General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDonald Trump just convinced me to vote for Hillary if the nominee
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders/?utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partnerNo, Mr. Trump, you are nothing like Bernie Sanders. Do you think we Sanders supporters are stupid enough to switch to YOU in the General? No, Bernie is not going to run as an Independent and take away votes from a Democrat in the General. The best you can hope for, Donald, is that Sanders supporters will just stay home and not vote, which would be an indirect vote for you.
I considered that myself but after reading what Trump just said? No way. He is an arrogant, Sexist, Racist Bastard, which I say from personal experience with the man. However I feel about Hillary, nothing comes close to that.
If Hillary secures the Democratic Nomination, I will tell all my Democrat family members and friends, PLEASE vote for Hillary. Do not let Donald Trump become President of the US.
The bottom line is that we must UNITE against him.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)But, I'd still keep the 100+ of his supporters at DU on ignore.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I have never trusted Sanders: he shouldn't have been allowed
to use Dem party's access to the ballot: All Sanders has done
is help the GOP.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You can have your opinions, and I can -- and will -- to suggest you tuck them away where the sun don't shine.
Have the last word.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Yeah, you said that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's the same story repeated across dates
"jam to-morrow and jam yesterday--but never jam to-day!"
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Basic reading comprehension can indeed, be a difficult struggle. Good luck!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bernie had something to say to them (beyond the Bernie Butter variety, that is).
I expect least half a dozen utterly clueless responses to this post within a relatively short time after I hit Post my reply.
crim son
(27,462 posts)And why not simply applaud the OP for doing the right thing even if it means holding her nose while doing it?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)Seems unlikely that anyone supporting Sanders would vote for trump.
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)...there are also many non-Dems who support Sanders, and you can't so easily predict what they might do. I would still expect most to vote for Hillary, but those with stronger "anti-establishment" sentiment might vote Trump, or stay home.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Oh it wasnt? Just another fun moment to hit your needed allies in the gut. Lol
Don't make things worse.
lark
(23,003 posts)He isn't saying only 13% of Bernie supporters like him, he's saying only 13% would consider voting for Trump. Probably good to know what someone is saying prior to slamming them for something they didn't say.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)lark
(23,003 posts)Really surprised you asked that.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Would vote for him?
I'm confused did I miss something ?
lark
(23,003 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Face to face communication.
I support Bernie.
I will vote Hillary if she is the nominee.
I will withdraw from this conversation now to avoid further confusion. Lol
Or just a slam?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Cabinet appointments...
Federal judge appointments...
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)
trusted, they can find a way to block a poor nominee of a Republican President.
MH1
(17,537 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Ex President Obama as the SCOTUS appointee to replace Scalia on the SCOTUS.
The exploding heads of Republicans would be downright EPIC.
Politicub
(12,163 posts)Indeed, EPIC!
Laser102
(816 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Tell us what he will do that will help us! I mean would you be happy with Cruz as the next Supreme court Judge? Would you be happy when he gets pissed at China and starts a war with them? How about when he puts member of the Klan in his cabinet?
How can anyone ask such a question as "what will he do to harm us"!
Bettie
(15,998 posts)Repeat: I DO NOT WANT TO SEE TRUMP AS PRESIDENT
However, I do think he would be less damaging than say, a Cruz or Rubio because he would be held in check by both the House and Senate. Cruz or Rubio would have us in a real mess in short order with full cooperation from right leaning Dems.
I believe that both parties would dig in their heels against Trump and there would be obstruction on an epic scale and for good reason.
Nothing being done is better than the worst case scenario.
And, finally, NO, I do not want to see Trump as president.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Think about how much he harmed us. Now double that.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)No need for democrats or very little need.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)First of all "boots on the ground" in Syria. An entire economic collapse. Are those 2 things enough for you?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)not like he did anything too harmful
herding cats
(19,549 posts)He's taken all their dirty little dog whistles and actually started saying them outright. Scary thing is, people are loving it. It's "nice, good, great!" with his supporters.
If he gets elected the lack of support within the party will change. He will quickly become their new hero, and their new brand. They'll follow him to hell and back if he gets in. The haters in the GOP will be fully legitimized, and in case you don't follow midterm elections, there's more haters than not seated in congress right this moment. Not to mention if he gets in then we lose the senate, and thus likely SCOTUS for the next couple of decades.
So, unless you're female, LGBT, non Christian, an immigrant, or any non white American you're possibly going to be safe. Or at least less harmed.
For the record, I don't fall into that category of possibly less harmed. I'm one of those on the chopping block.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)All during the Primary, he has held a hands off policy towards Sanders. Why? His strategists probably know the big split between Hillary and Sanders supporters, which is true. Trump needs as many votes as he can get in the General. If he can cause any kind of split among Democrats from Bernie supporters from switching to him, or staying home, it will give the Election to him. Divide and conquer.
Yes, I voted for Hillary as Senator. Yes, I voted for Sanders in Primary. Yes, I considered staying home because of all the "irregularities" in the Primary election. Yes, I can see the Forest for Trees. No, I do not want a President Trump. That is my bottom line above all else.
apnu
(8,722 posts)I'm not.
I voted Bernie in Illinois. I voted for Obama in 2008 with pride. I will be there in November and vote for Hillary (or whomever is the Dem nominee) and I will sleep well that night with my choice.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Vinca
(50,170 posts)I love Bernie, can't stand Hillary, but I refuse to put the country in the hands of someone I consider a bona fide nut.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gene Debs
(582 posts)systemic collapse at this point would actually be better for the country in the long run than a Clinton presidency.
apnu
(8,722 posts)Nothing like giving up to inspire the next generation.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)For some of us, 'giving up' would be voting for someone we really don't believe should be President of the United States.
I'm a Sanders supporter, but I made a decision way before he got into the race that, this one time, I won't force myself to vote for a system of political manipulation that I believe has come to dominate the Democratic party at its highest levels, a system that does not act in the best interests of the United States or its citizens.
You may have a very different perspective on the question of Hillary Clinton's suitability for the office of the Presidency. Fair enough. But my perspective is that, should I vote for Hillary Clinton, I'm 'giving up' concerning the importance of my vote as a United States citizen.
I've been a Democrat all my adult life, have always voted straight ticket, and have never, not once, voted for a self-identified Republican, period.
If Democrats are, forever, under pressure to vote for the Democratic nominee for the Presidency because the Republican alternative is so much worse, how will we ever effect change within the party? Ordinary voters, like me, won't have the slightest ability to influence the direction of the party when we believe it's moving in the wrong direction. If Hillary Clinton does become the President of the United States, I believe it will be a great victory for unelected party insiders who partner with big money and big media for the purpose of buying and selling political influence.
If I vote for that system, I'm giving it my approval. And I believe this is, perhaps, the last chance I'll have during my lifetime to take a stand against it.
You may disagree entirely with all of my conclusions, but if you keep on saying people like me are 'giving up,' or taking an easy way out (it's not, at all. It's damn hard.), you're just plain lying. If you intend to keep on saying things like that, be aware - you're lying.
apnu
(8,722 posts)Like you I voted for Sanders in my state's primary, and I've voted a straight Dem ticket all my life.
I agree that we can do better in our candidates, and I think Bernie is the better candidate. But Bernie isn't winning right now and his chances of wining are tiny at this point. I've got no problem continuing to fight for Bernie until he's out. Bernie can stay in as long has he likes, its fine.
But I do have a problem with people who give up and quit. I'm reacting to the notion I see all to often around here that if Bernie isn't on the ballot they're going to stay home, or write in, or flip to Trump. As far as I'm concerned that's giving up.
The struggle doesn't end because Bernie didn't win the Democratic Primary. The struggle doesn't end if Bernie does win. The struggle doesn't end if Bernie goes all the way to the White House. The struggle is the struggle, the work is the same in every outcome.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)We may have different perspectives on what constitutes 'the struggle' and the nature of what may be the best ways to advance it. But I can respect and appreciate the perspective you've enunciated. Thanks for the reply
One difference may be that I reached my decision not to support Clinton well before Sanders declared his candidacy. I wasn't giving up on anything as I reached that decision. It would have been really easy to just go with the flow, and I made a hard call. At least, to me it was and is. When Sanders declared his candidacy, I was really, really relieved. I could support someone.
If Clinton had, through the conduct of her campaign, given me reason to question my reasons for the decision not to support her, I would have been thrilled - really - to be wrong. But, she hasn't.
Oh - and, sweet Jesus, I won't vote for Donald Trump. I also won't write in Sanders if he doesn't win the nomination. And I won't stay home either. But, for the first time in my life, I may not vote for a candidate for the Presidency.
All I can ask, I guess, is that you consider the possibility that an act (or, well, the absence of an act) that would, for you, be 'giving up,' might not be that for everyone.
Have a good one
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)Long before Bernie announced, I said on fb that I did not want another Bush or Clinton in the WH. It is the same family. Bill proudly proclaims it often. When Bernie announced, I was overjoyed, knowing where he stood about things. If I sat out this election, it would be the first one since '64 that I did. THAT is not going to happen, but I do not have to vote every office and those who try to coerce us with blackmail? Not going to work. It is nothing more than bullying.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)I remember whe Nader voters fixed everything and gave us Bush.
Can't begin to tell you how well self righteousness works
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)might make you feel better. But you're wrong, at least about me. And, very likely, about a great many others.
I'm not getting anything out of this. I get to keep a bit of self-respect that I most likely would have lost if I took the easy way, but that's not the same thing as experiencing some kind of 'self righteousness' buzz. Do you think a person who makes a difficult stand is always acting out of self-righteousness? I'd much rather not have to make a lot of difficult stands in my life, if there are better alternatives. But sometimes circumstances force you to discover whether you really do believe in a thing, or only pretend to yourself that you do, so long as it doesn't cost you anything.
I didn't vote for Nader, and I won't write in Sanders if he doesn't win the nomination. But Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election because he campaigned poorly, not because a handful of people voted for Ralph Nader instead of him.
Accusing people of having trivial motives, without knowing anything about them, is the very definition of self-righteousness. You're so right that anyone who doesn't agree should be derided and demeaned. Normally that's not a good thing, but when you're so right and they are so wrong, what else can you do?
Think about it. Or don't. You'll either learn about people or you won't.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)The Supreme Court. The same Republican Party that will be in power if Trump gets elected.
Secondly, I know a whole lot about people, and one of those things is that your illusive "self respect" won't get you too far in a fascist state, which Trump has every intention of establishing given the opportunity.
Thirdly, I can see quite plainly that you are no Mexican. But you will be able to take comfort in your self respect as they ride by on trains waving good bye to you and their families as they are being deported.
You can always look at the ugly fucking wall and say to yourself, "at least I have MY self respect"
Congratulations
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)That's called a tell.
The amazing thing is that you just told me that you have a lot in common with Donald Trump.
You're both narcissistic, make up things as you go along, and believe something to be true until some other truth occurs to you that serves your purposes better.
Nobody who says this: 'I know a whole lot about people,' and 'I can plainly see that you are...',
has either much knowledge about 'people' (which is a vast and diverse subject which none of us can really know that much about during a human lifetime) nor sees things that plainly are.
One thing you could benefit from learning is that a President of the United States is not a king. Another thing is that, just because a President of the United States attempts something does not mean it is going to happen. And the third thing is about people, probably the most important thing of all these, and something I doubt you quite understand: people can fight. People like me will fight vigorously against, for example, the 'mass deportations' that will never happen, because of the ludicrous level of resources such a thing would require, as well as the fact that, well, lots of people like me would fight to the extent necessary to prevent it from happening.
And finally, people with healthy self-respect, who have had to make their way through a lot of hard knocks and maintained their fundamental values through the process, tend to be the most respectful of the needs of others.
It's pretty hard to change a narcissist's outlook, and I imagine, if you read this, you'll be fuming right now. Going through all the ways that this scumbag who doesn't know a damn thing but is so full of himself is going to get what's coming to him someday, thinks he can get away with that, etc., and feeling better and better about yourself as you work out more ways in which I'm so pathetically wrong and worthless.
But I had to give it a try. Because I'm not a narcissist. I value the well-being of others at least to the extent that I value my own.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)You had to resort to personal attacks on a person you don't know because that person showed you the harm you are doing by being too "self respecting" to vote for someone who was not your first choice. I do not choose to engage in this nonsense with you. Fortunately, there are a lot of Republicans that won't be voting just like you.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Is that a problem?
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I hope you don't, if it comes to that.
I think he deserves a better legacy than being described as a 'spoiler,' which is what could very easily happen with a lot of write-ins.
If he doesn't win the nomination, he'll be very clear that write-in votes would be against his wishes.
I'll honor that.
(I'd also suggest, for what it's worth, not to waste any time reading that guy's posts...
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)Democrats. You attacked Noord with personal observations and then got upset when the shoe went on the other foot. That in itself is a YUGE TELL.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)And yes, Gore did campaign badly, mostly by blowing off Bill Clinton, who, like him or not, was far more popular with actual voters than with the media (same is true, to a certain extent, with Hillary). The Democratic party really blew it by lying down and taking it when screwed over by a blatantly unconstitutional supreme court (no caps intentional) decision. I've read a number of sources that claim that the Repugs were all geared up for things to go for them as they did for the Democrats (win the popular vote, lose the electoral college) and were prepared to fight to the death if it happened to them. When that fiasco didn't lead to presidential elections changing to a strictly popular vote, I don't guess they ever will in my lifetime.
phylny
(8,353 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter, have given money, voted for him in the primary. but I'm not willing to screw over my country and vote for Trump or no one. She gets my vote.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)BUT, I'm a "senior citizen" now, and have been involved in politics since before I was old enough to vote ("I Was a Teenage 'Kennedy Girl', " saw all three brothers and actually met Ted). Although I've never been a Nader fan because I feel he's a little weird in his life (great consumer advocate, somewhat strange individual), I used to vote my ideals and consequently suffered through some very lousy Republican presidents. No more. Both Clintons have been through every real or imaginary skeletons being dragged from their closets. All the things that keep coming to light about so many "holier than thou" Republican politicians just make me shrug "that's,sadly, politicians as human beings." There are virtually no saints in real life or politics. Anyone who might come close will, sadly, be a loser. He/She will definitely never be a Republican.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)world wide wally
(21,719 posts)Hope you meet up with reality some day
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Hard is getting out there and working locally to get better democrats running and elected.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Have you ever had to decide to terminate life support on a son in a coma with severe brain damage and no conceivable possibility of recovery?
I haven't, but I have a brother, who happens to be a doctor, who has.
It wasn't giving up and it wasn't quitting, but he spent years struggling with the guilt, even though there's no doubt - none whatsoever - that it was the right thing to do.
I know several local Democrats seeking office in my rather conservative little Minnesota town. I've donated to their campaigns, have their campaign signs on my lawn, and have spoken to all my neighbors about them.
I'm not much for cold calling or door knocking, I admit that. But, then, I work around 65 hours a week, and even though I don't make a ton of money, donating is the most realistic way to help the candidates I support.
Speak about things you know, and if you're going to insult someone, be sure you know what the fuck you're talking about. You don't know me and I don't know you. That means you have no idea what I may or may not be doing to help 'better democrats' running and elected.
It's easy to insult people anonymously on the Internet, that is if you are so inclined. If you'd said it to my face, I'd have laid you out cold. Because, frankly, you'd deserve it.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)position where we simply cannot continue to do things the way we're doing them. The system is unsustainable, and it's reached its end stage. At least a systemic collapse would afford the opportunity to build something better. Electing Hillary Clinton means at least four more years of trying to prop up a rotten status quo that is simply on life support now, and we cannot afford the status quo any longer. Hillary Clinton is the living embodiment of the status quo. In fact, if you took the status quo and put a pantsuit on it, you'd actually have Hillary Clinton.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)But 2016 is not the time for the collapse of the democratic party. It is the Republican party that is collapsing. If the democratic party doesn't wake up and change course, it will be next to fracture. But this year is the year of the republicans. Don't take it away from them. They have worked hard to get to this point and Trump is doing a fantastic job of leading the way.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)I'm 71 years old now and a kid of the "Sixties." Personally I'm just gonna love it! Just one thing. Having spent most of the interim years as a parent and teacher, I'm hard pressed to imagine the "young lions" who are gonna bring this to pass by putting a Trump or Cruz (given up, thank God) type in the White House. "Baby Steps," children. Bernie and the acceptance of Socialism as a viable alternative is a major beginning.... as long as the momentum is allowed to continue.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)are telling the Establishment Parties...both of them...that they have failed The People. The only thing Bernie and The Donald have in common is that they have given voice/leadership to the unrest.
It's been said that Hillary is the best candidate for the system we have now. Bernie is the best candidate for where the system is headed. Conservatives look to conserve...status quo. Liberals look ahead at what could be, and they haven't had too much to see until Bernie.
The sheer number of Independents...by party or by sitting out elections...is the large clue. And they heavily trend toward Bernie on the Liberal side, and Trump on the Conservative side.
SkyIsGrey
(378 posts)One long slide into Totalitarianism or one quick drop.
nini
(16,670 posts)What a stupid idea.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)People feel like they have nothing to lose. Hillary needs to take their needs seriously if she wants to win in November. I don't see how she can ever regain their trust.
nini
(16,670 posts)Nothing like a full blown Depression to straighten folks out. IF the solution is to completely ruin the country for 15-20 years you really need some better ideas.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)What difference does that make to the working poor, who are basically wage-slaves?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I really do not like Clinton, but you say you had rather a full blown depression than voting for her because, oh yeah, the working poor. Take some time to read about our last great depression. Or if you're lucky enough to have living relatives who survived it ask them. All I have to do is talk to my Mother. You are basically ok with a whole lot of working poor becoming non-working poor. Which means soup lines.
But you will personally be unsullied by voting for Clinton and be able to tell everyone if they had only listen to you everything would've been great.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)maddiemom
(5,106 posts)All those freeloaders lining up for free soup? Not if any God-fearing Republican is in charge.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But I think the republicans would still have soup lines. As long as you professed faith in their Jesus. Otherwise, no food for you.
shrike
(3,817 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And electing the status quo will change that how?
The best you can hope for is a slower destruction.
We live in a time of lowered expectations.
shrike
(3,817 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter, btw. Was one of the Hoosiers who put him over the top earlier this way. But I WILL vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is. Still hoping for Bernie; I can still be optimistic.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But death none the less.
I can't just vote out of fear, and it is clear that fear is the objective of a trump.
brush
(53,469 posts)700,000 jobs a month were being lost, housing was collapsing and we were fighting two wars.
Obama has bought us back quite a ways so you need to say "the village was being destroyed under Bush" not that it is being destroyed now.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the next economic bubble pop could happen any time now...little has been done to change any of it. And even the easy pledge he made, to close Gitmo, failed to materialize.
Solving the problems is what will stop the destruction not slowing it down a bit. And no solutions have been proposed or implemented because the evil GOP won't let him.
And so it must continue and we must feel good about it...
brush
(53,469 posts)Yet he accomplished a quite a bit. Imagine where we'd be if McCain of Romney had won.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is the excuse like the dog eat my homework.
As long as we have an excuse we are not responsible...so we will always have the GOP and they will always obstruct.
brush
(53,469 posts)With Trump getting the gop nod we just might win back the House or Senate then it'll be a new ballgame.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And seems to be our of style.
But you hope that we might win...that is not a for sure thing. Especially with Hillary as a candidate because she has high unfavorability ratings...and low voter turnout favors the GOP down ticket.
There are such things as backlash. And some liberals seem determined to cause it.
brush
(53,469 posts)and voting blue no matter who.
It'll give you a whole new outlook on life.
Consider this the Obama coalition: Sensible progressive whites who don't want Trump appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices, Latino Americans, African Americans, women, gays, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and sensible, left-leaning and moderate independents collectively these demographic segments are who mostly voted for and elected President Obama twice, and will also elect Clinton to the presidency.
Voting for Trump won't be considered. And note, we, the above, outnumber the angry whites and/or racist whites who support Trump.
The days of winning the presidency with white votes only are long gone. Romney won a huge majority of the white vote and lost handily.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the statement "vote blue no matter who" makes it cult like...it means you don't really care about policy at all, just party.
People elected Obama because he promised change...and I was one of them...but change never came in ways that actually helped the majority of people. All that can be said is he was not as bad as Bush. And he kept the Bush economic and policies and appointed conservatives to key positions...the change was superficial and the hope was lost.
And you error to think all those groups you mentioned are monolithic and all will follow your lead...and vote blue no matter who.
History shows it is true...Nixon won in 68 and Reagan won in a landslide. And they did so because of the backlash against the extremes of the left and the fact that the Dems offered them nothing in the case of Nixon.
But we will see. All I know is we have a chance to have real change with Sanders and more superficial change with Clinton...and the independent voter will make the choice. And often they vote out of frustration against instead of for.
And we are supposed to vote out of fear not for something...a dangerous position to be in for democracy.
brush
(53,469 posts)He lost. It's not the end of the world.
Pitch in and help stop the repugs.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Not for a party win.
But it does look like none of those will come true, and some are cool with that as long as their team wins.
We live in a time of narcissism covered with vanity...and we are constantly told you are either for us or against us...It's for the party or for Trump.
brush
(53,469 posts)Those are your words. Trump just said he might use nukes in Europe.
For people of any discernment your question is a sure no-brainer.
Vote blue no matter who.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And that is what you are telling us.
And you expect us to vote out of fear...not vote FOR something, I suppose because nothing is offered.
And I think that is why the party is failing.
brush
(53,469 posts)But yours is a minority opinion.
Sensible progressive whites who don't want Trump appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices, Latino Americans, African Americans, women, gays, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and sensible, left-leaning and moderate independents collectively these demographic segments are who mostly voted for and elected President Obama twice, and will also elect the Dem nominee to the presidency most likely Clinton.
The above is the Obama coalition.
Notice pls that we are a very diverse group, not the angry whites and/or racist whites who support Trump.
The days of winning the presidency with the majority of the white vote are long gone.
Romney won a huge majority of the white vote and lost handily.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And not by a slim majority...they also control most legislatures in the states as well as governors...so it is a fact not an opinion.
So why did this coalition not change that? Could it be that the party is failing?...it sure has not made gains in the last election...it lost big time. And you never ask why because you are focused on the president. And then make excuses for him not doing anything by saying the GOP won't let him.
Why in the hell would you expect any difference with Hillary as president? It will be the same excuse. The only difference would be it is misogyny instead of racism.
The unexamined political strategy is not worth having.
brush
(53,469 posts)when Trump is trounced.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)total government collapse always leads to cooler heads prevailing with peace and prosperity following close behind.
shrike
(3,817 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Your answer was great.
shrike
(3,817 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Anarchists and other nihilists shouldn't be allowed out of their mother's basement. They are a danger to themselves and everyone else.
winstars
(4,213 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I was juror 7.
On Thu May 5, 2016, 06:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Gene Debs, got any more jokes for us today? Thats a pretty good one, thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7808136
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Post is rude and over the top
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 5, 2016, 06:35 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is fine by any standard, leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I wasn't aware there's an OTT limit to
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You've got to be kidding with this. This is one of the worst examples of alert abuse I've seen.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
SusanLarson
(284 posts)I reported it.
The reported post attacked the poster of the parent thread as a joke, and ignored the issues raised by the them. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of Rude, or over-the-top
Rude
Discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way
over the top
to an excessive or exaggerated degree.
The reported post met both definitions.
It's ok though, changes are coming...
From my recent post on this very issue from the ask the Administrators forum...
To enhance and protect the civility of DU it is time to establish a clear rule in the Terms of Service against personal attacks. While the TOS protects against disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate posts it's not enough and Skinner needs to make it perfectly clear.
Here is one example:Attack the issue never the person. The posting of messages on which are of a threatening tone; intended solely to communicate sarcasm, contempt, or derision; are intended to belittle or ridicule a person or group; to disgust the viewer; will not be permitted.
Here's another:Bashing or flaming of an individual or group is not acceptable behavior on this website.
Those are just examples, Skinner should come up with his own wording; it is the policy which is sorely needed to enhance civility especially in an election season.
We should be able to discuss the issues raised in the political seasons without being subjected to unrepentant attacks intended to silence us.
This will make it perfectly clear to the jurors that this type of behavior crosses the lines no matter which candidate that person supports.
Here was Skinner's response...
Skinner (61,567 posts) - We are going to do this.
For many years DU had a list of rules with a strong focus on civility. We moved away from that approach when we introduced the jury system in 2011, but once the primaries are over we are going to go back to having a list of rules that all of our members are expected to follow. The job of jurors will be narrowly defined to deciding whether a post violates our rules. Jurors who are unwilling or unable to enforce our rules will not serve on juries.
We'll have a lot more to say about the details once the primaries are over.
I look forward to re-establishing a requirement for civility...
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The post you alerted doesn't even come CLOSE to the threshold needed to meet rude or over the top
AND
The post your alerted post was responding to was advocating a Republican presidency.
Seriously, you seem to be new here so I would suggest you read a bit and get a feel for the general tone. What you did was alert abuse on a very mild post responding to a post that actually SHOULD have been alerted on, and the poster banned (which he/she will be post-primary).
The person who's post I reported could have rebutted the person's statements without being rude or over the top, they did not do so.
Sorry, Hil. I won't be guiltmongered into voting for you. I think a total systemic collapse at this point would actually be better for the country in the long run than a Clinton presidency.
I don't see where it advocates a Republican presidency, or are you one of those type of people who try to say that this person's not voting for the nominee; which is everyone's right even under DU post-primary rules; is the same as voting for the Republican nominee. It's not.
I announced my position before Clinton announced that I would not support her, and I will stick to that until after the November election. We have 300,000,000 Americans, the presidency isn't something that should be passed back between a couple of families as a right of their name, status, and position. We as a nation decided against titles of nobility a long time ago. Just for the record I will oppose Chelsea if she ever decided to run for that very same reason.
Instead the poster totally dismissed this person's concerns, and instead decided to call them a comedian casting the aspersion that their concerns were nothing but a joke, and that my friend is the very definition of rude.
Just in case you think I only reported it because it was targeted at a Bernie supporter, I would have reported a Bernie supporter saying the same thing to a Clinton supporter. I do not play favorites where civility is involved. Attack the issue, never the person.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)for stating you will not vote for the Democratic nominee or advocating as such?
SusanLarson
(284 posts)Actually not.
Lets break it down for you...
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
I haven't advocated for any republican or spoiler candidates, I have not told anyone not to vote for whom they wish, nor have I encouraged anyone else to do so. So i haven't violated that rule. I simply stated my personal position and that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and will not be doing so. This is perfectly acceptable even under general election rules.
I also think that Bernie Sanders running as a third party candidate would invoke the bolded section
DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative
Sorry I respect the rules and the site, and follow them to a T.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I've been here since 2001 (under another name) and I've been through many election cycles. This is the pertinent part of what YOU quoted:
But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees
The rest of that statement is clarification, but the first part is the important part. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for the Democratic nominee for president, the admins do not want you on this site. You will not belong here.
SusanLarson
(284 posts)If you are right Skinner will just have to ban me, but the wording is on my side. And I have no doubt I wil be here a long time especially since I have been here for 10 years now.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)what you think it says.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)On Thu May 5, 2016, 06:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Gene Debs, got any more jokes for us today? Thats a pretty good one, thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7808136
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Post is rude and over the top
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 5, 2016, 06:35 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is fine by any standard, leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I wasn't aware there's an OTT limit to
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You've got to be kidding with this. This is one of the worst examples of alert abuse I've seen.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Right wingers must really love you!
Gene Debs
(582 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Amazing all these low count posters telling Democrats not to vote for their nominee. Do you think we are stupid enough to not see through your crap?
Gene Debs
(582 posts)Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 03:20 AM - Edit history (1)
post count was in single digits once, am I right? Maybe I have a lower post count because I have stuff to do other than trolling Democratic Underground from my Mom's basement eighteen hours a day, pausing only to yell up the stairs that we're out of Doritos.
Nowhere in my post did I tell anyone to vote for any candidate, not to vote for any candidate, or whether to vote at all or not. You read stuff that isn't there.
As to your other question, I don't know whether you're stupid or not. I can see by the little rolling laughing emoticon in your post that you're a child, though.
drama much? Take your ball and go home, please.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Anyway didn't she say she doesn't need our votes in the GE?
Something about having enough votes from the primaries......
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)So in the next month or so we will not see you here anymore? Since this is a site for Democrats and those that support the Democratic Party nominee.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)I won't be guiltmongered into voting for Hillary either. I happen to be living in a state that has no chance of going to Trump in the GE. I'm writing in Bernie because that is who I like.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)This whole process has been so contrived.
One thing that's got me leaning toward voting, though, is the fact that my wonderful boss is a Muslim and when I think about Trump's threat to bar them from entering them from trvling into the U.S., I feel a sense of loyalty to not stand idly by.
Even if Trump couldn't act on that stupidity, the mere discussion of it from the White House would be devastating enough.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Only someone who knows he/she won't face hardship would say such a thing.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Even if they do it silently.
This is really appalling. The GOP is reaping what it sowed.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Anyone who has any doubt that any Republican would be catastrophic is a blathering idiot. Nothing against your post, or your purpose in posting it.
How it would even be necessary to say this at DU is just beyond belief.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I'd vote for dogshit over Trump. Literal steaming dogshit.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Unlike Der Trumpenfuhrer.
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)I prefer Bernie, but if Hillary gets the nomination...
I will vote for her.
drm604
(16,230 posts)I support Bernie but I've known from the beginning that I will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination (which now appears to be all but certain). I would do this even if the Republican nominee wasn't Trump.
On FaceBook I've been called a "Hillbot" for it. There are Bernie supporters who I know personally who argue with me about it. I don't understand them. It seems like they think that they're above it all and wouldn't dare sully themselves by "voting for the lesser evil". They don't seem to understand the realities of politics.
They say that they have to vote in a way that let's them sleep at night. Well, they can vote in a way that makes them feel good and pure if they want. I'm going to vote in a manner that I believe is best for the country and the world given the viable choices. And I will sleep soundly with that choice.
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)But it's been a while.
And not nearly as bad as some of the stuff I've seen on Raw Story.
And there's been quite a bit of Bernie bashing too.
But there are very few regulars taking part in the really harsh shit.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Nice, positive post.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Bucky
(53,795 posts)Electing Clinton president would be like stubbing your toe on someone else's giant golden pyramid. It's not my toe, but it's my injury from someone else's pyramid!! How is that fair? And similarly electing Trump is like having your faced ripped off and eaten by a giant rabid chimpanzee. Asking me to vote for them is like choosing between stubbing my toe and having my face eaten off by a psychotic chimpanzee. Sorry, but I just don't go in for that moral relativism.
The canoe of state is leaking!!1!! Should I bail out the water or go ahead and let it sink?! The only safe choice is to stay home and let the system collapse of its own corruption and then elect Bernie in 2024 after the riots have settled down and the Resistance is writing a new constitution. Anything else would be compromise. And how can you build a true democracy if you go into a political argument already willing to compromise?!??!!
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)I think it was some guy named Pontious Pilot who washed his hands of it a long time ago.
How did it work out for him anyway?
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)He got another province where he didn't have to deal with a bunch of pains.
ananda
(28,782 posts)I don't like Clinton much, but the thought of Trump
is so vomit-making ... well....
captainarizona
(363 posts)Who voted to send over 4000 young americans to death in iraq not because the person believed in the war but for personel political gain. Sanders no trump had no vote clinton yes. I have never voted for a clinton and never will! Bernie or green party. I am sure nazi war criminals apologized for their action when they thougt it might help them after the war.
CanonRay
(14,036 posts)PS I donated to and voted for Bernie.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)After seeing Trump in friendly wedding photos with the Clintons...how much is she paying him to run?
I wish I weren't serious in thinking these thoughts. I don't want to be right.
SusanLarson
(284 posts)Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)And who knows, maybe Sander's will be given an important position in the Clinton admin where he'll be able to effect some change...
ProfessorGAC
(64,415 posts)His now much larger national profile gives him even more clout than he had prior.
KPN
(15,587 posts)We know the routine ... I've come to my senses, a light just came on, etc. I'm guessing you'vr been right were you are from the get go.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
..the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, but it is with no feeling of unity. Or enthusiasm. I'm angry and depressed that once again, the Party has forced me into a position of having to choose the lesser evil.
And I'm really concerned about her hawkishness. I can never shake the feeling that O said to her he'd keep her chances alive for 2016, and help her burnish her resume, by making her SOS. And then it would be her turn. As more information comes out we learn how much she was to the right of him and dragged him into adventures he wouldn't have done on his ownLibya, for one. Not sure we'd be where we are today in terms of candidate choice, if O hadn't made that appointment. The appointment and its title gave her the patina of great power and also, access to funding sources whether for her campaign or for speeches, or for the Clinton Foundation.
TheKentuckian
(24,943 posts)will abuse rationality and decency know good and well all the protests and upset of the YES people is impotent and much to do about nothing because in the end they will always "come around" literally no matter what.
It doesn't matter to those taking advantage if folks are depressed and angry as long as they are compliant.
I don't see how these tactics work ever, the ones taking advantage have ZERO motivation to ever change behaviors so the entire game is determined almost completely on how low and insane the TeaPubliKLANS are willing to go and so far there is no end in sight so the room to position chase the evil bastards is vast.
We are being gamed into negotiated surrender to conservative ideology here and the biggest tell is no matter how dangerous, destructive, and flat out delusional the evil, greedy racist fuckers are we have batshit crazy idiots or crooks (you pick which one applies to who) that are supposed to be decent and rational at bare minimum show the opposite by proactively seeking to "meet them in the middle".
Guess what? That is insane because there is no safe warm space in the middle of anywhere and what might give an old school Bircher pump the brakes. Especially when the strategy is to internally pre-compromise in order to facilitate this (and of course to appease our own conservatives who control all the levers and the powerful committees) particularly since it has been proven beyond any reasonable and honest doubt not to work other than to push that Overton window rightward.
When your opening bid is your minimum acceptable result it isn't a negotiation it is capitulation. It is clearly a lie and a con because otherwise it makes no sense in any practical application.
If we refuse to say no then this will continue and keep spiraling out of control resulting in a far deeper bottom.
I get that our brains are geared toward dealing with clear, present, and immediate threats but those are not always the gravest.
It is this exact type of focus and response that is causing us to be really fucking ourselves on climate change.
The most long term dangerous thing we can do is more of what we have been doing because we are both allowing problems to balloon while becoming ever less capable of dealing with them from every perspective from resources to imagination. The range of ideas wanes seemingly by the day.
At BEST this is like building a football team around a punter while also having perennially bad defense with no plan whatsoever on offense. You are essentially depending on the other team to make mistakes and getting a lucky bounce to ever score much less win a game much less any championships.
That I could swallow maybe a little longer and hope for a stroke of luck but still not indefinitely.
The thing now is I can't help that the offense has gone from inept and impotent to actively scoring for the other team and that I can't abide nor can I be motivated by fear into supporting much of what I oppose under better management.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
and so I take it you will not vote for the lesser evil this time around, because, in the final analysis, it's not lesser at all. Maybe it's even worsebecause it's more spruced up, more hidden and looks saner under marginally better hair.
A lot of people feel as you do. I do too basically, but she'll be better on the climate, and the Supreme Court.
It does feel sickening to capitulatelet's see what happens at the convention.
TheKentuckian
(24,943 posts)However, hope of less destructive course correction fades and negative long term trends build so always dangerous desperation sets in.
This is also not an indictment on incrementalism (though no tool is usable for all applications in all situations) but rather a refusal to conflate kick the can (or perhaps more accurately punting backwards) with plugging along and chipping away, eating the elephant one bite at a time.
The elephant is being grown not diminished, that I will not tolerate no matter how nicely the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic or how marvelous the drapes are in a burning house.
I'm not of the phony, excuse making, rationalizing, making things worse school of "pragmatic".
I'm more the kind that is about bailing water, plugging the hole, making to port or at least warmer waters or escape before the ship sinks/put out the fire or get out.
I don't seem to be aware of any other options. The same reasons are in play every single time to let the bad band play on with ever worsening tunes, the opposition is always dumpster juice and there is always the court.
I say the path forward is to impress upon our "allies" that are the most vocal on both accurate counts that if they wish to have a snowball's chance in hell of avoiding the fruits of those factors that they aren't going to be allowed to select a different flavor of conservative and/or corrupt to carry the day.
I suspect they will come around quicker than whatever mystical evolutionary change some like to dangle out as a distant carrot if we just stay the course and redouble our efforts in doing the same failed shit we've been doing for decades.
I say within twenty years we are climbing out of the hole rather than still digging for fifty as we are now. Which one makes long term self governance, broad prosperity, and maybe even species viability more likely with more tools and resources available than the other?
It won't be pleasant to say the least though, don't get me wrong. They will try to do the wrong things first in a few permutations before getting desperate enough to actually give something a whirl that isn't already demonstrably failed and counter productive.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)would vote GOP because he put Palin on the ticket. That was an insult to women voters, and Trump's comments absolutely are an insult to those of us who support Senator Sanders.
Trump is NOTHING like Bernie Sanders.
Senator Sanders is not a misogynist sociopath who has made a fortune ripping off consumers (re: Trump "University" or bankrupting multiple businesses while walking off with millions. Senator Sanders is pro-choice, and would NEVER say that women who have abortions should be criminally prosecuted. Senator Sanders would NEVER incite violence, watch with glee while his supporters manhandle protesters, and then try to justify Latino-bashing or Moslem bashing.
I could go on and on.
Basically, it comes down to this: Senator Sanders is a decent man who wants what's best for his country. Trump, clearly, is not.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)thank you for being intelligent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7808801
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Suggests that anyone who doesn't support the candidate isn't.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 5, 2016, 10:24 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, suggests that anyone who votes for a Trump over Hillary isnt intelligent. To which I agree.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've seen a thousand times worse!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing offensive here.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Sid
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)I made a simple comment, and a so called progressive can't simply disagree. My right to free speech must be threatened. The same ones who so things like: Hypocrite Hillary, Liar Hillary.
For all those who voted not to hide, thank you. You may not agree with me, I may not agree with you, but we do want a Democrat in office. Despite some posts I really, really disagree with and find offensive, I don't believe I've tried to stop their right to free speech.
herding cats
(19,549 posts)It may be a person with comprehension issues, but it more than likely was someone alert trolling. The admin will be able to check and see which.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Hillary, Sanders, any Democrat over Trump. When leaders of your own party don't want to endorse you and state that they won't even attend the convention, you know that you got a problem on your hands.
The thought of this narcissist carnival barker as president should make people run, not walk, to the voting booth.
fred v
(271 posts)Response to HockeyMom (Original post)
FreedomRain This message was self-deleted by its author.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)LS_Editor
(893 posts)In a deep blue state, so whoever wins the Democratic nomination will win it's electoral college votes. MAYBE Hillary can convince me otherwise, but I doubt it.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)The Article also states the opposite is true. Vote for Hillary to Stop Trump. Trump has outright angered whole groups of people from Women (including Republican) to Latinos. The Donald probably wouldn't have gotten the Latino vote anyway, but Women are another matter. I wonder how many Republican and Independent Women will vote for Hillary to Stop Donald Trump? Or maybe they will not vote at all?
It might just turn out to be the Vote Against someone Election.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)There is nothing that HRC can do or say to convince me that she will support Progessives or return the Democratic Party to its true roots. I just don't trust her. And I am getting sick and tired of selling myself out election after election because I constantly have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
That said, I can't be selfish, either. I'm supporting Bernie Sanders to the very bitter end, to the very last second; but if it turns out -- again -- that I have no other choice, I will very likely vote to keep Trump out and try to save my kids and yours -- and this sorry, sorry country -- from the maelstrom.
I hope what Bernie has started develops into a true political revolution (or at least forces the party to take a long, hard look at itself) so that going forward I can finally cast a vote and leave my polling place feeling good about it, instead of feeling like I've just taken some very bitter medicine needed to cure the disease, but which in truth only makes things worse.
Zambero
(8,954 posts)For the sake of civilization as we know it, and as added insurance against likely voter suppression, he must be suitably buried in a landslide come November.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)I am so glad to hear some people are reality based. The important factor is party UNITY, whomever the nominee is. Down ballot elections are just as important as the presidential ballot. Staying home is NOT a solution, the solution is GOTV and vote party lines. If you dont want to vote for president, then don't, but vote down ballot. We must turn the Senate and make inroads on the GOP controlled House. A Sanders presidency will be a total failure if the Senate and or House continues to be controlled by the GOP.
lark
(23,003 posts)I am sooo with you on this. Trump is the absolute worst possible person to be president of the US and I will do everything in my power to be sure that doesn't happen.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)would switch from Sanders to Trump is only voting to have a white man back in the WH
Response to HockeyMom (Original post)
carolinayellowdog This message was self-deleted by its author.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)What if at the RNC, Trump does not get the nomination but instead it is awarded to Kasich or someone other than Trump or Cruz? Would you write in Bernie then?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Start getting used to it