Sorry for the late reply, but I don't have much time to post anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3
(Post 2120789)
The intentions of the Democrats, real or fabricated, also don't matter in my mind. What matters is the movement of the policy positions.
|
I don't disagree but the truth is that I'm not really impressed with the policies the establishment holds, which is why I would like to either see the party change or a viable third party emerge. You basically sounded like you agreed with this to some extent in the original comment I responded to where you said that basically there's nothing particularly exciting about Biden but that there are "no atheists in foxholes," which was an implicit reference to the sort of lesser of two evils logic I've been speaking of.
Here is something that occurs to me. Throughout the 2020 campaign there has been the argument for the need for unity against Trump and the sort of imperative on Bernie supporters to back Biden or whoever the candidate is. Meanwhile, there was the simultaneous argument that only a moderate like Biden can beat Trump because Bernie would be too alienating towards moderates and independents. That's just apparently democracy at work, when he fails to win those people over, but if Biden fails to win over Bernie supporters then the blame is apparently on the voters rather than the candidate.This is basically the type of logic used to prop up the status quo.
Similarly, a related form of logic is used to shame both third party candidates and their supporters as saboteurs, whether intentionally so or indirectly. It is said the stakes are too high for that sort of idealism. The stakes are "too high" during literally every election, so that is basically just another way of perpetually maintaining the status quo. When will the right time be to entertain a third option? It will never happen, by that logic.
Quote:
As for whether or not Clinton would have made the Dems more conservative, I can see that happening in Foreign Policy, but not domestic policy. I'm curious as to what you think she would have been more conservative on in the U.S.I'm just going to say up front that I don't think Clinton (Hillary I mean) deserves nearly as much hatred as she got. She was considered a commie radical in 1993 and suddenly she's Richard Nixon. This country has schizophrenia.
|
Let's be specific, I said the conversation is further to the left than it would be if Hillary were running as an incumbent. That's largely because 1) she would be running unchallenged in the Democratic party and 2) I believe Trump has increased the amount of polarization and extreme thought on both sides.
As for she used to be a communist radical... I have to say I must've missed that. Maybe you mean that's how the right attacked her, which is imo easily dismissed as simple fear mongering.
Quote:
Bush and Romney are different things, so I'll make it clear how I see them:
1. Romney was my Governor and I didn't mind him. I thought he was pretty solid, introducing our own version of the ACA here in Massachusetts before running for the Presidency. If Romney had won, it's possible he could have been a good President, but three things made me vote for Obama in 2012:
A. It was a referendum vote on Obama, and I liked him.
B. It was a "repeal the ACA vote" so I voted for the ACA
C. Romney constantly referred to immigrants as "Illegals" and I hated that so I voted against him.
Barring those, I still would have worried if the Trump tax cuts were in play with Romney which I'm very much against. Hard to say if A-C wasn't on the table if I'd have considered Romney. If I'm being honest, I probably wouldn't have. I liked Obama a lot.
2. With Bush, I'm just going to say people forget things too quickly. If anything, everyone was saying there was zero difference between Bush and Gore, and in hindsight, I hope people realize how ****ing stupid they were. I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000 by about 3 weeks. Having said that, I would have voted for Ralph Nader if I were. Thankfully the voting age saved me from my embarrassment.
But Bush v. Gore is a telling election for both 2016 and 2020. During the election, they were the same. Bush won and started an endless war. Gore went on to make Climate Change a part of the mainstream conversation.
|
To be clear, I was referring to Bush vs Kerry where Kerry was also lack luster yet propped up as the clear "lesser of two evils," and I absolutely heard the same arguments being made about Obama vs Romney by leftists who were not at all satisfied with Obama's agenda or performance. In fact I only left out McCain since 08 was the only time in the last 20 years when that wasn't basically the backbone of the Democratic campaign (I admittedly don't remember any election prior to 2004 with any detail).
Quote:
I'm sorry if you're offended by people who don't see them as "the same" are history agnostic.
|
I've already told you that's not my claim. If Biden gets in and does less harm than Trump, then best of luck to him. That's just far too lackluster a message to actually drive me to get out and vote for him.
If I believed for a second he would get a 15/hr minimum wage I might change my mind. I quite simply don't believe him.
