Try not to get too happy in your privates, but there's a shiny new poll that shows Hillary Clinton is the winningest presidential candidate right now, by all the points:
I am not for any lesser of evils. I am voting for the best candidate, by several orders of magnitude. That you thinks she's anything but exceptional and qualified means you have bought the media narrative and let them do your framing for you. Read, listen. learn.
Your statement is spot on! And I would bet you dollars to donuts that the "most liberal progressives evah" are the ones who vote once every four years. If you REALLY want a progressive society, show up THIS November and pick school board candidates. Where do you think the bench begins?
"Hide the horrible truth" time for Hillary Clinton. Super early in the campaign her "cannot win" opponent is gaining quickly, raising far more money than any pundit predicted, and making Hillary pretend to agree with his views and not mention other critical views of her own, like her support for TPP. Her favourability has been trending steadily downward for two years, her "honest, trustworthy" rating is below 50%, and her "pessimistic/wondering" combined is 50%
So, how does Bernie Sanders fare on these? Why do they not tell us how he does against the various Republicans, one of which he is going to face in the general? Since the main argument "for" Clinton is that she "can win," maybe they do not want us to know that Bernie Sanders can win too?
What I have against Hillary Clinton is that she has Republican views and allegiances but runs as a Democrat. Sanders may not be a registered Democrat, but take the quiz going around and see how much you agree with him compared to Clinton. I was at 92% Sanders and 67% Clinton, and 47% Rubio. So Clinton in terms of my views is closer to Rubio than to me or Sanders. If I wanted to only be able to vote for Republicans, I would register Republican.
Republicans have either just completely given up or are all like Sam Lowrys at the end of Terry Gilliam's film Brazil, completely embracing their delusions.
In a small setting direct democracy works. But we don't live in a small setting. We live in a large country with many ideas, cultures, viewpoints and opinions. Nothing would get done.
Representative Democracy, the Republic, is best suited for a large country.
The US population is now 319 million. Are you going to ask them to vote on every issue deciding the country? Who decides what issues are important? Who organizes the voting?
You think you have low turn out now, what if citizens were asked to vote on every issue. Budgets, policies, code of law. Most people will lose interest. I don't know shit about law. Which is why I vote for a guy who does understand it, who shares my views on what direction we should be going in, and whose entire job is to make these decisions based on the general views of his constituents.
The problems we have now are not because the "system" is broken but because being a representative of the people is now a lucrative business, and since the general populace is full of apathy, they don't have to listen to us anymore.
When more people vote, then they do have to listen.
But even with a select group of representatives it takes a long time to reach a decision. What do you think is going to happen when you have 319 million voices all talking at once? It's not practical and is prone to mob rule (which the founders were very concerned about, hence the courts)
I mean sure Athens was the seat of democracy. They also owned slaves.
But something to keep in mind: my generation doesn't have much power (certainly much electoral power) yet. A lot of us are still kids. This world you are making for us is The Worst.
Nice stroll down Memory Lane.
A lot of differences trumpeted as generational are simply state-of-life differences. Many current AARP members were convinced when "a lot of us [were] still kids" that all the world's problems were the exclusive handiwork of the so-called "Greatest Generation." Yeppers, violence didn't exist; food and other necessities just dropped down out of the sky and factories belched nothing but the smoke of incense until those nasty folks-over-30 came along and made it The Worst.
What a nasty shock to discover that the world is a much more complex place than we thought it was when people who Had It All Figured Out waited for the next check from Mums and Daddums while plotting The Glorious Revolution.
Common Era.
Dynasty?! She's a Rodham, and we have never had a Rodham for president before. Whatever else you said--whatevs
I am not for any lesser of evils. I am voting for the best candidate, by several orders of magnitude. That you thinks she's anything but exceptional and qualified means you have bought the media narrative and let them do your framing for you. Read, listen. learn.
Actually he does caucus with the Democrats.
some of them are just a little further down in this thread.
Your statement is spot on! And I would bet you dollars to donuts that the "most liberal progressives evah" are the ones who vote once every four years. If you REALLY want a progressive society, show up THIS November and pick school board candidates. Where do you think the bench begins?
No, it's not stupid. Unless you think giving all three branches to the right wing nut jobs makes sense. Think it through.
"Hide the horrible truth" time for Hillary Clinton. Super early in the campaign her "cannot win" opponent is gaining quickly, raising far more money than any pundit predicted, and making Hillary pretend to agree with his views and not mention other critical views of her own, like her support for TPP. Her favourability has been trending steadily downward for two years, her "honest, trustworthy" rating is below 50%, and her "pessimistic/wondering" combined is 50%
So, how does Bernie Sanders fare on these? Why do they not tell us how he does against the various Republicans, one of which he is going to face in the general? Since the main argument "for" Clinton is that she "can win," maybe they do not want us to know that Bernie Sanders can win too?
What I have against Hillary Clinton is that she has Republican views and allegiances but runs as a Democrat. Sanders may not be a registered Democrat, but take the quiz going around and see how much you agree with him compared to Clinton. I was at 92% Sanders and 67% Clinton, and 47% Rubio. So Clinton in terms of my views is closer to Rubio than to me or Sanders. If I wanted to only be able to vote for Republicans, I would register Republican.
Republicans have either just completely given up or are all like Sam Lowrys at the end of Terry Gilliam's film Brazil, completely embracing their delusions.
Clinton/Sanders would work for me.
In a small setting direct democracy works. But we don't live in a small setting. We live in a large country with many ideas, cultures, viewpoints and opinions. Nothing would get done.
Representative Democracy, the Republic, is best suited for a large country.
I like Sanders but it took close to no time for his supporters to turn me off completely.
The unquestioning agreement with the media coverage on the part of the Naderites didn't exactly help either.
It's a matter of practicality.
The US population is now 319 million. Are you going to ask them to vote on every issue deciding the country? Who decides what issues are important? Who organizes the voting?
You think you have low turn out now, what if citizens were asked to vote on every issue. Budgets, policies, code of law. Most people will lose interest. I don't know shit about law. Which is why I vote for a guy who does understand it, who shares my views on what direction we should be going in, and whose entire job is to make these decisions based on the general views of his constituents.
The problems we have now are not because the "system" is broken but because being a representative of the people is now a lucrative business, and since the general populace is full of apathy, they don't have to listen to us anymore.
When more people vote, then they do have to listen.
But even with a select group of representatives it takes a long time to reach a decision. What do you think is going to happen when you have 319 million voices all talking at once? It's not practical and is prone to mob rule (which the founders were very concerned about, hence the courts)
I mean sure Athens was the seat of democracy. They also owned slaves.
But something to keep in mind: my generation doesn't have much power (certainly much electoral power) yet. A lot of us are still kids. This world you are making for us is The Worst.
Nice stroll down Memory Lane.
A lot of differences trumpeted as generational are simply state-of-life differences. Many current AARP members were convinced when "a lot of us [were] still kids" that all the world's problems were the exclusive handiwork of the so-called "Greatest Generation." Yeppers, violence didn't exist; food and other necessities just dropped down out of the sky and factories belched nothing but the smoke of incense until those nasty folks-over-30 came along and made it The Worst.
What a nasty shock to discover that the world is a much more complex place than we thought it was when people who Had It All Figured Out waited for the next check from Mums and Daddums while plotting The Glorious Revolution.