was under not just a Dem. president but a BLACK Dem. president. Obama being in the White House did not save us.

Every decision that a typical liberal would dread that could come from the supreme court all goes back to two problems, money in politics and corporate person-hood. Get the money out of politics, make speech actual speech again and persons actual people again and every other worry becomes manageable if not non existent and NO WAY Hillary R. Clinton puts a justice, much less a group of justices, on the SCOTUS who will get the money out of politics or end corporate person-hood.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

Clinton will appoint managers, neo liberals like herself, who will say the right things to the cameras and then "do the right thing" for the upper 10 or less percent.

So again, who would she be saving the Supreme Court for?

 

[Deepak]

For some reason, Democrats need to believe that if only all the democrats would just fall into lock step, then the GOP wouldn't matter and the dems would just win the White House for next 1000 years.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

And as for the we-must-save-the-supreme-court argument, save it from what? for what?

Roe v. Wade is still case law in these United States and yet getting an abortion in the vast majority of the states of the former confederacy is all but impossible.

The worst SCOTUS decision with regards to the protection of voting rights of African Americans in this nation in decades just happened and it was under not just a Dem. president but a BLACK Dem. president. Obama being in the White House did not save us.

Every decision that a typical liberal would dread that could come from the supreme court all goes back to two problems, money in politics and corporate person-hood. Get the money out of politics, make speech actual speech again and persons actual people again and every other worry becomes manageable if not non existent and NO WAY Hillary R. Clinton puts a justice, much less a group of justices, on the SCOTUS who will get the money out of politics or end corporate person-hood.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

Clinton will appoint managers, neo liberals like herself, who will say the right things to the cameras and then "do the right thing" for the upper 10 or less percent.

So again, who would she be saving the Supreme Court for?

It's really flabbergasting. The question was simple enough, but somehow no one seems to have actually addressed what I asked, and instead the response is that people shouldn't vote for someone they believe in because the party-chosen candidate takes a hit.

The fact is that Bush the Younger drew more R votes than any other candidate from their side in modern history. Had the Ds floated a candidate that more people got behind, Jeb's fiddling notwithstanding, they would have won. Trump is actually on track to one-up Bush's numbers. Clearly that means that the Dirty Fucking Hippies^TM are too stupid to vote for the correct candidate, rather than the judicial system-gaming or Gore simply failing to mobilize the base. http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

But again, what that has to do with the DFHs not understanding Supreme Court nominations I'll never know.

 

[Harry Bosch]

For some reason, Democrats need to believe that if only all the democrats would just fall into lock step, then the GOP wouldn't matter and the dems would just win the White House for next 1000 years.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

And as for the we-must-save-the-supreme-court argument, save it from what? for what?

Roe v. Wade is still case law in these United States and yet getting an abortion in the vast majority of the states of the former confederacy is all but impossible.

The worst SCOTUS decision with regards to the protection of voting rights of African Americans in this nation in decades just happened and it was under not just a Dem. president but a BLACK Dem. president. Obama being in the White House did not save us.

Every decision that a typical liberal would dread that could come from the supreme court all goes back to two problems, money in politics and corporate person-hood. Get the money out of politics, make speech actual speech again and persons actual people again and every other worry becomes manageable if not non existent and NO WAY Hillary R. Clinton puts a justice, much less a group of justices, on the SCOTUS who will get the money out of politics or end corporate person-hood.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

Clinton will appoint managers, neo liberals like herself, who will say the right things to the cameras and then "do the right thing" for the upper 10 or less percent.

So again, who would she be saving the Supreme Court for?

It's really flabbergasting. The question was simple enough, but somehow no one seems to have actually addressed what I asked, and instead the response is that people shouldn't vote for someone they believe in because the party-chosen candidate takes a hit.

The fact is that Bush the Younger drew more R votes than any other candidate from their side in modern history. Had the Ds floated a candidate that more people got behind, Jeb's fiddling notwithstanding, they would have won. Trump is actually on track to one-up Bush's numbers. Clearly that means that the Dirty Fucking Hippies^TM are too stupid to vote for the correct candidate, rather than the judicial system-gaming or Gore simply failing to mobilize the base. http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

But again, what that has to do with the DFHs not understanding Supreme Court nominations I'll never know.

I don't understand your confusion. Clearly people who vote for third party candidates don't care about the supreme court as much as those who suck it up and vote for one of the two party candidates.

 

[Deepak]

It's really flabbergasting. The question was simple enough, but somehow no one seems to have actually addressed what I asked, and instead the response is that people shouldn't vote for someone they believe in because the party-chosen candidate takes a hit.

The fact is that Bush the Younger drew more R votes than any other candidate from their side in modern history. Had the Ds floated a candidate that more people got behind, Jeb's fiddling notwithstanding, they would have won. Trump is actually on track to one-up Bush's numbers. Clearly that means that the Dirty Fucking Hippies^TM are too stupid to vote for the correct candidate, rather than the judicial system-gaming or Gore simply failing to mobilize the base. http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

But again, what that has to do with the DFHs not understanding Supreme Court nominations I'll never know.

I don't understand your confusion. Clearly people who vote for third party candidates don't care about the supreme court as much as those who suck it up and vote for one of the two party candidates.

Sanders is running for the Democratic party nomination - he's not on the Ben and Jerry's ticket. Moreover no one is seriously advocating he run as a third party, nor has he expressed any intent to.

And even in spirit it's a terrible argument. For each party <= n-1 the voters don't care about Supreme Court nominations - therefore the only sensible vote is for party n. Vote Federalist or you're throwing away your vote

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For some reason, Democrats need to believe that if only all the democrats would just fall into lock step, then the GOP wouldn't matter and the dems would just win the White House for next 1000 years.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

And as for the we-must-save-the-supreme-court argument, save it from what? for what?

Roe v. Wade is still case law in these United States and yet getting an abortion in the vast majority of the states of the former confederacy is all but impossible.

The worst SCOTUS decision with regards to the protection of voting rights of African Americans in this nation in decades just happened and it was under not just a Dem. president but a BLACK Dem. president. Obama being in the White House did not save us.

Every decision that a typical liberal would dread that could come from the supreme court all goes back to two problems, money in politics and corporate person-hood. Get the money out of politics, make speech actual speech again and persons actual people again and every other worry becomes manageable if not non existent and NO WAY Hillary R. Clinton puts a justice, much less a group of justices, on the SCOTUS who will get the money out of politics or end corporate person-hood.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

Clinton will appoint managers, neo liberals like herself, who will say the right things to the cameras and then "do the right thing" for the upper 10 or less percent.

So again, who would she be saving the Supreme Court for?

It's really flabbergasting. The question was simple enough, but somehow no one seems to have actually addressed what I asked, and instead the response is that people shouldn't vote for someone they believe in because the party-chosen candidate takes a hit.

The fact is that Bush the Younger drew more R votes than any other candidate from their side in modern history. Had the Ds floated a candidate that more people got behind, Jeb's fiddling notwithstanding, they would have won. Trump is actually on track to one-up Bush's numbers. Clearly that means that the Dirty Fucking Hippies^TM are too stupid to vote for the correct candidate, rather than the judicial system-gaming or Gore simply failing to mobilize the base. http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

I'm always a fan of the "Gore lost the 2000 election" argument despite him actually winning the popular vote. More people voted for Gore and for some reason, I'm supposed to believe that Gore messed up in 2000. The Supreme Court lost him the election when they refused to allow a recount of the entire state. Then add the whole butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County and about 1,000 Nader voters in Florida and a few thousand in New Hampshire, that cost him the election.

He won the popular vote, clearly he did something right!

To the link, they talk about Democrats going to W. If you look at the numbers in Florida where registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans (What you didn't? You had an actual life and didn't go through each of these small counties, from '88 to '00 to determine voting trends to find out why D majority counties went W? Are you saying I wasted my life?! Yeah, you are probably right ) yet W won the counties, you find out quickly, these people had been swaying to the right over a period of time. Obama didn't win these people. These people became Republicans. That isn't on Gore.