Sanders vs. Clinton

[Karl Frederick]

Some may say that an article entitled "25 Reasons I'm Voting for Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton and the GOP Nominee" (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/25-reasons-im-voting-for-bernie-sanders_b_8132184.html) (click the title for the whole thing), by columnist H.A. Goodman, is lop-sided, incomplete, unfair. Maybe so. But is it correct, as far as it goes? Here are his concluding thoughts:

"Finally, inherent in all 25 reasons above is the fact that Clinton's positions are too far to the right, therefore too closely related to the GOP's views on war, Wall Street, foreign policy, and other key issues, for me to accept in a president.

Ending perpetual war in American foreign policy is my biggest concern, therefore Bernie Sanders is my only choice in 2016. Also, Clinton rarely answers questions without carefully crafted wording; ambiguous to the point she can act in any manner she chooses once attaining the presidency.

As for other key issues, Clinton sides with the GOP (and away from most Americans) on the most controversial topics, which is why polling trajectory (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/polls-show-bernie-sanders-winning-the-democratic-nomination_b_8069452.html) shows Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination, in addition to the presidency."

[Valley Oak]

I support Bernie Sanders.

But do you think that Sanders, a publicly self-proclaimed Socialist, can defeat the Republican candidate in the November presidential elections in 2016?

The American people are a very conservative group of folks. You would be surprised at how many "centrist" voters, independents (who are mostly moderate Republicans), swing voters, etc, will refuse to vote for a candidate who is Socialist simply because that candidate is a Socialist.

What do you think?

I remember, however, when I voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 California primaries, believing, primarily, that she was the better person for the job. But I also thought that because there are so many racist Americans, that the people of this country were not "ready" for an African-American president.

I was wrong and I'm glad that I was. I proudly voted for Obama in the general elections in November 2008 and again in 2012. Maybe and hopefully I am wrong again about Bernie Sanders. I will vote for Sanders in the primaries but if I see that it's close or that Hillary is behind Sanders in the polls, I might switch my vote. If I see that Sanders has a strong lead nationwide, not only over Hillary but also against all GOP candidates, then I'll vote for him.

Any thoughts?


Some may say that an article entitled "25 Reasons I'm Voting for Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton and the GOP Nominee" (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/25-reasons-im-voting-for-bernie-sanders_b_8132184.html)...

[Dixon]

I will vote for Sanders in the primaries but if I see that it's close or that Hillary is behind Sanders in the polls, I might switch my vote.
Hillary is, of course, liberal on some social issues such as abortion, but otherwise is totally on board with the corporate imperialist agenda. She's one of the most hawkish Democrats in Washington. Does anyone besides me remember what she said when she was running against Obama? It was pointed out that she'd voted for the Iraq war, and she said something like "Yeah, I did, and I'd do it again." If she's elected, I predict she'll start a war with Iran. (Of course, a lot of folks will vote for her just because she has a clitty instead of a penis; sexism rears its ugly head again!)

[Valley Oak]

I understand and agree with everything you just posted. But your reply does not address my central point, which is:
If Sanders goes up against the Republican nominee in November 2016, will he win or lose?

My fear is that Sanders is too far left for most Americans and, thusly, lose the election and we will have someone in the White House who is FAR WORSE than Hillary Clinton.

What say you?

[Dixon]

...your reply does not address my central point, which is:
If Sanders goes up against the Republican nominee in November 2016, will he win or lose?
My best guess is that any truly progressive candidate, such as Sanders appears to be, cannot possibly win the Presidency. To be eligible for the job, one must be corrupt, serving the interests of big business. Any President whose policies would threaten to redistribute wealth and power in any direction other than upward is just not electable.

If Sanders starts to look like he has a real chance, the corporate media will increasingly ignore him and/or present him in a bad light. Since nearly everyone in the USA constructs their worldview from the corporate media, they get to decide who wins. Remember what happened to Howard Dean a couple of elections ago when he promised to go after the corporate media for their nasty depredations? He pretty much disappeared from public discourse shorty thereafter, and any pictures they showed of him were unflattering. The corporate media decide who wins, and they represent the 1%.

As Jimmy Carter recently said: "Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors...". And, as Frank Zappa said: "Politics is the entertainment arm of industry."

I will likely vote for Sanders, unless I decide to vote Peace and Freedom or Green Party again. I do not expect any of them to get elected, but continue to vote my conscience because I'm playing a longer-term game--to keep those ideas on the table and gradually increase the vote percentages gained by true progressives (not crypto-fascists like Clinton or Obama) until, some decades down the line, we may get real change.

[Valley Oak]

Well, there is a lot to respond to here, an entire book, as a matter of fact. I will pick and choose, if you don’t mind.

O’Reilly already, just the other day, sent one of his henchmen to “ambush interview” Sanders and then laughed at Sanders repeatedly on the following show. So what you said about the media (Fox) presenting him in a bad light has begun. It goes to show you that Sanders must be doing something right if he not only pisses off Hillary but is already making the right wing feel scared (“because Sanders is a filthy, unpatriotic Socialist, a Jew, New England liberal scum, liberal elite, etc, etc.”).

Yes, this is an oligarchy. And that’s bad enough right there. But I would like to add that democracy still exists in the U.S. (I’m not trying to come to the defense of American democracy, I’m simply trying to be thorough with my personal observations and thoughts). We do have many important semblances of democracy and they are not small; Noam Chomsky has written and spoken about this many times. Even though we only have a greatly undemocratic two-party system, citizens still have at least some weight come Election Day. Otherwise, why would even you, Dixon, bother to vote at all if you didn’t feel that there was some remote influence, even if only symbolic, such as voting for a political party that you admit cannot win.

Regarding your extensive criticism of the American political system, almost all of which I agree with, there is something important that I would like to point out. If the American system of government, elections, democracy, economics, basically the Whole System is so deficient, then why do you participate in it? If things are so bad systemically, then putting your faith in a system in order to change it is incompatible with the view that the system is too broken to achieve any reform to begin with. This is just one of the many, major points that I want to make.

You said, “…I’m playing a longer-term game--to keep those ideas on the table and gradually increase the vote percentages gained by true progressives…until, some decades down the line, we may get real change.”

How can anyone have that kind of trust in such a corrupt, undemocratic, oligarchic, fixed election system??? That we may get real change with it? I very seriously doubt it, even if you live to be a thousand years old. (You would see change come on its own in another fashion if you could live that long.)

Why participate in a joke of a system, hoping it will give the the change for which it is designed to never give? ("Politics is the entertainment arm of industry.")

Here is my strategy:
Vote for the lesser of two evils. It's a two-party system; it's fixed. There is no other effective way around it. They want people like you and me to vote for 3rd parties. I know you, like millions of other Americans, loathe this to no end. But I honestly feel, that for now, this is the only choice that we have. What we need now is systemic reform.

We need systemic reform and that can only come by replacing the electoral process with Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. There can be a 5% threshold for entering the national legislature, like the Germans have (the Americans wrote the current Constitution for Germany after the Allied Invasion during WWII).

Any amount of energy spent on supporting 3rd parties, I believe, would be much better invested in amending the US Constitution to introduce Proportional Representation, eliminate the Electoral College, abolish Divided Government, perhaps add a Prime Minister, and other necessary reforms. Or if any of these goals could be achieved through federal statute alone, then much better still! It is possible to reform the Constitution; it has been done before and there is more than one way to do it.

There is an organization called, https://www.wolf-pac.com, that is working on an amendment to the Constitution. I strongly recommend you check it out briefly. It might interest you. I learned of this group through the Young Turks Network (https://www.tytnetwork.com).

Until then, Republicans will continue to occupy the White House if the Left does not vote against them.

I also understand that for many Americans, such as yourself, there is the strongly held belief that all Democrats and all Republicans are the same corrupt trash and that it will not make any difference if Hillary is president or if Trump or Huckabee is president. I beg to differ VEHEMENTLY.


My best guess is that any truly progressive candidate, such as Sanders appears to be, cannot possibly win the Presidency. To be eligible for the job, one must be corrupt, serving the interests of big business. Any President whose policies would threaten to redistribute wealth and power in any direction other than upward is just not electable. ...

[Icssoma]

wanted to post to your thoughtful discussion. not fast enough. saddened by people's needs to have conversations deteriorate to negatively charged words, demeaning characterizations ["she has a clitty"]. obviously the author didn't feel the pain of many women when people referred to Hillary as the yellow bus, news people were talking about her back side when she was wearing a yellow pantsuit, or the next news cycle when she was damned for being "cold" & then one week later chastised for being weak when showing emotion/a human side. if one genuinely wants to know about her, look to stephanie tubb jones, an amazing black women who took lots of crap for supporting hillary clinton when obama was running (Ms. tubb-jones a congressperson who also opposed the Iran war]. (ron paul also meets that criteria & is running.)
superficial slams don't move dialog forward, nor help people who are looking to get involved become activists. many young people, idealists by nature (i worked for/supported eugene mc carthy), were big in obama's election, then disappeared when political realities of presidential office set in.

i am disheartened by people "giving gratitude" to remarks that minimize the large questions in demoralizing ways.
these tactics make me avoid discussions on wacco.
usually not one person, but many slamming, taking cheap shots, and making comments without a historical/political/social context--or perhaps just wanting to type/see their name on the screen.

the far right, and the far left, often meet. frequently engaging in similar tactics, often twisting facts, taking things out of context, and making their point at all costs be the end game.
we are better than that.
****
on a bright note:
great turnout at the grange for fundraiser on behalf of valley view fire victims.
from a friend 'on the ground in lake county':
"The Lake County community really came together on this one. ..almost everyone in the county did something to help. Most of the churches set up shelters, as did the Moose Lodge and similar places. Everyone was in contact with each other. People were volunteering to run supplies back and forth. Huge truckloads of food and animal feeds were coming in, and all being dispersed by volunteers. Community radio station (KPFZ 88.1) stayed on the air 24/7 and served as a hub of information. It was inspiring.
As you know, Lake County is one of the poorest in the state. People were giving everything they could. Even kids opened their piggy banks.
Thanks so much to you, and your group for the support."

[Valley Oak]

Here is a chance to reform the U.S. system. Four states have passed legislation to support an amendment to the Constitution; California is one of those four! Just look at the map in the link.

Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution (https://www.wolf-pac.com)

https://www.wolf-pac.com


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiOUp-V6-4&list=PLTpcK80irdQgZcjuLP4TuUMYhnkbkMAmq#t=493

Published on May 2, 2014
"Today Vermont became the first state to call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which precipitated a flood of cash into politics."

Read more here: https://vtdigger.org/2014/05/02/vermon... (https://vtdigger.org/2014/05/02/vermont-first-state-call-constitutional-convention-get-money-politics/)