I am a liberal, and I might vote for Trump

I am a liberal, and I might vote for TrumpI am as big of a Bernie Sanders supporter as they come. I volunteered for his campaign and did a brutal tour trying to convince voters to support him in a red state.

I think it's likely that between the DNC hating Sanders, the mainstream media supporting Hillary Clinton, with it's 2 minutes of hate for Sanders, her celebrity compared to Bernie's obscurity, and her endless campaign millions sponsored by wall street, Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination.

She is a right wing candidate. We are at the point in history where the myth that the DNC is in any way progressive is authentic, and not just rhetoric. The Republican base seems to have already figured out that the RNC is a farce, along with their preferred candidates, and this is why Trump is destroying the other candidates, on that side.

It is in plain view that HIllary Clinton is a Wall Street candidate. She is in favor of continuing to allow banks to gamble with depositor money. The practice that collapsed the economy in 2008, of which we are yet to recover from. This policy will guarantee another crisis in the future, and it will not be the same. We might not survive it as a country, if that happens. Just all around she is a Wall Street socialite. She means well, just like Obama, but she is not the revolutionary thinker we need to save ourselves. She is part of the same system that got us to this precarious point.

Trump is an asshole lunatic that seems to be only in it for the bragging rights and ego. It doesn't seem like he is beholden to that corrupt system that is racing us towards a cliff. He may do so, anyway, in his own way, and he may even make things words, but it's a case of "maybe" vs "it's certain". It's certain the Hillary Clinton and the rest of the establishment will continue to press the accelerator while we drive towards a cliff. She will tell us that opening a window will slow us down.

No, thanks. Trump is a scary proposition, but so is chemotherapy. I see this as a case between engaging is a terribly risky choice that is likely to end in disaster, vs. doing nothing and being sure that it will end in disaster.

If Hillary becomes president, we have no hope of running a dedicated progressive until 2024. If Trump wins, we have a shot at keeping out he establishment, and running a progressive in 2020. For this reason, I am seriously considering voting for Trump, if Hillary gets the nomination. I know Bernie himself would loathe this decision, but I have to do what I think is right.

Please comment if you have something substantive to say about this.


0|8
10|44

Join the discussion

0/2500

Submit
Sponsored

What Girls Said 10

  • You are not alone. See below. www.theguardian.com/.../secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out

    The Occupy protester turned Trump supporter (24, New York)
    ‘His candidacy is ripping the soul of America apart – we deserve it’

    I work in a liberal arts department. I’ve read the works of Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault and so on. I am more inclined to listen to what Slavoj Žižek or Noam Chomsky have to say about current affairs than Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly. If one were to take account of my demographics, the smart money would be to peg me for a Bernie Sanders supporter.

    My interest in politics did not truly develop into an intellectually mature form until 2011, when Occupy Wall Street broke out as a populist leftist grass roots movement to combat the evils of unrestricted robber baron capitalism.

    Early in 2014 I began concealing my political opinions from people, and it was shortly after this time that I began plotting to vote Republican in hopes that the party would send the country so far in the direction of complete unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition that Americans would come to recognize the dangers of these ideologies and eventually reject them.

    I don’t find conversations about how morally repugnant Trump is to be interesting when the rest of the candidates seem to also support imperialistic and fascist policies concerning drone strikes, torture and mass surveillance.

    I don’t agree with discussions of how Trump is making the national dialogue more base and vulgar when Obama has instated common core standards to gear humanities education in public schooling to be teaching children how to read memos, rather than cultivating critical thinking skills that would allow them to understand subtle arguments.

    Do I like Trump’s platform? No, I think most of it is silly and misguided, but at least it is not the same bullshit casserole that has been on the menu in Washington DC for as long as I have been alive.

    His candidacy is a happy accident that is currently ripping the soul of America apart, which is something that I think we desperately need (and deserve) at this time in our history, for better or for worse. I support whatever strange gods happen to be behind his candidacy, for, as Martin Heidegger proclaimed in his famous Der Speigel interview, although for slightly different reasons, “Only a God can save us.”

    0|5
    0|0
    • The gods responsible for his candidacy is the republican propagandists. For decades, they broadcast the sort of cockamamie rhetoric that brainwashed some people into finding Trump genuinely appealing. They created that frankenstein's monster, and now it appears he's going to destroy them. The last debate in Michigan was priceless. You can mark it as the turning point when the GOP/Foxnews take their gloves off and get serious with Trump.

    • Show All
    • @Curmudgeon Trump's Goldman Sacks administration thinks otherwise, i. e., pro-globalist etc. Trump is all things to all people. Yet, his actions show he will be primarily Pro-Wall Street, with an occasional press conference of opening a factory that will close once he leaves office. Looks like that guy in the Guardian had a point.

    • In politics there is a saying, "Better to have one of them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in."

      I suspect having one Goldman Sachs insider in the cabinet, just to know what they are up to, cannot hurt.

      Still, the focus of the administration, and just about all other Trump appointees, appear to be nationalist rather than globalist.

  • I think that's entirely the wrong decision. Not that I can vote in your elections as a Canadian, but anyone but Trump would be better. We don't want to deal with Nouveau-Hitler. Vote for someone responsible. Literally anyone is less volatile than the corn cob man.

    4|3
    0|0
    • Someone responsible? That would not be Hillary Clinton, for the reasons I have stated. Is it responsible to protect the sort of practices that already collapsed the economy, so they can happen again?

    • Show All
    • Hey, if you want to be an international laughing stock causing wars and getting your country destroyed because everyone hates you, go right ahead. I live far enough north that the fallout won't affect me.

    • What a trite response. This has all been covered. If you want to engage the specifics of what has been said, feel free, anytime.

  • Voting for Trump because something good could happen is reckless, he has done nothing but indicate how terrible he would be as president and how much he would strain ties with our allies, alienate our minority citizens, stir the fires, and condone violence.
    Now, this may be great if you're not a minority in America, allie to America, or protester, because he is happy to pay the medical bills of those who do the dirty work for him, then you're great :)
    Hillary Clinton isn't a volatile narcissist with no political experience who condones war crimes against the families of bad people.
    You can say everything you want about her, but she wouldn't ruin things like he would. She won't divide people like he would. She wouldn't isolate us from our allies.

    1|1
    0|0
    • I can say everything that's true about her, and you can dismiss it with some trite rhetoric.

    • If the things about him are true, which they are, it's true. It doesn't matter how much you hear it, the truth is the truth.
      If you think the terrible things about him are of no importance than just be more upfront about it, "I'm ok with a candidate that condones violence, xenophobia, and war crimes."

    • This is about HC not Trump.

  • As much as I would love to see a woman become president I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary for essentially your stated reasons.

    Trump would actually be worse. As I mentioned elsewhere, there really isn't a significant difference politically between Hillary and Trump. However, Hillary does have considerably more experience and I suspect that she doesn't have quite the ego he does and has a bit more sense and judgement.

    I'll not be voting for Sanders either. I'll be voting for Jill Stein.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Experience means nothing without results. It's just resume padding.

    • Show All
    • Doesn't matter about the mechanics of government. They've got advisors for that. It's radical policies they rubber stamp and put their name to that's all that counts. Hilary would privatise anything left that's public for the sake of business. She'd have you paying a private corporation for fresh air and the right to walk on a pavement. Not to mention she's already said she wants access to everybodies private information. She'll bring in total fascism for the sake of profit. It's bad now it'll get a hundred times worse under her. Nobody learn the lesson with her man in charge.

    • What isn't proven has been stated several times.

  • Even though I am a conservative, I do agree with some of your points. The main one being that the political parties have way too much "inside control." I believe that Americans are smart enough to make their own choice. Sometimes when it comes to voting, you will have to choose the lesser of two evils.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I feel like at least with Trump we'd know what we were getting

    0|2
    0|0
    • Well he doesn't hide being a loudmouth know-nothing. But the key thing is that he doesn't seem to have people pulling his strings, unlike HC.

    • I think trump has been less clear than any candidate. Just in this campaign he has had completely opposite opinions on healthcare, rounding up immigrants, banning muslims and so on. The only thing I can say he has been consistent on is building a wall, and saying were going to win again

  • trump is a wildcard but that's ok with me.

    people trying to blame all the bad things that have ever happened to mankind on bush disgust me.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Whoever does that is stupid, but I suspect nobody does that. Bush caused a lot of damage. That's a fact.

  • If you don't like either of them then don't fuckin vote. The idea of voting for someone is just that voting FOR them.

    I hate trump, Clinton, Cruz, Rubio. Sanders is cool but your right cause he's not gonna win.

    You should do what I'm doing. Fuck voting, and Stock up on canned food and bullets and wait for whoevers apocalypse comes first.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I stated my reasons. It's kind of rude to ignore them.

      As far as canned goods, sorry, but I'm not a prepper because I have an IQ higher than 80. I believe in reality.

    • Show All
    • Well look at you. I'm glad you have all the money in the world and can just quit your job, pack up your whole life, and move to a completely different country. But for the rest of us, we don't have that luxury. We live paycheck to paycheck, we have lease contracts, mortgages, cars that aren't paid for, schooling to finish, kids and family.

      Childish? It's called life shithead, that's just the way it goes. we pay for everything, and your vote means nothing.

    • I never said that. I said that if the country became as bad as that, it would be an improvement to start from nothing somewhere else.

      Yes, it's childish and stupid to believe buying a lot of groceries and rubbing guns at night would protect you from the "apocalypse". But go ahead and believe whatever cartoon plot you want to believe. Not like anybody can stop you.

  • I could never stand behind a man who retweets white supremacists, quotes Mussolini and revels in violence at his rallies.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I'm not standing behind him. I'm standing against the other side, which I consider more harmful. He's just a rabid dog.

    • You don't let a wild dog loose among foreign diplomats. What are we, Russia?

    • Hopefully, the rest of the government can pile on him if he tries anything crazy. With Hillary, the rest of the system is in agreement with her enabling fraud.

  • Most other countries see him as a joke and genuinely thought it was satire when he first started running. The comments he has come out with, again, were thought to be satire or just purely made up to slander him til he confirmed it was true.
    Not being rude or anything, but things like this are part of the reason people think America is backwards. It's one of the most backwards advanced countries.

    0|0
    0|0
    • But this is more about Hillary Clinton than Trump.

    • Show All
    • Because we made it so, we built back up Europe and Japan. Both only exist because we gave you the money to rebuild.

    • @Electronica What do you mean "you"? I'm not European or Japanese. And, yes, that was my point. But it wasn't about the money. Money is a fictional asset. The bottom line is that the industrialized world got destroyed by WW2, and so the US steps in to get wealthy. Also, the leftist policies after WW2 boomed the middle class and the productivity.

What Guys Said 44

  • It was in either 1998 or 1999 that Bill Clinton signed so-called "financial reform" legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act. The Glass-Steagal Act was passed during the Great Depression to help prevent another financial crisis. It kept commercial banking (your deposits and mine) and investment banking (casino finance) separate. When the repeal legislation was being debated on the floor of the U. S. Senate, former Senator Byron Dorgan gave an impassioned speech against the bill. He accurately predicted that -- if the bill passed and was signed into law -- what would happen one day. That one day came 10 years later with the Great Crash of 2008. No progressive would have signed that legislation. Hillary, aside from the strong possibility she may be indicted for criminally mishandling classified information, is not a progressive. She is a Wall Street politician.

    1|2
    0|0
    • She was also a champion of a bankruptcy law in the 00s that royally screwed ordinary people, while protecting the rich people's bankruptcy shenanigans of people like Trump.

  • Hmmm. Interesting perspective. If it does come down to Hillary or Trump, it really is the South Park case of the elections always being between a turd sandwich and a douchebag. Neither one of them appear to have a soul. Hillary is an emotionless corporate pawn who says what she needs to say because that's what people want to hear. Trump is a blithering racist, sexist, psychopathic fool who treats the Presidential election like a reality T. V. show. The truly scary thing is how much support he's gotten. If the Republican nominee would have been Ben Carson or possibly Chris Christie, I would have breathed a least a small sigh of relief. But nope. Cruz and Trump.

    But. End of the day. I would rather have Hillary than Trump. She's basically Obama 2.0. You can see the various healthcare organizations that donated to Obama's campaign, in 2008 at least. Ironically, he goes take backsies on his single payer healthcare system which he ran on, now insurance companies suddenly get a lot more government enforced business, and the government gets a bit more in taxes. But the entire country didn't fall apart.

    At this point, most hope is lost. As for change. Another 10-15 years and the baby boomers will die off. In my opinion, they are the source of this lunacy. Once they go, things will get better. We'll pick up their mess. I have much more faith in Gen X and Millennials.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Ben Carson was simply incompetent, in every way. I don't think he would be any better than the rest. Trump as least shows he knows marketing and showmanship. No sensible, independent candidate on the RNC would have made it past the first day. It's totally possible that Trump understands the base and is only marketing his rhetoric in that direction.

      The people get the candidates they deserve.

      I've yet to hear a cogent argument against Bernie Sanders, and in favor of Hillary Clinton. The democrats thought they were so much smarter and wiser than the Bush crowd, but they've proven to be just as empty and half-witted.

    • Show All
    • "Even if Carson is essentially incompetent, I would have chosen him over Trump. Trump is pretty much incompetent in every way except showmanship."

      Your words, not mine. No amount of sobriety can change those words.

    • Righto pal. You keep that intellectual superiority complex healthy by cherry picking. I'm sure it will make you sleep better at night.

  • You are too young to remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. Many liberals decided that Al Gore was too conservative and too corporate so they backed Nader. He claimed that Gore and Bush were almost interchangeable. Enough liberals voted for Nader to enable Jeb Bush to steal the election for his brother in Florida. Now, try to imagine how different the entire world would have been if Gore had been elected. No 9/11, no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no trillion dollar deficits, no tax cuts for the mega-wealthy, a huge reduction in global warming gases over the last 16 years, the possible avoidance of the second great depression, a liberal Supreme Court (no Citizens United, voting rights reinstated, Republican gerrymandering struck down), etc. Do you get the big picture yet? The damage done is incalculable.

    I don't like or trust Hillary either. However Trump is capable of far more harm than even George Bush performed, and that's saying a lot. He could start a world war. He could cancel US debt to China and force a global meltdown far worse than the first Great Depression. Saying that his world-wide destruction may bring about a liberal successor is like saying that Hitler was desirable because he was replaced with a liberal Germany. I'm sorry but the cost for what you suggest is absurdly high.

    I don't

    0|0
    0|0
    • I wasn't aware of the 2000 election in real time, but I read about it, extensively. Your premise is wrong for several reasons.

      First, in this case, the alternative is not a useless 3rd party. If Trump doesn't get nominated as a Republican, but instead runs as 3rd party, then it's a similar scenario, but against the Republicans. I'm well aware of W's legacy. I even know he didn't technically win the 2000 election, but it was awarded to him by the supreme court.

      Second, it's wrong because I simply disagree with your conclusion that Trump is guaranteed to be worse than HC. Make no mistake that I would never vote for him in the general, if he would keep up the same old bigoted, violence-inducing circus that he's been doing in the primary. If Trump gets nominated, he WILL soften up his rhetoric, and he will attack HC from the left on key issues. And circus or not, he will be right to attack her in that way, on those issues.
      HC is not any less doomsday than Trump, and possibly more.

    • Show All
    • ok, but you cannot say what could've happened or what will happen

    • @COCOCHANEL I agree that I cannot say what will or would have happen. Yet right and wrong is not limited to consequences.

  • Anyone who would vote for Trump must be clinically derranged. I'm a Bernie supporter, and I know that Hillary would destroy us if she wins, but Trump will make WWIII a certain reality.

    This is the guy who's been sued twice by the Justice Department for refusing to rent his hotel rooms to blacks. This is the guy who refers to minorities as "the blacks," "the Hispanics," and "the Jews." This is the guy who's gone bankrupt more than once.

    I can't trust this already feable nation in the hands of a total fool pretending he's more financially stable than he really is. Not to mention, he has no good intentions for people of other races. And even the military themselves have said if he becomes president they will not answer to him.

    I think you can see where this is going.

    3|2
    0|0
    • Under which criteria are you finding Trump a worse warmonger than HC?

      Did Trump help create ISIS by voting for an illegal war or two?

      As far as the minorities rhetoric, that's all it is, at this point. Are you aware that in the 90s, Hillary pushed for policies that ended up causing a record percentage of the black population in prison?

      And the centerpiece is her opposition to Glass-Steagall. If you don't think a repeat of the 2008 collapse is serious and an existential threat, you are living in a bubble.

      Bottom line is Trump vs HC; rhetoric vs record.

    • Show All
    • And by "minorities rhetoric", I was referring to the topic of the rhetoric and policy about minorities.

    • @asker don't forget, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, supposedly without "reading" it. Wow, talk about an incompetent commander and chief. "Oh sorry China, I did give the order to nuke you, but I didn't read it, so it doesn't count." LMAO.

  • "She is a right wing candidate."

    Are you freaking serious? I realize American politics has moved so far left that centrists look like extremists, but what the frick? You live in modern Anglo-America

    Left= more government
    Right= less government

    If that's something you have trouble with, you should reconsider your participation in political matters. There is a long history of people trying to twist left and right by historical and self-reported claims. Mostly it's liberals trying to associate nazis as "right wing." (Which, compared to communists of the time, would be "right" of them, but not even come near the center of "Constitutional Republic.")

    0|1
    0|0
    • I hear you, brother but I don't think the four-legs-good crowd understands this concept.

      Left= more government
      Right= less government

      In fact, of the Right, I heard a talk show host speaking, not of small government but big and less intrusive government. You can't have it both ways. Once you let Uncle into your house, he'll drink all your beer and eat all your Cheetos.

    • Show All
    • Actually Right=Wall St. can do whatever the fuck it wants because they bought and paid for the candidate.

      Left=Wall St. should actually be held accountable.

      So yea, she is a right wing candidate bought and paid for by Wall St., anything left that comes out of her mouth, is just rhetoric, like Obama, they are both bought and paid for by Wall St., super pacs.

    • red Nazis or blue Nazis. They are still nazis

  • Hillary represents the worst kind of elitism and corruption in politics. If you look at her rap sheet, it goes way back to Arkansas, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm. Time and again, her corruption gets passed over because people are afraid of the Clintons.

    She claims she is for "the little people", but she gave orders at the Whitehouse that the houskeeping staff were to stay out of her sight so she didn't have to look at them. She called her SS protection, people who would take a bullet for her, "The pigs".

    I am sure you now see that she is the pocket of Wall Street. You may also know that she has taken many millions of dollars from foreign dignitaries while she was SoS. There is no difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons. It is their political slush fund they use to buy people off and support their own lavish lifestyle. It is exactly like any third world kleptocrisy. She may be doomed, though, because her flippant regard for the law may get her arrested shortly for violating espionage law.

    Clinton is not "right wing". You are mistaken if you think she believes in anything. Her entire motivation is her lust for power and money. Everything she says or does is a result of that.

    1|1
    0|0
    • I can't agree with much of what you say. I don't want to taint and discredit the valid criticism against her with trumped up charges (no pun intended). I'm not familiar with everything you mentioned, but I do know for a fact that the whitewater allegations against the Clintons were probably bogus, as was the Benghazi circus and the ranting about some email server.

      If we just focus on the demonstrable realities about her, who her friends are and what her stated policies are, it's 100x more than we need to show how bad she is as a candidate.

      Yes, she does want power and money. That's nothing exceptional among presidential candidates. Most of them have been rich people that wanted to feel even bigger. She is already rich, so she wants more money, but especially power. The love of money I would classify as right wing, at least by US standards. "Greed is good" was a line in a Wall Street movie, and people that identify as conservative use it like a motto to be proud of.

    • Show All
    • I don't know about that. If anything is in contention, it's going to be a weak argument and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Those sort of conspiracy attacks are middling and will not amount to much. Bush was actually guilty of lies that led to crippling wars, but nothing was ever done about it. Is anything going to happen over some emails? No.

      You are actually helping HC by prioritizing those arguments, instead of the stuff she openly admits. The latter is far more damaging policy, anyway. Nobody will give a fuck about some middling about security protocols, including myself. If you think that will be worthwhile, you severely underestimate her.

    • "No, most presidents are not in it for themselves, they are there to do what they think is best for the country. Hillary is in it for herself. I met George W twice, he is a very nice guy, and personally know about a dozen current and former congressmen. I wrote a few lines of legislation and have had meetings with officials at the WH and State."

      Ok, so you are a Republican apologist. So be it. I am not. Trump is not fooling me, and the den of cronyist filth called the GOP never did. If Bush meant well? Then he was simply a clinical moron that basically gave the presidency to Cheney. I don't even want to know if you defend him. I really don't. If you want Trump to beat Hillary, stop with this capricious stuff, because people like me will consider it nonsense, and you will lose us.

      All I care about is considering Trump over HC, for the reasons I have stated.

  • I can't vote since I'm not American, but I feel your struggle to choose if it comes down to Hillary and Trump.
    I don't see Hillary getting America to where it belongs... but I don't see Trump doing that either, he doesn't really say how he's gonna make America great.

    Bernie is obviously the best option, and I wish people would see that, instead of voting for a guy that promises something he doesn't know how to achieve, and for a person who's just being elected because of their genitals, and not their brain.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Yes, Trump is a clown, but Hillary is already vowed to serve her bankster friends, and she is better than Trump at scamming people. More people will believe Hillary Clinton's lies than Trump's.

    • Bernie is the most dangerous of all. Hilary and Trump are bad, but at least they're primarily in it for themselves and aren't going to do a while lot to change things as long as they can give a few favors to their friends.

      Bernie Claus on the other hand, wants socialism. He's an ignorant fool that refuses to understand that socialism eventually leads to fascism and fascism eventually leads to 10s of millions of government caused deaths and murders.

    • @Ratiocinative If you want to debate the policy specifics of Bernie Sanders, by all means, let me know. Elaborate. If you just want to spout ad hominens, have fun.

  • Massive risk - You seem to be going on the premise that Trump will be so bad that there will be a swing to the left and still be anti establishment - The danger in your logic is that people will think we should have gone democratic mainstream and will be looking for that in 2020 so by 2024 republicans will think we need to go back to mainstream to counteract so in 2024 it will be mainstream versus mainstream.
    I don't know if it was you who made the question about Hillary and Bernie delegate/super delegate support so as long as current party electoral system stands the establishment will control the elections. Donald may win the republican nomination but for your theory to work he has to win election and his presidency be a roaring success which would make right wing anti establishment de riguer - I don't think that is a scenario you would want.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yes, massive risk, under massive threats. Hillary is a long term threat, if people become so complacent that they believe everything is fine. Then "boom".

      Yes, your scenario is a possibility, but I find it more likely that people will become complacent under a HC presidency, and they will forget about the fizzing sticks of dynamite under their feet. Although, the unlikely thing I see in your hypothesis is the idea that a Trump win would bolster the GOP establishment. How so? They would essentially be finished, if Trump won. Hell, they might be finished simply by him being the nominee. And why are you saying people would want to go back to the democratic mainstream? That doesn't make sense. Hillary is the mainstream. Her loss would hurt the mainstream cred.

    • I think my theory was based on a Trump presidency being so bad that people would think why didn't we stick to the mainstream thus going back to mainstream establishment politics for the 2020 and 2024 elections. If the Trump presidency was a success, people might go for a right wing establishment candidate in the near future. Actually the only sure way I see for a Bernie Sanders type candidate to win is in 2024 is if HC wins in 2016 has a bad presidency, republicans win 2020, have a bad president then by 2024 the democrats may look left anti establishment for their candidate.
      As for the GOP establishment collapsing, it would need a successful Trump presidency for that to happen. How the democrats would react to a successful Trump presidency I am not sure but even in that scenario it would be 2024 before a new president who may or may not be a left leaning anti establishment democrat.

    • I don't agree that those scenarios are likely.

      It's obvious the democratic base has gotten complacent and hopeless, and that they haven't gained any intellectual curiosity since Obama got elected. I don't see how that would improve after another 8 years of mediocrity, when it's just more time for them to get used to it as the new normal.

  • I feel you here, bro. Got to say, though, that Hillary harkens back to a time when, if you didn't accept money from almost anyone and everyone, you didn't have a chance in hell. Four years ago Bernie wouldn't have lasted this long.

    Back in 1988 we had Jesse Jackson run, then in 1992 it was Jerry Brown... we had a couple of cases where Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean running from the far left, like Bernie. Those guys didn't get anywhere near as far as Bernie has, because this is the year for outsiders.

    On the other hand, though, Hillary has been a great Secretary of State, Senator and quite the liberal First Lady. In 1993, one of the first things the Clintons tried to do, which Hillary lead, was to fix the health care system so everyone had access. It failed, but it showed us how strong, capable and smart Hillary is, and she's been proving herself over and over ever since.

    Bernie believes all of the right things. His heart is in the right place, and if he gets elected, I will be happy right along with you. But running a democratic republic, where no one person gets to be dictator, is something best handled by people who have been in the game for years. This is why Lyndon Johnson was able to pass some of the most liberal legislation in the 1960s; not because he wasn't an insider and a crook, but because he _was_. He had been in the congress and government for 25 years before becoming president.

    Bernie isn't going to pass legislation by telling congress "if other nice countries can have these things, why can't we?" He's right, of course, but that line won't get the job done. What else has he got?

    Drumpf, on the other hand, _is_ Wall Street. He is racist blah blah blah... look whatever - the only person who matters to Drumpf is Drumpf. If you like Bernie, you can't reasonably believe Drumpf is going to do more for you than Hillary. If you do, then you haven't been paying attention.

    You have to look at it not as though you're picking the homecoming queen, but as though you're hiring the best person to do an important job. The worst thing would be to leave the job unfilled; it won't go unfilled. If you don't hire someone, then someone else will. Do you trust someone else with that important decision?

    If you pick someone awful because fuck you, I didn't get my way and I am a big baby -- then you're just hurting yourself and everyone else.

    themescompany.com/.../Dont-Cry-Baby-6.jpg

    0|0
    0|0
    • What was so liberal about her as a first lady? Was it the "tough on crime laws" that demonstrably ended with putting a record percent of the black population in prison?

      What made her a "great" senator? What were her accomplishments? Helping to create ISIS by voting for the Iraq war?

      Under what criteria are you rating her as a secretary of state? What were her accomplishments? She supported the Libyan conflict?

      Bernie's heart is in the right place? His MIND is in the right place. Hillary's support for banks gambling with government-insured depositor money? She is in one place, Wall Street, drinking their Kool-Aid.

      So, your reasons for supporting HC are invalid, if you cannot refute what I have said. Calling me, and others like me, a baby, while we point out her pitiful record, is not going to convince anyone. If anything, you have just pushed me a littler further away from her.

    • Show All
    • If HC's failure to produce health reform proves she's not good at getting important legislation passed, then the last six years of the Obama administration are also an utter failure - to any objective person.

    • "utter failure" - that's your conclusion. Obama was certainly mediocre, and he didn't do a thing about the biggest problems we face, same as Hillary wouldn't, except time is running out.

  • Voting for Trump is like having no cancer but asking chemotherapy when having a headache because one hates Aspirine.

    2|1
    0|0
  • I strongly disagree. I respect Sanders as a person, but his ideas would not work with a Republican Congress and seem to be too idealistic. Hillary is a politician, I don't trust her, but she dishonestly supports my views. I was an O'Malley fan, but he made too much sense to stay in the news cycle. Cruz's plans don't make sense (his tax reform plan). Both Cruz and Trump play off of fears that aren't as big of a problem as they are made out to be. Trump doesn't even act like an adult. Trump's biggest selling points aren't as good as they a are made out to be. Good businessman? To an extent, though he was given a business and 1 million USD. He also started multiple failed companies. Speaks his mind? When insulting people. He supported Hillary before and has changed many of his views ( a problem people have with Clinton). He wants to change the system; for someone so against business involvement in politics, he sure got involved as a businessman before running. His xenophobic views give fuel for terrorism and he goes against the values that makes the US great.

    0|0
    0|0
    • You think Hillary Clinton has Jedi mind trick powers to force a republican congress to do anything progressive? She doesn't want to do anything of the sort, same as Obama. So basically, you're saying Sander's ideas would not fly with a republican congress? So, obviously Hillary Clinton's republican ideas would fly with them, but they would still pretend to go against them, for political theater, like they did with Obama. That is precisely my point. So, tell me again why I should vote for an establishment republican like HC?

    • Show All
    • O'Malley is a moderate who I respected more than Hillary. I can see what you're saying about most things, but saying Bernie isn't far left is just factually incorrect. He is a self proclaimed democratic socialist, everyone agrees he is far left. Free education sounds fine and dandy, but how are colleges going to manage the influx of new students? Also a country can't be driven by all highly skilled workers.

    • O'Malley was a same-old, phony politician, but not one as famous or charismatic as HC. That is why people patently rejected him, because the voting block in this cycle is slightly more sophisticated than the doddering droolers of the past.

  • But if (and he has no chance) but still, if Trump became president. And when he of course screws up literally everything, all the Republicans will say Ohh he's not really one of us. So I don't think the momentum position between political parties stands too strong tbh.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Mock Trump and say he has no chance, same as they did to Ronald Reagan.

    • Show All
    • Then you need to form a new constitution and introduce real democracy.

      The court must be non political and simply uphold existing laws (and so must the police), or you won't have a democratic state at all.

    • @oracle12c We'll get right on that. We are also going to do only Good Things™, not Bad things.

  • It doesn't matter. The American are pretty clear on what they want. They don't like what's going on. They are less wealthy, poorer than their parents. The 401k that should have been their awesome retirement is now the one thing keeping them from poverty. Graduates, saddled with mounting studying debts, now find less prospect for jobs. Non-college folks find their job shrinking at an alarming rate. Too many people having to live hands to mouth while a few are living in the billions.

    Americans want change. Either a step forward to the future with the liberals or a step backward to good old age with the conservative. Bernie promises a change of the future with hopes and dreams. Trump is blowing on the reality and promises to bring USA back to the good old days. Hillary is a realist and pragmatic, she promises change when she can but her gives the "status quo" feeling.

    I don't think any of these guys can give Americans what they want.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Bernie Sanders is the only one with a proven record.

    • The important point has been shown with Obama. The guy tried to do a lot of things and without Congress support, most of his stuff didn't turn out right. The president power is more limited than people think. People wants the president to have more power though.

      I would place the bet on Trump. It's not because of his insane and downright crazy policies or that he is a jerk. No, it's because the guy will scream like a pig when he doesn't get his way. He will shake up the American politics and force some sort of change. You might like it and you might not. However, the politics would change. I doubt Bernie can do the changes because he would be like Obama.

    • Obama didn't try to do crap. That is a myth perpetuated by the establishment, so that you cheer him on. The vast majority of what Obama tried to do was done. With the biggest thing being his passing of Romneycare.

      As far as shaking up politics, Bernie Sanders would be better and more experienced at doing that, since that's what he's already been doing for 40 years. But this is about Trump vs HC.

  • i am also a liberal and i will vote for trump.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Im a republican who voted for sanders in the primary, for exactly the same reasons you stated. Trump may be an egotisitical divisive asshole in favor of eminent domain, but Hillary's record, scandals and criminal history speak for itself. Trump never compromised our national security, none of his actions actually resulted in people dying. If anyone else had the email scandal that hillary went through, they would be in prison. Also, I like how she supported privatized prisons, nafta, and a whole range of issues she allegedly stands against now. Politics is manipulation and short term memory. American voters predominantly don't go by actual records, we go by a candidates latests speech. Her actions dont back her speech, and neither does trump for that matter. In the end, we have two really shitty candidates. Both of which seemed pretty close some years ago.

    0|2
    0|0
  • "It doesn't seem like he is beholden to that corrupt system that is racing us towards a cliff."

    Beholden to the system? Trump IS the system.

    It blew my mind when people lauded him for "exposing" the other GOP candidates for taking money for favors, and his proof was that he was the one who bought the favors, as if the briber is any less complicit than the bribee. If politicians are puppets, Trump is a puppeteer.

    Clinton is no progressive, but she's at least a block to the far right lunacy.

    1|0
    0|0
    • He's been a puppeteer, but he's not in the biggest puppeteer club, which dwarfs the rest, by far. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (maybe).

      HC is as far right on the major issues as any traditional Republican. The rest is just pretty words and tone. It's child psychology to screw people over with a nice tone. I'm not a child.

  • And don't forget her defending a known pedophile and laughing about getting him the best deal possible on phone during her lawyer times:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

    0|0
    0|0
    • People won't care about that. Stop with this. The stuff she admits about enabling and protecting financial fraud is far more devastating.

  • I actually have exactly the same thought process as you mate.

    0|2
    0|0
    • Get ready for the HC fanboys to call you a sore loser baby. Ironically, since that's Trump's line.

  • An interesting essay on this: "Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right (And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault.)"

    Written by a Republican, but arguing that *both* parties' Establishments stopped listening to the people, and the rise of "The Donald" is the backlash:

    land-of-fruits-and-nuts.blogspot.com/.../...d.html

    0|0
    0|0
    • Well, the Democratic establishment hates their base. They think they are annoying, inconvenient pissants. The Republican establishment fears their base. We can see that they were right by what's happening with Trump. Meanwhile, the old sheep on the Dem side are lining up for HC.

  • The Establishment hates Trump and Sanders. Sanders won't win, not with the Super Delegates. Trump will be the only one not controlled by the Establishment and he will be a bull in a china shop as far as the Establishment is concerned which is why I support him... smash the establishment!

    0|0
    0|0
    • Might, not will. He might also be worse than the establishment. But the establishment is a certain thing, as far as being a disaster.

    • True. But something has to change. I believe he will bring jobs through revised trade deals though... it is about jobs, jobs, jobs to many people.

    • I really have no confidence in Trump. I see him more as a destructive catalyst to promote more public interest in politics. Like when there is a forest fire, sometimes more fires are started in its path, to stop its advance.

  • More from Guys
    24
Loading...