2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWould cool-headed supporters of Hillary Clinton please attempt to persuade me why...
Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
I should reconsider the decision I made over a year ago not to vote for Hillary Clinton for the office of the Presidency?
I ask that arguments be made on the basis of calm, reasoned analysis. And no insults directed at me or anyone who would choose to attempt to persuade me. And, please, no 'the alternative is far worse' arguments. I'm not asking why I should vote to keep Donald Trump away from the Presidency, but rather why I should specifically vote for Hillary Clinton.
Additionally, Bernie Sanders supporters - I'm also a strong supporter, and what I'm asking for here something other than what you can provide. So please, no arguments as to why I should not vote for Hillary Clinton, should she become the Democratic nominee.
A few preliminaries:
1) I'm a lifelong Democrat - 45 years old.
2) I made the decision well before Bernie Sanders declared his candidacy.
3) I'm very liberal/progressive on social matters and in strong favor of competent management of the federal budget. I especially believe that our mid-20th century, relatively effective income taxation system was decimated by the 'Reagan tax cuts' (which a large number of Democrats were involved in) and that the current massive level of national debt will not be reduced substantially without a shift to an income taxation structure much more like that that was in place prior to 1981.
4) I believe in very strict rules for separation of business and state. Specifically, I believe that people who hold public office should not be recruited from industries that are regulated by the offices they will hold, and that long-term restrictions should be in place so that former officeholders cannot receive any material benefit from industries they were in any way responsible for regulating.
5) I believe that absolutely no one who is not a current resident of a state that political candidates are seeking office on behalf of should be permitted to donate money directly to their campaigns. Might be a bit radical for some, but to me it's just common sense. Our system is supposed to be a representative democracy, and money coming from outside breaks it. I do believe that a member of a political party should be able to receive some funds from their party, but nowhere near the current levels.
6) I believe that business of any form should not be able to donate to political campaigns or political parties, period. That includes 'PACs' that support political agendas. In addition, no business contributions to 'think tanks' that develop and/or advocate political agendas. Finally, no business contributions to 'lobbyists.' All money spent to influence American political decision making should come directly from American citizens.
7) I believe that family political legacies are inherent threats to representative democracy. There may be exceptions, but the basic problem is that politicians who spend substantial time in elected office get exposed to the agendas of a great many wealthy and powerful people and organizations. When they leave office, knowledge of these people and organizations can result in serious corruption of the political process should a close member of that person's family run for political office. The Bush II presidency was a profound example of this - George W. Bush should never have been anywhere near the presidency, and all of his political activity was based on his family's connections. The results are there for everyone to see. I am very concerned about how this problem might affect a Hillary Clinton presidency, who is in line for major political appointments, and what their agendas are.
I would really like it if my perspectives on the prospects of severe corruption of the political process at a very high level with a Clinton presidency were wrong. If someone could persuade me of that, I would be immensely grateful. I think it very unlikely, but I would be grateful to anyone who would be willing to try. I will not belittle any argument made in good faith, but I will try to clamp down on hostility.
Thanks in advance.
Just FYI - it's 1pm where I am now and it's very serious 'get back to work' time, so I'll check on responses when I'm home - likely around 7 central time. There have been a few things to think about so far, and I appreciate the responses. I also see a few hints of the start of a brawl, and I'll do anything I can to lock the OP if that happens 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MH1
(19,156 posts)Grew up in North Dakota.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)If I lived in Germany in 1932 I would have voted for the Social Democratic Party of Germany in the federal elections. Stopping Hitler was a moral imperative. All other considerations would have been subsidiary.
I will elaborate more on the positive aspects of a Clinton presidency if you want.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)more clarification.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)However he would create an environment where some would feel emboldened to harm Muslims and people of color.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)That's sick.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)However if Trump and Sanders were my choices I would vote for the latter without reservation because the former is a monster.
Trump = former
Sanders = latter
Sanders>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I would really like to keep this discussion clean, please...
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I'm not saying that to be snarky. If you think that could possibly be read to include Bernie then you have some sort of problem, but as I'm not a doctor or psychologist I don't want to suggest a specific diagnosis.
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #5)
Octafish This message was self-deleted by its author.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)What a surprise, not.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Clinton presidency that would either address at least one of the concerns I described or be of such importance to add greater weight to the 'vote for Hillary' side of the scale.
I'm not advocating, suggesting, or implying anything by the following, but I'm not confident that a President Donald Trump would live very long. Lots of people with lots of money and seriously adverse interests, and the possibility of such a thing would likely increase based on how extreme his implemented policies became. But that's pure speculation, and nothing to base decisions on. And, again, I am not advocating, suggesting, or implying any support for anything like that.
Thanks for the reply 
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)I agree with most of what you do.
I have 3 words for you — the Supreme Court.
I don't want Trump appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices.
I would vote for Sanders if he wins but I'm supporting Clinton because I don't think Sanders baggage would withstand the vetting that the repugs would launch on him.
creeksneakers2
(8,015 posts)comes a chance to overturn Citizens United, which by the sound of the OP is important to the poster.
hack89
(39,181 posts)
You will have two realistic choices when you vote for president. Since it is all about you, I recommend that if you live in a safe blue state then vote your conscience. If not, make the choice that will personally benefit you most.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)If you can take the time to be sarcastic in response to a question like mine, could you take a moment to explain, at least in small part, how a Hillary Clinton presidency would be better for me and tens of millions of Americans than a Donald Trump presidency? It's easy to roll your eyes and say 'if this person doesn't get it, he's an idiot and not worth wasting time on.' But there's no argument there, no explicit bases for the conclusion. It simply says 'it's so obvious that anyone who might think otherwise is clueless.' But, do you think it was easy for me to ask the question I did?
The question isn't all about me - I did consider the possibility that, if anyone replied at all, some others with similar concerns as mine might also take a look and consider some of the responses. But I didn't know if anyone would - some have, and with helpful information to consider. And I'm grateful for that.
hack89
(39,181 posts)then there is nothing I can say. Your hatred has blinded you.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But explicit arguments are going to be needed soon, and 'gut-level' thinking probably isn't going to favor Hillary Clinton, on the whole. Or maybe it will - but I don't think so.
I am at a point where, if there are worthwhile explicit arguments that can be made by people who are willing to take a bit of time and energy to make them, they may sway me, although it wouldn't be simple or easy.
And if they sway me, then I'd go on and make the same arguments to others in similar positions.
hack89
(39,181 posts)don't care.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It's really bad advice - I'll never vote for Donald Trump, period.
And if you don't care, then it was disingenuous of you to have replied to my question in the first place.
themonster
(137 posts)I understand your concerns. The biggest reason why you should vote for Hillary instead of not voting is very simple: Donald Trump. Do you really want a bully, racist and fascist in the White House? He wants to make America white again. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. At least Clinton will stand up for woman rights.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The problem, for me, is that I'm not sure that the potential problems associated with an... ugh... Donald Trump presidency (I would personally participate in any fight necessary to prevent unconstitutional activity from taking effect, and I believe many others would do the same) necessarily outweigh those associated with a highly organized and sophisticated Executive Branch power structure, consisting of a great many people who are veteran power brokers and liaisons between huge businesses and politicians.
It's not that I don't regard a Trump presidency as an awful prospect. I just don't know if the damage he could potentially do would outweigh the potential harm of further advancement of government and Democratic Party management by the highest bidders.
I appreciate the point, but I made the decision in part because I believe that, at this time, given the current state of what I see as corporate/financial-interest-driven Democratic party agendas, voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is just handing over victories to oligarchs.
I've asked for no 'lesser of two evils' arguments - I hope that isn't all I get .
But thanks again - I'm grateful for your response and I'll remember it.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The only likely long-term negative effect (and I have to admit it's a biggie) from a Trump presidency that has much chance of outweighing Hillary's cementing the "pay to play" nature of our corrupt sham of a political system is the SCOTUS. And that's very, very debatable...
lancer78
(1,495 posts)would be ok if both the house and senate were in democratic hands.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)"It's not that I don't regard a BUSH presidency as an awful prospect. I just don't know if the damage he could potentially do would outweigh the potential harm of further advancement of government and Democratic Party management by the highest bidders. "
Look at it that way. You're old enough to remember the years 2001 through 2008. I would vote for Bush over Trump if those were my only choices.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)in that comparison is that Bush II had a very organized foreign policy group that was ready to begin implementation of its agenda on day one. And they, neoconservatives, had a mission that proved disastrous for the country.
Trump is only barely getting the support of the Republican party to begin with, and the question of whether he would bring in experienced people with dangerous agendas on par with the neocons isn't settled. There'd be a lot of creeps, for sure, but would they be able to get much done?
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)is going to bring in peace-loving doves on foreign policy?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I'm just addressing the comparison you made. Bush II had lots of connections to neoconservatives through his family, they had very specific plans and agendas, and they made sure they were in all the right places to carry them out.
Hillary Clinton, of course, wouldn't bring in 'peace-loving doves on foreign policy' either, and she seems to have made some connections among still-lingering neoconservatives. And she has, in some cases, very close relationships with various foreign parties that aren't difficult to identify.
Both Trump and Clinton have been rather hawkish in their language thus far on foreign policy. Some of Trump's nonsense has been pure propaganda which he later walks back on, and most of the top brass would resign rather than implement some of the things he's pitched. And he knows that, I think.
I don't know who would be actually better or worse with respect to foreign policy over the span of a presidential term. Trump, merely by being the President, would certainly do no good for our image abroad. But actual probable foreign and/or military policy? If someone could demonstrate to me that her leadership team in those areas are likely to scale down American military activity abroad, that would be something of value.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)If you believe that, then you're wrong. Trump would not only be worse than Bush, he would be extremely reckless and dangerous on foreign policy.
No one is going to be elected to the presidency in this country at this time on a platform of scaling back on the military esp. during this age of heightened terrorism. Even Bernie is not gong to scale back on the military.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)declare wars any more.
I don't have any expectation that the military, overall, will be reduced in personnel or overall global deployment.
The question is how much combat we engage in and how many bombing and drone attacks we conduct.
You seem to have an opinion that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would result in less of this activity than a Donald Trump Presidency - I'd very much appreciate your reasoning on that subject.
creeksneakers2
(8,015 posts)I expect he would get us back to massive ground troops in Iraq and add them to Syria as well. He has a very belligerent personality and bursts hostility at anything that challenges him. He shoots from the hip. He'd very likely get us into a war over something Hillary could have settled with her diplomatic skills. Trump has no idea what he's doing.
I think with Hillary we'd still have the drones.
840high
(17,196 posts)
TacoD
(581 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)TacoD
(581 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)If you think that the huge amounts of money being raised on behalf of Democrats in this elections cycle are disgusting, how well do you think they would fare against their GOP opponents? One step at a time. First there has to be a Democrat in the WH and a Democrat majority in the Senate. On that last group, Bernie and his followers have failed miserably in supporting them. Without a Democrat in the WH and a Democrat majority in the Senate, there will be no Democrat-appointed majority on the SCOTUS. When there is, Citizens United, all the voter suppression, and gerrymandered congressional districts will start to disappear fairly quickly.
I too am a lifelong Democrat - in the first 18 y/o that got to vote. I also know that Bernie's past in regards to what governments he has aligned himself with in the past, will doom him to most voters over 50. "Socialist" doesn't fit well with that age group.
But your mind is set.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Truthfully, I'm looking for a reason to change a decision. Right now I can't. It's that simple.
We've had Democrats in the WH with Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House before, and a few times a couple of good things happened. The ACA is an example of something much better than the alternative of having done nothing.
I'm not discussing voting for Bernie at this point, and it's not part of the question.
I wouldn't have asked if I didn't mean exactly what I said - I would be glad if I was wrong on at least one of the specific issues I've described. Really hoping someone could demonstrate that.
Thanks
okasha
(11,573 posts)you already know you need to change it.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Life-time appointments.
We can maybe dig ourselves out of 8 years of Trump threatening to nuke the entire rest of the world including Europe, but if he gets ahold of 3-5 SC vacancies we can kiss goodbye any "liberal/progressive on social matters" as you mentioned, progress we've made for the past 50 years, because it's all getting overturned.
Another argument: POC, women, and the disabled will not suffer under Hillary the way they will suffer and die by the MILLIONS under Trump.
Another argument: Hillary believes in climate change and has a plan to combat it. Trump does not believe in climate change.
Another argument: Hillary is in favour of a very progressive childcare supplement program to help millions of families bring their childcare costs down below the level of housing costs, as many people pay.
Another argument: Hillary is strongly pro-small business and pro-union. She has comprehensive plans on her website to help small businesses.
There are many more arguments. But at the end of the day, Minnesota is likely to go blue and if the threat of Trump taking the WH is not enough for you to vote for Hillary, then nothing anyone says can convince you.
Patiod
(11,816 posts)It's all about the Supremes.
I would like to hear a clear-headed Sanders supporter explain why Trump would be better for America than Hillary.
TheFarseer
(9,770 posts)I think this will not be a priority at best and they would support reaffirming that decision at worst.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I am not in favour of Citizens United and neither is Hillary. But do you honestly think that's MORE important than BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS for POC, LGBT, disabled people, and women? Taken together, that's probably 70-75% of the population!
TheFarseer
(9,770 posts)But if we don't have an honest government, we don't have anything. Bernie said this is his top priority in a nominee so I don't think I'm off base here. I hope she will say more to address this, but I'm not holding my breath.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)She said she would use it as a litmus test for her SC candidates. She is against it, she has said so many times.
Many Bernie supporters on here don't believe what she says, or think she is pandering, or that she will pivot once she's won the nomination. That's why I asked if that was your first priority. Even if you think she will change her tune on CU (which I don't think she will) she will definitely appoint SC judges who will uphold basic human rights for marginalised groups. Trump will not.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Matt_R
(456 posts)Who would SoS Clinton nominate to the SC?
BooScout
(10,410 posts)The Supreme Court.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Has Hillary Clinton ventured any possible names for the prospect of continued obstructionism (which seems likely) and the President can't get a nominee through for the current vacancy?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'd argue that the only differences between SCOTUS nominees would lie in social issues. That's a massive deal, obviously. But in economic areas, I don't trust Hillary not to nominate center-right corporate kneepadders. And as critical as so many social issues undeniably are, I'm not sure anything outweighs taking back control of our allegedly democratic system before it really is too late to so so without horrible, destructive civil unrest.
That's not an easy prioritization for me (socialist female...), but it's one I have to make. Longer-term thinking...
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)when you consider that the ONLY two options are Hillary or Trump. When you say you're not sure anything outweighs the economic issues, even if you think Hillary and Trump are the same on those (which I disagree), then you still have the SC social issues to consider.
Either Hillary will be appointing SC justices, or Trump will be. Those are your only two options, if you want to participate in the GE. Your long-term goals are fine, but if (as you say) Hillary is not going to give you what you want in terms of SC justices on economic issues, then Trump won't either. In the meantime, Hillary will protect women's rights, LGBT rights, disabled rights, POC rights with her choices.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I can't imagine how you could have possibly come to post such a contingency, given that the body of my post begins with:
As for the GE, my vote there is entirely irrelevant, due to the (noxious and anti-democratic) Electoral College. My state isn't in play.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)you still have social issues to consider.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
In a way it's a blessing your state isn't in play. You don't like either of your choices, so you can vote your conscience without hurting other people. I vote in PA (well, I MAIL my vote to PA from where I live in the UK) and you can darn well bet my vote will count.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Both major party (likely) candidates fail to reach my "acceptable" margin by a big, big margin. Rejecting them both has no downside for me.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)economy.
Meanwhile, Al Gore made the issue of Climate Change a mainstream issue and helped bring about the treaty in Paris.
Yes, Virginia, there is a major difference.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)You may hate the Wall St. candidates we allow you to vote for but, the Supreme Court.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Hillary's ties to the establishment are hardly a secret. Get back to me when Hillary supports single payer, or a livable minimum wage of $15/hr, or single payer healthcare and then we'll revisit possibly poo-pooing the "establishment" comment.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)But she is pragmatic enough to realize that supporting them and achieving them are two different things entirely.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)that "pragmatism" thing...always a convenient roadblock. She LOVES single payer but not gonna fight for it because it's not pragmatic. Gotcha. Them's good scruples.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)....is knowing when to pick and chose your battles. I do believe that one day America will have single payor....but I also believe that it will take time and one step forward and two steps back for a lot of small advances over time to get us there.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)He seems to be the favorable choice on the issues you care about most.
However, life isn't fair, and your favorite candidate doesn't always win. Once the primary is over, you choice will be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The fact is that one of those two people will be President of the United States. That being the case, in reality, there is no such thing as "sitting it out." By not voting for one of those two people, you are, in effect, making your choice (that may not be an ideal situation, but that's a separate conversation). You are contributing an environment that makes it easier for one of them to win.
If you find both candidates equally contemptible, then sitting it out (or voting for a electoral non-factor) is a reasonable response. If, however, you find one of the candidates to be utterly unconscionable, then you aren't doing your duty as a citizen if you don't vote against that person.
If you don't find Trump utter unconscionable, or if you think he and Hillary are roughly equal, I really don't know what to say to you to convince you otherwise. I can't even comprehend the mindset of a person that would consider Trump a reasonable choice, or anything close to equal to Hillary.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But I'm asking for persuasion on the basis of the probable outcome of the Democratic nomination in Hillary Clinton's favor.
I won't write in Bernie. I can respect what he's done in other ways.
And I don't find Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump personally 'equally contemptible.' I don't have any contempt for Hillary Clinton.
I'm concerned about the broader implications of the Executive Branch power structures that would be probable to result from either candidate's success.
I appreciate your reply, but I'm hoping someone can convince me that I'm wrong about things that I currently believe to be the case.
Thanks
creeksneakers2
(8,015 posts)She has a very liberal voting record and her stands aren't those favored by the rich.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Trump will make the supreme court conservative for another 30 years. If you care about liberal/progressive social matters this is all the reason you need to vote Hillary. There are many more reasons. The Democratic Party is the only party standing between you and the republicans who want to make this an all white, 1950s, Christian Nation that cares only about big corporations. Bye bye health care, tuition assistance, social security, environmentalism, green technology, gay marriage, pro-choice... do you need a longer list? Because it goes on..
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The worry I have is that the Supreme Court is always subject to change. It always will be. And if we can't amend the Constitution to address issues that a Supreme Court might otherwise interpret one way or another, depending on political perspectives of its members at any given time, then....
voting for a President, solely on the basis of the possible political perspectives of potential nominees to the Supreme Court, is , in my mind, almost an absurdity. In the present case, the current composition of the Senate is keeping a rather conservative nominee from even being considered.
So here's what I have to ask - is there any prospect of a sufficient shift in the composition of the Senate resulting from the 2016 or 2018 elections that would ensure that a nominee with a liberal/progressive background could be confirmed?
And thanks for the reply
Response to RiverNoord (Reply #17)
realmirage This message was self-deleted by its author.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)The Senate will confirm a left leaning justice of Hillary's or the american people will vote them out. The polls show the american people will not stand for the supreme court being split 4-4 indefinitely. Either way democrats win.
Vote Trump and you will undoubtedly get the worst conservative supreme court for another 30 years.
If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.
randome
(34,845 posts)But she's obviously our nominee. Instead of standing still and being disappointed that she isn't doing everything we want, we should pull together as a team and try to push her further to the left.
Besides, she will have tons of aides and assistants who will be advising her, including, I bet, President Obama. It isn't one person we elect, it's an ensemble. She will have a wide range of opinion to guide her so I don't see her as rampaging through Europe on a mission to destroy evil-doers, as some others seem to believe.
She isn't perfect, not by any means. But you work with the material at hand rather than give up, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It may be that the question of the identity and agendas of her probable advisors that I am most worried about. No one can run the Executive branch alone, and most policy is developed by appointees and their staffs.
I don't think I've seen arguments of the prospect of of potential war in Europe resulting from a Clinton presidency - that seems absurd to me.
Maybe the Clinton campaign will release more detailed information later regarding the identities of various probable cabinet-level appointees. If they're not heavily drawn from the financial services industry, that would be a big plus for me. I'll be waiting and hoping.
Thanks a bundle for taking the time and energy to respond to my question - I'm very grateful
Tarc
(10,601 posts)Nope.
Put on your big-boy pants and make the informed decision between the candidates on the ballot in the fall.
No one is coming to a Berniefan on bended knee.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I believe I asked politely, and have had a number of responses that have been very helpful.
But a few have responded like you - I don't understand why so much energy is spent on DU heaping scorn on people who indicate an intent to vote in a manner that others consider unacceptable, and then, when a question like mine is asked, people like you scorn that also. Are people trying to persuade others to vote a particular way in the midst of all of that hostility, or is it all just an Internet-based political gang war? If that's the case, not a lot of good is being done on DU.
I don't know what a 'Berniefan' is, but from what you've said, you appear to use it as a derisive reference to anyone who has supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. It is very likely that Hillary Clinton will need the votes of quite a few of us who have supported her rival in that contest, and lots, like me, are lifelong Democrats.
That being the case, I asked politely, and certainly didn't expect anyone to address my question 'on bended knee.' Any responses would be entirely based on the good graces of the person electing to do so. So it's kind of the opposite.
still_one
(98,883 posts)
LisaM
(29,634 posts)I'm quite sure of the opposite.
still_one
(98,883 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)There are all sorts of cheerleading going on on DU - none of which is of relevance to whether I'm wrong on those points or am missing something that would change their relative importance.
It's just an honest question and I've had a few responses to think about so far.
LisaM
(29,634 posts)First, you ask for "cool-headed supporters" - implying that there are many people supporting Hillary who are not cool-headed, and you just won't listen to anyone who has any passion. This is a common tactic - putting yourself automatically in the role of reasoned thinker, while dismissing out of hand a good portion of the responses you might otherwise get. If anyone demonstrates any enthusiasm for Hillary, you'll then be able to say, "but I asked for cool-headed...
Next, you then give seven long reasons comprising a litmus test as to why you, the calm, rational one, could never vote for any candidate who espouses the things you especially dislike. Surprise, they happen to dovetail almost perfectly with things you also accuse Hillary of doing/being. The things that supposedly orient you towards a candidate don't include things like fighting for children, having worked on women's issues for decades, or gaining endorsements from groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
I really don't think you want to be convinced and I believe the back and forth between you and me will end in a standstill, but let me be totally honest here - you don't like Hillary, that's abidingly clear, and if anyone did offer a spirited defense of her, I believe you're poised to try and rip it apart.
Sometimes a candidate is a lot more than a sum of her parts. I like that Hillary is a human being. The trouble with voting for people who set themselves up as saints is that, well, they're saints. They don't admit to wrongdoing. They see the world in black and white. Nuance is often not a part of their worldview. But we live in a big, messy, ever-changing world and I want a candidate that reflects that.
I said 'cool-headed' solely because I'm asking for civil, substantive arguments, and there's a lot of the opposite on DU coming from people who claim to be supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I just wanted to be really straightforward about what I was asking. I also asked Sanders supporters to stay out of the discussion, because there are plenty who are also not cool-headed on DU, and I didn't want my request to degenerate into something ugly. I meant no offense by the selection of the words, and definitely did not mean to imply anything about supporters of Hillary Clinton other than I believed that there are many that might be willing to address the subject.
Another thing - I really have no opinion about Hillary Clinton personally. I have never met her, and have no basis to form an opinion about her personal character solely from various manifestations of public personae. It's her backing that I'm really concerned about, and how it may affect the kinds of policies that come out of a Clinton White House. The President of the United States doesn't make as much policy as her/his appointees do, mainly because it's impossible for one person to manage all aspects of the Executive branch.
You're correct about not having stated the importance of a candidate having fought for children, or endorsements from NARAL or Planned Parenthood. I do recognize the importance of the issue of legal abortion and women's reproductive health clinics, but there have been a lot of hits taken on those subjects, at state levels, under 8 years of a Democratic president. If there is a strategy that Hillary Clinton would have to address state-level abortion restrictions, I'd definitely like to hear more.
I don't know what she has done to fight for children. If you could indicate what you mean by that, I'd appreciate it.
Also, I don't understand the 'people who set themselves up as saints' reference. Are you referring to Bernie Sanders? My question isn't about Sanders - it's based on the assumption that Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee. Or am I wrong about that?
Seeinghope
(786 posts)time and effort. Organising their thoughts and states what their concerns are you attack them for being sanctimonious and trying to bait people. You attack her being pragmatic. Pretty funny.
LisaM
(29,634 posts)Demand list much?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Just asking for help with a difficult problem that I'm facing. That's all.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But there wasn't any need to reply to my post with one that didn't address the question I'd asked.
Still, fair enough point.
redstatebluegirl
(12,827 posts)Both sides have some people who need to chill a little. Both candidates have things that annoy me and concern me. I chose Secretary Clinton over Senator Sanders because of her experience on the international stage. I could vote for either one of them easily.
My main fear is a Trump Presidency with a Republican House and Senate choosing 3 Supreme Court Justices and destroying our country. Nothing either Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders could do would come close to what Trump would do.
I understand the lesser of two evils thing, my poor departed Dad used to say that is how we got Nixon . I don't see this the same way, I think either candidate is superior to anyone the green party or the republicans can put out there.
Ok, Bernie folks come and get me .
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Thanks for the response - I hope I didn't forestall any scraps you might have been looking forward to
You make one argument about the Supreme Court, and that's turning out to be a common one.
I wonder about two things - first, what's the likelihood in either 2017 or 2019 that the Senate composition will change in Democratic favor such that the Republicans would not be able to pull the stunts they are now pulling with President Obama and, on the whole, a fairly conservative Supreme Court nominee?
Second - given what's happening now, what's the likelihood that the 2017 or 2019 Senate composition will change in Republican favor to the extent that Democrats, fresh with the memory of a period of unprecedented Republican obstructionism, would be unable to stand in the way of an extremist or even undesirably 'conservative' nominee?
It's difficult for me to imagine much of a real difference between a Republican-appointed or Democratic-appointed Supreme Court Justice who actually will be confirmed, given the way the Republicans have opened the door to extreme obstructionism.
The tough part for me is that the ongoing nature of the Supreme Court's composition, such that any President might end up nominating anywhere from 0 to 9 members of the court, means that it's a very effective tool to promote staunch division and keep people firmly tied to the institutionalized 2-party system. A country of a few hundred million voting-age citizens, and every couple of years we are presented with a handful of options for our Federal government representatives.
I think we've seen this year that the American public isn't nearly as staunchly divided into the two political camps as some might like us to be. Maybe I'm wrong. But if all we ever do is elect someone because the other person is worse, we're going to be a country held hostage by the biggest sponsors of each party, and each time we do it, we give those sponsors more power and validation. They'll set agendas, establish 'talking points,' carefully filter candidates, use the corporate media to control dialogue, and ensure that their power and wealth keeps growing.
Maybe that's what's really at the heart of my problem - can I vote for a power structure that I believe is likely to put more distance between elected representatives and the interests of the people who actually cast votes because the alternative power structure, which will do the same thing, is not insignificantly more unpalatable than the other? Either way a vote means you grant your approval for the candidate you vote for and cannot reasonably argue later that something you expected to happen as a result of the candidate's success is unacceptable...
Well, thanks for the reply - I'll be looking into the Supreme Court situation carefully as a result of all of the arguments made about it.
redstatebluegirl
(12,827 posts)Do I think it is a reality, no, but I can hope. This year is a tough one to gauge. They won't be able to obstruct for 4 more years, especially if we see 2 more judges go either by retirement or death. Their own supporters are after them over not voting on Garland.
I cannot be any stronger, we cannot have Trump replace 3 members of the court. Lord knows what they would repeal, beginning with the ACA, while it isn't perfect it is better than nothing for people with no insurance or a preexisting condition. They would give the rich and corporations even more power. I know they portray Hillary as being pro-corporation, but she couldn't get away with it and get reelected in this climate. I honestly don't think she will try after this election.
I think the mid-terms in 2018 may give us more seats in the House, maybe even give us back control, but the truth is, until they deal with gerrymandering I don't see it. Even then, Americans have always liked a balance of powers, putting the party in the White House out of the House. Sometimes I think it would be better to have the House and Senate and let them have the Presidency but that is another issue all together.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The Supreme Court is one thing, the District and Circuit federal courts is another.
And both begin with appointment by the President.
I expect that you're right about the probable difference in likely Supreme Court Justice appointments between the two, and you've made the argument very well. The issue seems to be the primary response I'm getting, and I've been somewhat dismissive of it - I need to think it over, and I think you did that.
So, I'm very grateful to you, redstatebluegirl, for taking the time and energy to respond to my post.
Thanks a bunch
redstatebluegirl
(12,827 posts)Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)1. Nobody can come up with reasons to vote for Hillary, just against Trump. That seems to be a common theme around here. "Why should you vote for Hillary? Because, Trump".
2. There are plenty of Hillary supporters who feel they have the GE wrapped up and don't need any additional voters in the pool. They seem to be threatened that if the party tries to court Bernie voters they just won't be as special for supporting Hillary. They fear being diluted in a larger pool of voters and not mattering as much.
Vote your conscience and what is right to you. If "Because, Trump" is a good enough reason to forego your other convictions, then Hillary is the choice. If you are looking for a discussion of the actual issues, you might be in the wrong neighborhood.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)The party must and will court Sanders supporters and I expect Bernie and Hillary both to facilitate that. Voting against Trump is fine with me. Hillary is certainly a flawed candidate but really any equivocation with her and Trump is way off base.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and by now ought to be very accustomed to holding your nose as you vote.
Everyone has his limts, I know, but only you can decide how far you're willing to compromise your principles. I can only point out the folly of confirming Justice Sarah Palin.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)What will Ben Carson get?
Secretary of Education - Ms. Tennessee 2008?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The question of Supreme Court nominees is one I haven't given enough consideration to, and the larger question of all other President-appointed federal judges may be even of greater significance.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question - I appreciate it very much
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"
As it stands) in November, 2016, we will be electing to the Office of POTUS, either HRC or Trump" ... I my view, that is more than reason enough to reconsider your decision to not vote for HRC.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A country with how many millions of people, and the best we can do ultimately is a choice between the least bad of two nominees that so many people find distasteful.
That goes beyond whether Bernie is the nominee or not.
It just sucks....(Not a very sophisticated analysis, I realize.)
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)And I don't mean that in a snarky way. It sucks for the minority of Democrats who voted for Bernie. It's pretty great for the majority of Democrats who voted for Hillary, however. I don't find her distasteful or the "least bad" of anything. I think she is inspirational and I like her a lot. I think she will make an excellent president and I'm proud to vote for her.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Your argument, though, unless I got this wrong, is limited to whether 'HRC or Trump' becomes POTUS. It's dependent entirely on information you don't present in the argument in order to determine its merits.
Again, thanks for the response.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)since they will be the only printed choices on that ballot line.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Thus endeth the lesson.
BootinUp
(51,322 posts)Bernie's Policy or it will be Trumps RW policy.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Thanks for the response - that's been the strongest point made among all of the responses I was lucky enough to get.
It's definitely an issue that I haven't given adequate consideration to, and I need to think about it.
Thanks again
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I apologize for the mis-reference. I hope what I wrote wasn't terribly insulting, and if it was, again, I sincerely apologize for the ignorance and presumption I exhibited with my response.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Now I think you might have tortured me a little bit...
Knowing the film line, you still selected the original reference to school me on. I thought the line was a bit more of a generic phrase, rather than a reference to a specific religious text, and I appreciate the education.
Now..., you could have let me off a bit more easily, by mentioning your familiarity with the film also. I thought I'd just insulted someone terribly and felt awful.
And I must say, if you were playing it just a little bit that way - deftly done .
If not, well, crap - I'd better just shut up now...
okasha
(11,573 posts)(Episcopalian reflexes still functioning.) 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) Yavin4
(37,182 posts)If Hillary is president and she's surrounded by a strong left of center congress, then more of what you want will get done, as she will have to go along with the direction of her party.
If Trump is president and he's surrounded by a strong left of center congress, then nothing of what you want will get done, and he will get praise for standing up against the Liberals.
Fresh_Start
(11,365 posts)but then I realized that what happens in my state depends on the votes of all congresscritters...
so being only concerned about my state wasn't reasonable
states which rely on fracking for income will of course be more amenable to fracking than states which do not have any income from fracking. but the externalites from fracking could directly impact the health of neighboring states...so why shouldn't those citizens have some minor say in the policies around fracking.
for the last few election cycles, I've lived in a reliable democratic voting area. While I do support my local party, I'm also contributing to other liberal candidates in other states because I want Congress to be majority democratic rather than majority republican.
procon
(15,805 posts)Don't beg for attention like this, it's embarassing. You're supposedly an adult, just like everyone else is in this forum, and free to vote for whomever you like... who cares? Why would anyone waste time trying to "persuade" you after you've declared that your mind was made up. Just spare us these long winded, conceited vanity posts, and the tributes to your personal hubris. You wanted to showboat, to proclaim," lo and behold! You're gonna vote for Sanders", OK, so what? Even if you added a fanfare or a drum flourish... who cares.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)primary. And most of them are just people yelling back and forth and insulting each other.
Instead, I asked straightforward questions because I actually want substantive answers from people who might be able and willing to provide them. That's it. I have no interest in 'attention.' This is an anonymous Internet political site, and as such does not provide real-life attention to people. It is, however, a forum where people with a wide variety of experiences and significant political acumen write things about politics. So, probably better than going door to door and asking the question I did. It isn't a question with easy answers, that I know of (although I'd be pleased to discover otherwise), but there are many smart people on DU, and I hoped that I might benefit from knowledge on the subject that they'd be willing to share.
So I asked a direct question of anyone who would be willing to respond, with as much plain information to assist anyone on the subject I'm asking about, a question about Democratic politics on a Democratic political web site. I was polite and honest about what I was asking. I specified that I did not want to get into petty arguments or see mud-slinging.
If what I asked means that I want 'strangers to coddle' me, why do you, a stranger, want to seemingly insult me? Is that more adult than asking politely for perspectives on a subject?
I don't believe that adult discussion has no place on DU - it would be nice if it was the norm.
procon
(15,805 posts)End of story.
Since you've already decided who to vote for, your questions are just bait. Its nothing but grandstanding. Even if someone is foolish enough to fall for your stunt, it would be an exercise in futility because you have already decided. There's nothing to be said, your mind is made up and we know who you're voting for.
If you really wanted opposing views, this place is full of them, all awaiting your perusal. Can we imagine that you've already done your due diligence and were left unmoved? That's as it should be, and no one should try to "persuade" you, especially after you've listed your cherished personal beliefs in great detail. These are your important issue, so stay true to what you believe in. There's no need for this wishy washy ploy, just vote for whomever you like, be proud of your decision... just like everyone else will, and without the showboating.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)If you can't figure out how to vote...it's not my job to do it for you.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I've explained on many occasions why I favor Clinton. You have to decide for yourself whether your preferred issues outweigh other factors that you don't care about as much but that other people might care about more, and then make your decision. If you choose to vote for Clinton it will be a compromise on your part; if you can't bring yourself to compromise then you shouldn't do so. You're clearly an intelligent thoughtful person so I think deep down you know that nobody can square this circle for you.
rogerashton
(3,960 posts)(Funny that none of the Hillary supporters seem to be able to; but then, her supporters are one of her major problems.)
1) Hillary has consistently supported measures to improve the standard of living of people at lower incomes, especially women and children, and to eliminate discrimination against nonwhite people. These certainly are liberal objectives, though you don't mention them in your OP. Yes, I do remember "the end of welfare as we know it," but I think that was unavoidable in the climate of that time, and other contemporary policy changes (such as increases in the earned income tax credit) probably more than offset it. Yes, I remember the 2008 campaign, but I am talking about what she has done, not what she has said.
2) I don't see the environment in your list of liberal objectives either, but effective policies for environmental improvement also are priorities for anyone who understands the science and economics of the environment. A person who understands these things will of course be a liberal. Hillary hasn't said a lot on this, but it is clear that she has a real understanding of the problems and can lead on environmental policy. And I'm confident she will lead on these things.
3) She will have the confidence of the leaders of our major allies. Don't underestimate the importance of this. Trust and confidence are more likely to keep the peace than high principles.
4) She is responsive to popular opinion. If the Democratic left can persuade a majority to support our programs, Hillary will too.
5) She will want to be re-elected. See 4) above.
I agree with your judgments 4-7. I think I disagree with you on the public debt, at least partly. I am aware that my 5 points do not address those matters, but that is not what you asked for. You asked for positive reasons to vote for Hillary, not as a lesser evil but as a greater good. Those are mine.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)And as a Hillary supporter, I agree with most of what you said, including the bit about her being responsive to popular opinion (which I've never thought was a bad thing). I think she has said more on the environment than you give her credit for (and the environmental platform on her website is comprehensive). But generally, I agree with almost all you've said.
TacoD
(581 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)I hope you can spread it around the people's media.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I can't say with certainty that they're entirely wrong.
But, with all the knowledge and experience among DUers, I do feel like I have an obligation to directly ask for perspectives or information that might demonstrate to me that my concerns about Hillary Clinton's candidacy are either in error or outweighed by other matters I haven't considered.
DU has seen an awful lot of pointless hostility this year - I hope this is better...
The issue of nominees to the Supreme Court (and, by extension, all other openings on federal district and circuit courts) has been put forth pretty solidly, and I am going to do some more research on the subject. It may be possible that, on the whole, it is an issue that may end up outweighing the others in relative importance on election day. I don't think so, but it's a possibility.
Thanks again
CincyDem
(7,392 posts)Some matching preliminaries.
1) I'm a lifelong Democrat. In fact, a Chicago democrat from the days when that meant something. I have relatives who died in the 50's who I am sure voted (proudly) for Kennedy. I suspect, with no proof, that my local percent captain voted for Carter "on my behalf" in 1980 in spite of me having moved away in 1979.
2) I've been drawn to Sander's message and supported him in the Ohio primary. He would be my first choice. Unfortunately, not enough of my democratic peers nationwide agreed with me and we are in the position that he will not be a formal candidate in November. Sure, I could write him in but that's a lot like burning $100 bills because I don't like the Fed printing money. Makes a point but doesn't change the reality.
3) Agree completely.
4) Agree completely.
5) Agree completely.
6) Agree completely.
7) While I agree in principle, I not ready to sign on for the "inherent threats" element. I think there is an element of skill and talent of leadership required to work in a representative government. we've abdicated that in favor of ideology over the past 30 years to the point where we think a real estate buffoon can fun a government. I've run businesses (that are nothing like real estate)...do you think Trump would be making a good decision to put me in charge of his "empire" while he's in office. Hell no. He's going to be looking for someone with experience in the field...and that's what we should be looking for in government. I think republicans have been teaching America that "government is the problem" for 40 years and then, every time they get into power, they've worked to reinforce that perception through poor performance.
So why reconsider - because ultimately, the task of leading 250+ million is an exercise in pragmatism and sometimes, ya just can't eat an elephant in one bite. HRC is not as far left of many issues as I would like. And she's the furthest left on most issues so that's the decision I have to make.
Ask yourself...is perfect the enemy of good. She's not perfect (neither is Bernie, or Stein, or any candidate). But when we get to the narrow list of candidates, she's the best. And it's not just that she's the best vs. Trump. She would be the best vs. any republican because their ideology is so damaging to the future.
It's been said that, relative to candidates, Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Maybe that's why they control statehouses and state legislatures and, through gerrymandering, the House. I hate the idea of "falling in line" but I hate the idea of "President Trump" far far far more.
I don't know if this is convincing but if you have a mother, a sister, or a daughter - it's irresponsible for vote for any republican and it's a poor idea to vote in a way that enables those who "fall in line" to win because we wanted something that wasn't on the menu.
Good luck with your decision and I hope you'll reassess your 12 month old decision.
Have a great day.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)of two evils, but if you live outside of a battleground state, I see no real advantage gained from violating your conscience.
If you are unpersuaded, and Hillary prevails, will you write in for Sanders, vote Green or Libertarian, undervote (skip the top of the ballot), stay home?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I'd undervote. For the first time in my life.
I wouldn't write in Sanders - he wouldn't win under such circumstances, and I don't believe what he has done should result in the 'spoiler' moniker A.K.A. Ralph Nader.
As for violating my conscience - well, it would be a very good thing if I could support the Democratic nominee without doing so. But even that's not really my issue. It's more a question of what value a vote has. In my case, my vote. If I vote for something or someone, I'm officially declaring my support for that position or candidate. I don't know how much more official you can get than doing the very thing that, should enough others do it, actually brings about its success.
Of course, voting for someone or something can solely be an act of opposition to something undesirable. But, if what you vote for is something you also are generally opposed to, then the thing you are voting against had better be bad enough to compensate for the toll you will pay for the consequences of officially supporting something you otherwise oppose.
The whole purpose in asking what I have is to honestly solicit opinions and information that might demonstrate to me that my opposition is either based on flawed information or that other factors are of greater importance than the consequences of the things that result in my opposition.
So far the issue of nominees to the Supreme Court (and, although none have mentioned it, district and circuit federal judges), has been the most persuasive to me. It's something I've got to think about, because I don't think I've evaluated the issue sufficiently.
Thanks for the reply (I'm a non-practicing attorney in Minnesota)
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)1) The SC nominations are scarier, for many people, than the permanent government-for-sale prospect of Clinton. This seems to reflect the social and wedge issues given much weight by Hillary's voters.
2) Many of her supporters, having no examples of policy or substance to relate, instead admonish you to "quit grandstanding" or "do your own homework" or some other non-answer.
The contortions into which many are twisted in this thread make all the more poignant the heart and soul of Bernie Sanders in his campaign over the past several months.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I appreciate the response, Ron Green, but I don't intend to criticize anyone who took the time to respond to me. I'm hoping that other Sanders supporters will respect that and do the same.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)who would have been forced to keep her rapists baby (my cousin) if abortion was illegal, yes, the Supreme Court is very important. Much more important than government-for-sale, which just might end if enough Liberal Justices get appointed to the SCOTUS.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)You inadvertently help elect Trump then you will starve...enjoy your misery...at your age, you may not see the courts move back to liberal in your lifetime. I am sure St. Bernie is so worth the misery the Donald will cause millions for years as he deports folks, ends social security and other safety net programs...no doubt the LGBT will again face jail time when he packs the courts...here is hoping you get double your share of misery as you earned it.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I asked politely for something, and a number of people have kindly provided some of what I asked for.
Nobody, including you, was under any obligation to respond. What you did is insult me for asking for help in considering a position I would change if I could. Your insults are based entirely on the fact that I don't initially share your position. If that were not the case, I would obviously not have had a reason to ask what I did.
I'm grateful that others have shared perspectives and information of relevance to my question.
Turin_C3PO
(16,385 posts)is read her website platform. It really is very progressive. She did vote the same as Bernie 93% of the time in the Senate. I won't try and defend her foreign policy, I disagree strongly with her hawkishness. But overall, she's seems to be a soild center-left choice to me.
Oh and the Supreme Court is of utmost importance.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I browsed it in the past and had some difficulty accepting a number of positions as anything other than adaptations to positions advanced by Bernie Sanders.
But that was a long time ago, and as you've taken the time to respond to my question, the least I can do is take another look at it.
It might take me a day or two before I can get to it, but I will.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
p.s. - Turin and C3PO? Quite the combination - I'm trying, but drawing a complete blank on any way the two could somehow be paired
Turin_C3PO
(16,385 posts)I was trying to show my complete nerdiness with my name. Star Wars and Tolkien haha.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I just figured there had to be something that brought the two of them together in your choice. I didn't consider the 'random nerdiness symbols' possiblity
C3PO certainly has always made out much better than Turin, but then I can't think of any tragic figure in literature who came to worse ends that Turin. Even the worst endings of ASOIAF characters so far don't compare with the overall mess of Turin Turambar, son of Hurin (I spelled it right before I checked! Just can't figure out how to get the accent mark over the 'u's.)
I'd better stop there - I could go on with nerdiness references all day...
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)That's a decision you need to make on your own and posting here smacks of sideways slamming Clinton.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)There's lots of slamming going on all over DU, and I haven't the time nor inclination to concoct elaborate schemes to bother with that. What would be the point?
With all the energy dedicated on DU to deriding the self-represented voting positions of people, why is it that an actual, honest request like mine, simply asking for reasons for me to change my mind, be worthy of scorn?
I'm glad that some people have replied - I didn't know if anyone would - with some good points that I need to consider.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The only reason to do what you did would be to deliberately alienate a potential voter for Hillary Clinton.
I get that doing that would help blow off steam, but is that more important to you than the likelihood that just skipping the OP would improve the chances of someone coming over to vote for Clinton?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)if you get insulted that easily.... Wow.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)want to restart FICA on wages of $250,000 to extend the life of available benefits. Hillary has been for universal health care for years, it would give health care to all, Hillary is for increasing the minimum wages, perhaps not to the $15 but to increase the minimum wage, Hillary is for a amendment to overturn Citizens United, a permanent fix to prevent this from happening again. She will want to nominate SC judges hopefully to get away from the 5/4 splits we so often see. Obama has already tried to get tuitions removed from community colleges, Hillary wants a student loan refinancing to help those already on loans, she wants to see some tuition abatement with community services, this would be a win win for both the students and community.
There are many more issues, I don't know what are most important to you, I would suggest to look at the site of her stand on the issues to see where she stands on the issues.
http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Supreme court nominees in 2017 could be striking down future progressive legislation for the next 30 years, depending on which party's candidate picks those nominees. A hypothetical future lefty president isn't much good if all their legislation is struck down by the Supreme Court nominees selected in 2017.
And frankly, 30 years is an underestimate. Justices typically attempt to time their retirements, so a Republican appointee now will likely choose to retire under another Republican president 30 years later (giving the seat to Republicans for at least two generations, instead of one). This doesn't always happen (see Scalia), but it often does (see justices White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, etc).
That alone should be a sufficient reason. Whatever you think of Hillary, she isn't going to appoint nominees that strike down progressive legislation as unconstitutional, for being progressive legislation. She will likely appoint nominees like Ginsberg and Breyer (who her husband appointed).
Furthermore, a Clinton nominee would vote to strike down voter ID laws, and other laws that are intended to disenfranchise left-leaning voters. A Republican nominee would not. So a Clinton nominee makes it more likely for there to be a future progressive president in the first place.
LuvLoogie
(8,815 posts)the nominee. This is the Democratic Underground. You will have to reconcile your own doubts.
Cause and effect? Adapt and react.
When asked to comment on Vermont's failure to implement state Single-Payer health insurance even though it passed into law, Bernie responded, "I'm not the governor."
Hillary has turned her attention toward the Orange Oaf and his resentful hoard.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
nini
(16,830 posts)SUPREME COURT
That's my fear if Trump wins. Even if Hillary happens to be as bad as her detractors say, at least we know she won't stack the SC with right-wingers. Policy would be regressive for a generation or more.
creeksneakers2
(8,015 posts)But we are fortunate that our first amendment guarantees the right to petition the government. Saying people can't have a lobbyist is like saying somebody can't have a lawyer before the judicial branch.
Companies are owned by people and people have a right to have their side told when its affected by government business.
dubyadiprecession
(7,450 posts)I just assume most BS supporters will after BS officially loses it.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I've never voted for a Republican, either, and never will, barring some sort of incredible sea change in the nature of the party.
I guess I'm sad to see that kind of response to a question like mine. I think I've encountered two or three people on DU who have both indicated support for Bernie Sanders and a willingness to vote for Donald Trump.
That I cannot respect. However, the point is that your assumption is, from my experience, really, really wrong.
A lot of people have responded to my question with productive information that I'm considering. I merely asked a question, and obviously you were not under the slightest obligation to respond.
What I don't understand is why you were motivated to respond in an insulting manner. If you really support Hillary Clinton, your response does nothing for her candidacy.
mythology
(9,527 posts)but given that either the Democratic nominee, almost certainly Clinton, or Trump will be the next president. Even if you don't trust Clinton on some issues, I am going to go out on a limb and assume you'd prefer raising the minimum wage to $12 rather than doing away with it as Trump has suggested. I assume you'd be against banning Muslims. It's not a question of if Trump is evil, it's is Clinton closer to your preferred policies as a whole than Trump is?
As for your specific points:
3) I think you overestimate the changes to the economy made by Europe's post-war recovery. It wasn't just the Reagan tax cuts. The U.S. wasn't just the dominant economy post-WWII, it was the economy post WWII. It's never going to be like that again. Not only have other countries gained economic power, we have opened opportunities up to excluded people like women and minorities.
4) is unrealistic. What job can somebody hold that wouldn't in theory come under at least some form of government regulation? I can't think of a single industry that doesn't come under regulation. You would effectively be mandating that only those wealthy enough to not have to work would be able to run for office.
5) has no bearing on a presidential race and is unconstitutional, so it's not going to be in place anytime soon.
6) this would kill unions as well as a number of other things like the Sierra Club. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water at best. Limiting PACs is fine and we should do far more to ensure we know who is donating money, but saying that no non-individual human should be involved in government is at best unrealistic.
7) in addition to being obviously unconstitutional, we would have lost out on FDR, John, Ted, Robert and Joe Kennedy III, Mark and Tom Udall, John Quincy Adams and more. You can come up with a lousy example like the Bush family, but I'll take the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Udalls and the Adams. Bush wasn't a corrupt moron because his dad was President. He was a corrupt moron because he was a corrupt moron. Reagan wasn't any less of a corrupt moron because his dad wasn't President.
Honestly I find most of your thinking here really overly simplistic and poorly thought out. It assumes a very black and white world and a lack of understanding of history and government. Go look at how Germany operates and involves unions and business in their government and somehow they manage to not have our problems.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Why should the membership of a forum spend its time convincing you to change your vote?
Who cares how you vote?
You vote is your own. Think about it, make your decision and then vote.
Like the rest of us do.
As a Hillary supporter, I invite you to vote for Bernie.
That's about how much I care about your vote.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But I could be wrong, of course. I don't think I'd have asked what I did if I was. Narcissists aren't generally much for asking others for advice or guidance, which is what I did.
I've had a few responses like yours, but quite a few more with information that has been helpful to me.
A lot of DUers seem to be willing to go to great lengths to scorn others who indicate likely voting behavior that they don't agree with. It's been a constant on DU for about a year. I don't understand why people who comprise the 'membership of a forum' would expend all that energy deriding others, but then be scornful toward someone who asks if there's something people would share that might help build a bridge, at least for the person asking the question, to a decision that would be favorable to their positions.
The question I posed wasn't about me, it was about how I might vote. Which is a very, very common topic on DU. I tried to be honest and polite about it rather than just joining a particular camp and ignoring or insulting the other one. If what I asked was narcissistic, what is the 90% of discussion on DU that's been hostile, without attempts to openly discuss differences and find common ground.
Well, I'm sorry that you found my question worthy of scorn, and it's a bit disheartening that some people found a plain, honest request for information and help to be so.
If, however, you didn't care about my vote, as you've written, then what was the point of replying at all? Ignoring it would have been likely been more productive concerning your apparent goals.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Though I do confess that it was a bit too snarky.
You can figure out Hillary's strengths and weaknesses on your own which I'm sure you will do. Most are obvious and many have to do with preventing Trump from winning the presidency. Preserving Obamacare, protecting the advancements in LGBT, women's and civil rights, protecting immigrants who would otherwise be shipped out of this country and on and on and on.
So there is no escaping the so-called 'lesser of two evils' argument because a goodly number of people will vote for that reason.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Thanks for the additional info - I really do appreciate it.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 06:24 PM - Edit history (2)
But she (and Bill for that matter) has had to play the game to get to this point, because if she doesn't then the Republican wins and we get more fascism. How much of her failings from a progressive view are the result of that? I'd daresay a lot. Nevertheless, she's certainly advocating a lot of progressive things right now, both socially and economically. Is she sincere? I'd like to think so. Yes, she does engage in a lot of noncommittal lawyerspeak which can be frustrating as hell, and i don't think very many of her supporters think she's perfect, and a lot of us would like to see her evolve further on several issues, but again that is part of the game and the only way to change that is to change the game, and not electing her over Trump might change the game...to something even worse.
The key thing is that Hillary is *persuadable*. Yes she evolves on issues when it's politically expedient (or rather, she takes public stands on issues when it's politically safe/ expedient, I'm sure the woman who marched in a Pride Parade in the 90s had no real issue with marriage equality at any point). But what is she evolving in response to? The people. Triangulation works both ways, after all. If she seems too friendly with neoliberalism (which I think she is), it's because the forces combating neoliberalism are too weak. Yes, it's more satisfying to say you are not compromising on certain progressive stands, but if you end up being stuck at 8.75 because you wouldn't budge from 15, how many workers have you really helped?
Furthermore, a lot of my support for Hillary is based on her intersectional coalition, which I'm actually impressed with seeing her starkly opposite 2008 campaign (which was naked white identity politics). Revolutions aren't made by individual leaders but by grassroots coalitions. And in America, nearly EVERY single revolutionary movement since this country's founding was spearheaded by people of color. And the latest one? By LGBT people. Progressive unions are getting behind her. Organizations that have fought for progress for decades are getting behind her. The fact that Hillary isn't as progressive as I'd like her to be is not as relevant in the face of this reality. Yes, I am all about class struggle but dismissing this coalition's needs and concerns as "identity politics" and then claiming the mantle of socialism and progressivism is a blind spot at best and an insult at worst. And keep in mind, her coalition is WELL to the left of where she's generally been. Support for socialism and progressivism scales with how black and brown and non-straight people are. So if Hillary betrays this coalition, she'll lose.
Does it matter that she needed vocal opposition before she came out against the TPP? Does it matter she flip-flopped in the right direction? Maybe. After all, there is the threat she can always flip flop back. But she does still want to win 2 terms, and i assume she does want a legacy. Does it matter her husband signed NAFTA? Yes. Does it matter that she praised Kissinger? Hell yes it does. Does it matter what happened overseas? Yes, I oppose those aspects of her policy and I think those are what we should pressure her the most to change; her hawkish inclinations are a product of the 90s and a product of possibly needing to overcompensate for sexism. At the same time though, you can't lionize Franklin Delano "Internment and Strategic Bombing" Roosevelt, John F "Bay of Pigs" Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines "Vietnam" Johnson and then have Hillary's comparatively lesser moral failings be dealbreakers for you. I understand why it's easy to think she's a neoliberal shill, because to be relevant in American politics, you sort of have at least make a few neoliberal shill noises. The question is, what are you going to do about it? We have a politician that is clearly willing to compromise and change her views based on the political winds. But that means the task falls to us to direct those political winds, rather than wait for a savior. Hillary is not a savior either, but she is ultracompetent, intelligent, and even though it often gets masked by the insanity of traditional American foreign policy, she has a strong sense of empathy and caring, which shows in the reaction of people who work with her, i.e "I'd crawl over broken glass for her", paraphrased". And as of today she's promoting and campaigning on progressive policy (far beyond even 2008, when she was to the left of Obama on many issues). It's up to us to keep her that way.
JEB
(4,748 posts)
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I'll try, but your perspective make you perfectly positioned to reply to the OP's question.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)You may want to consider living in reality if you can get there. JMHO
Generic Brad
(14,374 posts)Do what you think you have to do. Think for yourself and best of luck to you. At the end of the day we have to live with our choices. It's more important for me that you are at peace with your decision than it is for you to vote for Clinton.
LAS14
(15,506 posts)... to your question.
1 - Is Hillary as far to the left as you are? I think not. I wouldn't try to dissuade you from your position in this relatively limited forum. Given your age, I think I wouldn't try in any context. I respect your convictions.
2 - The question is whether one wants to get something done, when the goal isn't very close to what you want (although it's on your side of the spectrum), or whether it's important to make a very strong case for your long term goal. I think society needs both. I prefer getting something done. The pragmatic approach. But I see the need for advocating strongly for the ideal. I don't think I share your vision of the ideal, but I do affirm this dynamic in a vital society.
Finally, even though you prohibited 'anybody but Trump' arguments, I just want to say that if there were any other Republican running, even Ted Cruz, the risk of #2 might be worth it. But Trump is such a threat to the whole concept of civil society... at a world-wide level, that I urge you to vote for Hillary.