“Bernie or I’m rooting for Trump” is sort of that same energy that “Obama → Trump → Mayor Pete” voter I posted about earlier, only somehow with more privilege.
3 Likes
Show of hands, how many of you type “Mayor Pete” because you still don’t know how to spell his last name and spell check doesn’t help?
2 Likes
It’s ButtGJGE
2 Likes
Even Trump, amirite?
my spell check helps…but it has learned.
This is the dem primary debates thread. It’s a little ridiculous anytime anyone gets attacked it gets strawmaned over to “Wat about vs. Trump”. 95% of us myself included are pulling the lever for whoever the Dem nominee is.
This is our chance to pick our best candidate. Any vitriol from me now is related to that. I will get behind and support with varying degrees of reluctance whoever the candidate is should it not be Bernie.
Ive talked a little shit on Pete and a lot on Warren lately and guess what they are both still in my top 4 and would I prefer both to Hill. I would prefer anything animate or not to Trump.
5 Likes
Ridiculous statement.
1 Like
@WorstOf
Is that how this works?
2 Likes
Who said this?[quote=“anachronistic, post:5341, topic:61, full:true”]
Warren stans gaslighting “you’re a rapist if you question a woman” is literally sub-Trump depths.
Mariana Trench depths.
[/quote]
Grunching. You are sexist. So am i. An old white dude. Definitely
Doubly so if you dont see that.
I’m confused what are we arguing about?
I’m all in on Bernie
I’m all out on Bernie or Bust
We got Bust
Trump was Bust
1 Like
That may be the short-term view. Trump is ephemeral. In the long run, the enemy is the establishment and maximizing the probability of bringing down the establishment may be what saves the most lives over a period of time much longer than four years. As far as I’m concerned, the two candidates who I feel have anti-establishment credibility are Sanders and Warren and this recent tiff has done nothing to diminish my belief that Warren is anti-establishment.
There’s nothing wrong with thinking on a much larger scale. We generally support addressing climate change because we think a timeline that goes well beyond the next four years is more important than our immediate economic well-being. (And I am not saying that climate change inherently clashes with economics, just that I know what my priority is if addressing climate change and improving the economy came into conflict.)
1 Like
Vict0ar
Assuming your imaginary world has the same Supreme Court as this one does, defeating Trump must take priority. The reasons should be self-evident.
1-3 more Trump nominees on the court will set things back for a generation and will harm millions of real people who won’t be consoled by your principled stand.
4 Likes
My problem with this is that Trump will appoint substantially the same justices that any other replacement level GOP president would. You’re basically conceding that it’s never ok to vote for the candidate that you actually like, and that seems absurd.
2016 and 2020 should, among other things, shine a stark light on how much of our voting is done out of fear rather than actually supporting someone. I wonder if Obama would still have won the primary in 2008 if the GOP nom were someone like Pat Buchanan instead of McCain who was likely viewed as a not terrible alternative if the Dems were to lose. Along those same lines I wonder if Kerry would have still won in 2004 if we were in the midst of a ho hum tax slashing sanctity of marriage protecting Bush presidency instead of embroiled in two wars and watching the country burn.
1 Like
Just one generation? If you take the two aging liberal justices and swap in Trump appointees, and Thomas retires for a younger conservative, the court will be 7-2 conservative, with five of the conservatives in their 50s. Liberals won’t even have a chance at a majority for about 30 years, and even then they’ll have to get lucky with the timing to flip some seats.
Liberals are already 10-15 years away from having a chance at the majority.
If Trump gets another term, liberals are either looking at packing the court or waiting probably 50 years to have a realistic chance at a majority on the Supreme Court.
3 Likes
But the hypothetical is about Biden vs. Trump plus Bernie as a 3rd party spoiler.
Regardless, even with Trump not involved, the current state of the Supreme Court should be a huge factor for anybody considering wasting their vote (or refusing to vote because their preferred Democrat didn’t win the nomination).
The hypothetical is a situation where 60% of the country is voting for a dem or a Dem Soc and somehow the left is still honor bound to support the moderates. It’s never the other way around, because reasons.
1 Like
I went against character and chose Vote Biden. It was a tough decision–I feel bad about it and surely would feel terrible if I actually pulled that lever in real life.
I just think Trump is That Bad, and even though we sometimes talk about the silver lining of Trump being that he breaks things, which could open up opportunities for a progressive movement, I’m swayed by the Supreme Court argument. We’re never getting a progressive movement if the Supreme Court is 7-2 conservative (barring packing the court, which I’d be OK with) and the damage Trump could do in another 4 years is too great.
3 Likes
Ok same question: using this logic is there ever a time where it’s ok to vote for someone besides Biden? You think if we swap out Trump for Kasich the calculation changes somehow?
I just really cannot accept that conclusion.