2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

There is nothing more silly than repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again hoping that *this time* the result might be different. It won't be, and to the extent that Clinton actually DOES try to change anything, it will be *because* of the success of people like Sanders and Nader forces them to change.

We're not doing the same thing over and over again.  We're alternating between a party committed to rolling back the system and a party whose commitment to advancing it may seem questionable, but which nevertheless at least gets people on the Supreme Court that doesn't vote for Citizens United or roll back protections against disenfranchisement.  At some point you have to take into account outcomes, and not just what you'd really like to have.

[Capetan Mihali]

At some point you have to take into account breaking free of deleterious status quo, too.

[DGuller]

At some point you have to take into account breaking free of deleterious status quo, too.

How did that work out in 2000?  We definition broke free of 2000's status quo, so much so that just getting back to it would be a major step forward.

[Zoupa]

How about folks vote for whoever the fuck they want?

That's the point no?

[Valmy]

I thought Meri was on my team and Max was on yours.

[Valmy]

This guy's take is really, really simple - the DNC/DLC/New Democrats are swine only surpassed by the RNC.

They are trying to hide behind some vague 'progressive' figleaf that is both disingenuous and rather hollow to all but the true-blue Clintonistas, but it doesn't cut the mustard anyone who actually gives a shit about institutionalized political corruption of the danger of vast, well-heeled political machines beholden to entities which ARE NOT ABLE TO VOTE SO THEY BUY ALL THE GODDAMN POLITICIANS.

Ok get somebody who is against corruption who is also not advancing horrible policies and who thrives on insane conspiracy theories. Do that and I can be convinced. But then what do I want? Stability. We are on the cusp of major technological innovation that is going to bring on huge changes. Launching some kind of quixotic backwards tilting at windmills socialist revolution devoted to fighting figments of anti-corporate paranoia is not really my bag baby.

[Capetan Mihali]

I thought Meri was on my team and Max was on yours.

OK, since Valmy and Meri are tight, I'll take his word for it and revise the tentative roster of Berners:

T. Ortiz
E. Teach
A. Clanker
M. Imus
C. Mihali
Z. Oupa, on loan from the Expos for the primary season.

[Admiral Yi]

How about folks vote for whoever the fuck they want?

That's the point no?

Vigorous, open debate is one of the hallmarks of a healthy democratic society.

[Berkut]

I see DGs ideologyhere (although certainly well intentioned) as kind of a establishment blackmail.

Republicans are terrible, so you better support us or else! Of course, that is just what the people who run the show want, since it means that they can make sure nothing actually changes.

The threat is awesome, because they get to bounce between the fucked up GOP, and the supposedly well intentioned but actually just as bought and sold Dems as the "options". And of course, nothing changes. And they get to use the excuse of "Yeah, but you let the GOPs win every once in a while!" as their excuse.

Fundamentally, I reject your claim that the Dems are making some effort at reform. They have done nothing at all, nor have even attempted to do anything, so far as I can tell.

[Capetan Mihali]

At some point you have to take into account breaking free of deleterious status quo, too.

How did that work out in 2000?  We definition broke free of 2000's status quo, so much so that just getting back to it would be a major step forward.

Well, we're currently in primary season.  If there is any time to vote your heart, it is now.  And 2000's status quo was the result of Clinton's watch over unprecedented mass incarceration, the destruction of welfare, the tech bubble (which collapsed a year later, if you remember), various military adventures based on slim premises that killed scores of civilians but which were conducted by air so we didn't feel any pain, etc.  I didn't want the 2000 status quo then, and I don't want it now.

[Capetan Mihali]

establishment blackmail

You have exactly defined this line of argument.

[Valmy]

I see DGs ideologyhere (although certainly well intentioned) as kind of a establishment blackmail.

Republicans are terrible, so you better support us or else! Of course, that is just what the people who run the show want, since it means that they can make sure nothing actually changes.

The threat is awesome, because they get to bounce between the fucked up GOP, and the supposedly well intentioned but actually just as bought and sold Dems as the "options". And of course, nothing changes. And they get to use the excuse of "Yeah, but you let the GOPs win every once in a while!" as their excuse.

Fundamentally, I reject your claim that the Dems are making some effort at reform. They have done nothing at all, nor have even attempted to do anything, so far as I can tell.

No the Dems are worthless. But they also bend with the wind. Expect them all to go along with this next election cycle whether or not Clinton wins. I don't think this is good news for me though, it will probably also come along with loads of truly wretched left wing idiocy with the potential to do serious damage to our country.

[Valmy]

establishment blackmail

You have exactly defined this line of argument.

My argument: Sander's ideas are terrible and are based on anti-corporate paranoia conspiracy theories and will lead us to disaster. However still better than Trump. I do not find the argument that we should support ideas that are horrible in order to fight corruption particularly compelling, rather a different form of blackmail.

[jimmy olsen]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

What counts as unapologetic?  I would certainly prefer Bernie, but will have no problem voting for Clinton in the fall given she's facing a literal fascist.

Tim, you're on the roster.  What happens post-Bernie, happens post-Bernie.

EDIT:  Though I should say: Trump may "fascistic" tendencies, he is very far from being a "literal fascist."  If the word is to have any definite meaning; it's usually the right-wing arguing that "fascist" has become a meaningless pejorative, not the left.

I think he will try to censor the media, imprison political opponents, rule by fiat, and ethnically cleanse the nation among many authoritarian crimes so I mean it in the literal sense.

[DGuller]

I see DGs ideologyhere (although certainly well intentioned) as kind of a establishment blackmail.

Republicans are terrible, so you better support us or else! Of course, that is just what the people who run the show want, since it means that they can make sure nothing actually changes.

We've been over this plenty of times before.  Not going backwards will leave you more forward than if do go backwards.  If you want to go forward, first make sure the forces that want to pull you back don't get the power to do so.

The threat is awesome, because they get to bounce between the fucked up GOP, and the supposedly well intentioned but actually just as bought and sold Dems as the "options". And of course, nothing changes. And they get to use the excuse of "Yeah, but you let the GOPs win every once in a while!" as their excuse.

For that logic to hold, Dems actually have to be as bad as GOP.  Bullshit.  Citizens United wasn't a 9:0 vote.

Fundamentally, I reject your claim that the Dems are making some effort at reform. They have done nothing at all, nor have even attempted to do anything, so far as I can tell.

I don't make that claim.  I'm making a claim that Republicans will put us further back, guaranteed, and Democrats won't.  You have to play the hand you have, not the hand you wished you had.

This is extremely simple, there is no nothing complicated about this logic.  Nader didn't force Democrats to be more-reform minded:  he made reformers' job that much harder by forcing them to just undo so many damaging changes made in the last 15 years before they could move forward from where we were in 2000. 

I understand the desire to negotiate for a better deal, but good negotiators don't demand more than what they can get.  They get the best deal they can get right now, and hope that they get more leverage for the next renegotiation.