The republicans are practically shooting themselves in their collective foot by pushing for the wackos of their party. And if either Cruz or Trump wins their nomination, they will have given us the gift of giving us unelectable candidate.
I'm dumbfounded that the democratic voters are pushing for Sanders, the wacko from our side.
I guess if Sanders wins the nomination, it will be wacko versus wacko, unelectable versus unelectable.
You mean the same kind of polls that put GWB a few numbers away from single digit popularity? Remember how everyone said GWB had no chance for a 2nd term?
The problem with the polls at the moment is only the far right or the far left are participating. Most people don't vote until the general.
This may surprise you, but the word "socialist" is still a dirty word in the English language. He is unelectable in the same way that an atheist is unelectable. A great number of people still associate atheist to the lack of moral principles. And as such, a great number of people still associate socialist to Stalinist communism.
Look at it this way. It is abundantly clear nowadays that Obama was always for gay marriage. He just couldn't say it out loud for a long time because not too long ago people like me were still viewed as pedophiles. You should have seen my next door neighbor sent her 3rd grader son scurrying home and forbid him to come near us after I introduced her to my boyfriend. As much as I'd like Obama to have supported our rights since the beginning, I understand why he had to be in the closet about it.
I don't fault politicians for bending the truth a little about themselves. I see it the same way I bend the truth about my sexual orientation at work. I got a black guy for my immediate supervisor and a muslim for a regional manager. Simply not worth it to come out.
That said, I'm convinced Hillary is much more to the left than she portrays herself to be.
Anyway, you guys can like Sanders all you want. Just like how the right is collectively denying themselves that they are pushing for unelectable candidates, I see you guys much the same way. It's not possible for you to tell your own breath stinks.
The rest of what I said are on topic. We're talking about electability of a candidate FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. Electability has everything to do with the perception of the general public at large.
How on earth can you talk about the general election and ignore the public perception of certain concepts?
Speaking as an atheist gay person, I will never support an atheist gay candidate in the primaries. Why? Because the current American public at large are still too bigoted to elect an atheist gay candidate in the general election.
And as I said before, the word socialist is still a dirty word in the English language.
quote:They are going to make unrealistic attacks against any Democratic candidate.
Yes. And in fact, they have been doing that to Obama all this time.
But there is a difference between the republicans trying to paint the democratic candidate as socialist and the democratic candidate actually labeling himself as a socialist. Do you not see the difference?
And here is another reason why Sanders is not a good candidate for the greater good of the nation.
Obama couldn't even get the republicans to go along with noncontroversial policies like funding our nation's infrastructure. What on earth makes you think Sanders can do to make them go along with providing free public college for all?
Um but as fare as i can see Bernie is outperforming Hillary against every republican candidate, and he only ties with Cruz but beats every other republican too. And berny even has a tendency to outperform polls. If i where a betting man id put my money on berni for the win.
The American system is deceptive. Right now, the people who participate in the primaries tend to be those on the far left or those on the far right. And this is the danger of basing your opinion on the polls at the moment.
Most people are not far right or far left. Most people are somewhere in the middle. They also tend not to participate in the primaries. They come out in droves for the general election, though.
I'm as far left as one can be. Trust me on this. But those of us who participate in the primaries should think farther ahead.
Like I said regarding the republican candidates. The wackos of their party are winning right now because their far right are clamoring to those who are most extreme. Ted Cruz being endorsed by pastors that call death to gay people and Trump being endorsed by white supremacist groups might make these candidates popular right now in the primaries, but they are due for a rude awakening when the general election comes around.
Let's try not to choose an unelectable socialist to pit against a right wing wacko that they will elect to represent them.
You still have not addressed why he is unelectable but Clinton is. Do you think Clinton is not going to be attacked by the right?
I have already answered this question directly. You seemed to just ignored it because it's not the answer you were looking for.
Let me elaborate on my answer.
Yes, they will attack any candidate we put forward. Look at Obama. He's as moderate as they come, but they've been portraying him as a secret muslim atheist devil-worshipping baby-eating Nigerian communist.
But see, as much as how they've come up with all kinds of lies to attack Obama, the only people who actually believe them are the right wing parts of the populous.
Most people never bought into all the demonizing.
I expect the same to happen to Hillary. They'll probably call Hillary the whore of babylon or some other nonsense. But it will only work with those already too blinded by this jebus thing to know any better.
With Sanders? They don't need to do any demonizing. He's already done it for them. He calls himself a democratic SOCIALIST (a dirty word in the English language).
The American populous have been trained in the last 50 years to associate the word socialist with stalinist communism. That's not going to change until all the baby boomers are dead from old age.
Well people like you are why nothing seems to change. I vote for the person I think is the best person for the job.
Actually, I do want to see change. I'm just more realistic in that I'd rather push for gradual change rather than drastic change.
Voting for the person you think is best for the job is a terrible way to go about it.
Let me ask you again. Obama couldn't even get the republicans to agree to something as obvious as funding the nation's infrastructure rebuild and repair. How on earth do you expect Sanders to get the to agree to something like free public college for all?
Sure, I would love to see that. But getting someone like Sanders into office will ensure nothing will ever get done in the next 4 years.
Will I support Sanders if he becomes the dem nominee? What kind of question is that? Do I even have a choice?
Gee, let see. Either support Sanders or support someone that will throw gay rights progress back by 50 years. Well, gee, I wonder who am I going to vote for?
Ok sure mate, il bet you one cheers +, that bernie wins.
Actually, I personally don't care all that much who wins as long as it's not white-supremacist Trump or killing-the-gays Cruz.
If Hillary wins, at least some things will get done in the next 4/8 years. If Bernie wins, well, we'll just have a do-nothing federal government for the next 4 years.
Trump has received overwhelming support from various white supremacist groups around the country. This is a fact unless you've been living under a rock.
While he has not outright said he was a white supremacist, he has welcomed their support with open arms.
Ted Cruz late last year attended a christian coalition conference where a speaker name Kevin Swanson raved on and on about "death to the gays" right before he introduced Cruz onto the stage.
While Cruz has not outright said death to gays, he has welcomed Kevin Swanson's support with open arms. When asked about it by CNN, Cruz has not distanced himself from Swanson and actually sited religious liberty.
Both of these candidates know that to come out and outright say these things would be political suicide. Instead, they let us know they approve these various messages of hate by welcoming those who say these things with open arms and neither confirm nor deny their support for these rhetoric.
Added by edit.
If I remember correctly from your posts, you yourself fantasize... ugh never mind.
I doubt the various quotes will work. Why? Christians usually deny their hate is hate. Trump can come right out and say "death to all people of color" and they would still deny he's racist.
I'm gay, so I've learned how to read between the lines to understand people's true views. I've also found that white protestants tend to be dense when it comes to discrimination probably because they've never experienced discrimination (direct and indirect).
Look at it this way. Suppose at a party, someone comes to you and shakes your hand. Then he says "I hate Native Americans, I think they should all be sent to death camps. Faith agrees with me, don't you, Faith?"
You remain silent and later on tells everyone you welcome this person's endorsement.
What am I suppose to think?
Added by edit.
I just noticed you tried to downplay Kevin Swanson's words on this issue.
Listen to what this wacko said on stage.
He's willing to go to jail for it. Are you going to lie thru your teeth and tell us he didn't really mean it?
Also notice they're clapping their hands while he was yelling.
What I mean to say is in order to get votes from bigots like yourself, we have to put forward a candidate that appears to be a bigot. It's sort of like wolf in sheep's clothing.
To hell with honesty. if Obama had been honest about his stance on gay marriage, he would not have been elected. At the time, most democrats were against gay marriage themselves. Look what happened with prop 8.
Permit me to invoke godwin's law on this. How many Jews did the righteous anti-nazis save versus how many Jews did people like Schindler save in Nazi Germany in the late 30's and early 40's?
There's one thing I've learned in life is that conservatives will fight tooth and nail against change. The only way to get them to play along is to lie to them in order to nudge them along and get them warmed up to the new idea... like equality and human rights.
True, but I seem to recall quite a few black supremacists voting for Obama and even resorting to voter intimidation. All things being equal, I hope your condemnation and scorn for such things was the same as it is with white supremacists voting for Trump.
Why did you quote mine me?
Obama denounced all the racist groups that came out in support of him. He even disowned his pastor for goodness sake.
What Trump has done is welcome their support with open arms. Sure, he's never said he supported white supremacist ideologies. That would be political suicide. But he has welcomed their support.
I lurked this forum for years before. I don't remember anything specific, but I do remember posts made by nemesis juggernaut made my blood boil.
Anyway, to hell with honesty.
Do you honestly think Trump is religious? Just a little bit of lie and he's managed to secure the support of half the evangelicals out there.
I certainly understand the strategy, but it doesn't make me agree with it. The bottom line is that the ONLY reason you are now free to marry is because of people overtly stood up for change and demanded it, so that that national conscience was forced to adapt or die.
What are you talking about? The strategy worked. For a while, those on the left wanted to go the honesty route by putting it up for referendum vote. 9 out of 10 votes were struck down via popular vote, even in the most liberal states.
One good thing that came out of it, though, was the hand full of states that managed to pass gay marriage didn't get fire and brimstone raining on them. Warmed people up to the idea.
What did Obama do? He effectively killed DADT and the military's ban for gay soldiers.
By lying to get elected, he furthered gay rights more than any other president in the past or future.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
