Takei To Bernie Supporters: End This Family Squabble. Unite Behind Clinton

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

55 minutes ago, Bernie Sanders said:

But that wouldn't happen at all if we picked Bernie. Everyone would vote for him ten, including more independents. You can't change people's feelings and make them vote for someone who's corrupt and they dislike. It's that simple. I'd rather see Bernie or Jill win some electoral college points and make a point as a third party this election than have Hillary in office. I will only take her if she picks Warren as a vice or trumps not the nominee. Trumps more liberal than her, she's oN the  right side of the political spectrum. Atleast he supported gays for a while unlike flip flop clinton

What do you mean? If Bernie is the nominee, any liberal knows he's better than anyone else. The issue here is that it is not likely to happen.

Bernie is not going to run independent. He directly came out and said that he would not run independent because he realizes that Hillary is better than a Republican in the White House. That he won't endorse her directly is a result of his own principles, as misguided as I believe they are. That his constituents are completely denying her credentials goes to show that a lot of people who supported him are only doing it because they don't want Hillary. Trump is not more liberal than Hillary. Irrational animus is no excuse for ignorance.

Here's a simple link for his stance on the issues. How is this liberal? 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

Defunding Planned Parenthood? 

Opposes affirmative action, or at the very least opposes measures to promote diversity in the workplace and universities?

Misogynistic comments? You really approve of how he refers to women? You want someone like that in charge of the country?

Treats gay people as objects, making the statement that if same-sex marriage was to be overturned, he would approve of dissolving all marriages in place.

You made the statement that he's in favor of gay rights. You kidding right?

Donald Trump on marriage equality:

"I'm not in favor of gay marriage. They should not be able to marry."

"I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it… I'm opposed to gay marriage."

He'll even strongly reconsider making steps to overturn it

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/trump-suggests-overturning-same-sex-marriage.html

This is opposed to Hillary saying that she wanted them to have the same rights and benefits but was hung up on the word "marriage" in 2007, then making the statement that she supports same-sex marriage in 2013. How is changing your stance over the span of 6 years a flip flop?  

------

0% corporate tax? 

Cut Education funding?

Completely ignorant and dismissive foreign policy?

-------

I suppose he seems to be passionate about making America Great Again.

Except that he lies about everything and uses sensationalism when he has to actually talk about the issues.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Did you even watch him in the debates? 

Even if he had a stance or two that are more liberal, perhaps in economy, how do you justify his disgusting persona? You want something like that to represent you? How low are your standards

-----

Look. you don't fool me. People think they are more complicated than they really are. The way you are bringing up talking points without paying attention to the details makes it all the more glaring.

It's not that i don't respect you. Your current opinion is just badly formed and clearly made from bias. I can't respect it at all. It's foolish. That's all it is.

The moment someone makes the claim that Trump is "more liberal" while using his one dubious position on LGBT rights as justification, it renders what you say on this particular issue completely null and void. 

The simple fact is that a lot of people are refusing to vote her for no reason other than being that they just don't like her, even if they don't know why. It's irrational animus. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

52 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Stupid idea. Trump and Bernie supporters share one important thing: they want a change. The Hillary vote is a vote for stasis. If I lived in the U.S. I'd seriously consider choosing Trump over Hillary precisely for the reason that a terrible change might be more valuable than the same old thing.

So no, it's not at all logical to assume that a Bernie supporter has to support some random Democrat too by default. This is not a family squabble. We are not a family.

Give me one good example in human history where a terrible change within a society turned out to be a good thing?

You're making things up to rationalize your stance. Change for the sake of it isn't always good. Few revolutions have truly succeeded, and they were more or less due to systems that were infinitely more oppressive than what people are facing now.

In fact it almost always isn't good. It needs to be rational. Stability is what brings progress. Progress is what inspires change.

Hillary is no random democrat. She's someone that shares the same stances as Bernie but differs in methodology. 

Also not you hanging up on the word "family", considering you post in this cult site and have made statements about solidarity before.

[mcoop 628]

41 minutes ago, Yves said:

Considered posting something other than US politics?

Sure, YOU can do that if you don't like what's being posted.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

34 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I know a lot of Bernie supporters are considering what they should do, so don't be surprised if you hear the same thing from more people soon. Hillary is not an alternative on any level and Jill's never gonna win, so we have to do something retarded anyway. Either vote for someone we despise or vote for someone we despise that can actually present a grotesque of the change we wanted, in the hope that the counterreaction to it will cause a political shift.

Still not sure what I would do. But I know it's not crazy to consider it

I do plan to move to the U.S. in a few years tho, so beware

I'd like for someone to give me a reason why Hillary is not an alternative on at least some level without using the same old rhetoric of "liar, Benghazi, e-mails,  Wall St" despite all four of those being composed of nothing more but hyperbole and assumptions.

"Zomg a politician lied". Point me to one who doesn't.

"Omg Bengerzi". GOP itself admitted that they blew the whole situation out of proportion to smear her

"Emails!!!"... Non-classified e-mails leak. She must be hiding something in her private emails! Probably has nudes from Bill tbh

"WALL ST!!!..  Right because big banks are the big ev0l that need to be destroyed.  Educate yourself http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/sanders-dont-break-up-the-big-banks-000054

Even Bernie has to follow the path Hillary plans to take despite his rhetoric. You can't- just TEAR IT ALL DOWN.

You may be an anarchist and not give a **** about what happens to other people, but many people just want to live their life in peace without worrying about their rights being taken away and their livelihoods threatened by a totalitarian turnip.

In any case, if you don't know much about US politics, it would be preferable if you did not post general theoretical remarks that do not apply to the USA. It's like me using the same logic I apply in Lebanon as in the USA.  

[RAMROD 116,995]

Oh my, Zulu, no thanks!

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, RAMROD said:

Oh my, Zulu, no thanks!

 

I lol'd

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, mcoop said:

Sure, YOU can do that if you don't like what's being posted.

[SychosSoChic 9,995]

George Bush 2.****ing.0 is BREATHING down our necks and ya'll want to make a point

Don't this to the world omg pls

THINK OF THE CHILDREN OF TOMORROW WHO'LL HAVE TO WEAR GAS MASKS AND HAZMAT SUITA BECAUSE OF YOUR POINT

Fallout 4 really is our future omg

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, SychosSoChic said:

George Bush 2.****ing.0 is BREATHING down our necks and ya'll want to make a point

Don't this to the world omg pls

THINK OF THE CHILDREN OF TOMORROW WHO'LL HAVE TO WEAR GAS MASKS AND HAZMAT SUITA BECAUSE OF YOUR POINT

Fallout 4 really is our future omg

Appropriate 

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

3 minutes ago, SychosSoChic said:

George Bush 2.****ing.0 is BREATHING down our necks and ya'll want to make a point

EXACTLY!!!  What I have been saying all along as well too...  Smh 

But I honestly don't think that a lot of these prepubescent children on here, actually remember the atrocious & devastating years of The Bush Administration!!!  

 

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Give me one good example in human history where a terrible change turned out to be a good thing?

1. World War II brought Europe together, secured international relations with the U.S. and kept even the possibility of war among its members to a 0.00% risk.

2. The invasion of European countries by Muslim armies brought Greek philosophical scriptures to Western Europe for the first time since antiquity, as well as Arabic scientific thought, which had a massive impact on the progression of Western European mathematics, science, and medicine. Some historians would argue that this shift in cultural interests made secularism possible in the first place.

3. The Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War bankrupted the French government, which resulted in the French Revolution, which was an absolute bloodbath, but is still hailed as a victory for the common people.

4. Terrorism in the last few decades has had an enormous impact on safety regulations, and thousands of terrorist attacks have been prevented by these instances that would never have been given the resources if it weren't for events like 9/11.

Sure, these will never be "good events" but that doesn't mean they don't have any positive outcomes. It's an old saying that something really ****ing bad has to happen before something finally changes, and it never has to go as terribly as the examples I posted above to make a political shift occur in the U.S. during/in response to Trump's presidency. If Trump wins, half the U.S. and all of Europe will be on its head before he can even make his first decision.

I for one would be curious to see what would happen. What I would hope would happen is that people are shocked awake and finally realize they have to start taking politics in their own hands (which is the ideal Bernie personified) instead of letting the system run its course and ruin everything. I would be happy with such a counterreaction and I don't think that's bizarre at all.

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

In fact it almost always isn't good. It needs to be rational. Stability is what brings progress.

Give me one good example in human history where real progress occurred by "stability" and "reason" Look, I agree with you that change is often ugly and revolutions always fail (as did the French Revolution which everyone idolizes like a ****ing idiot), but the point is that some people like me are tired of letting politics run its course while the people are left to sit still, obey, and swallow the terrible decisions that are made by the people who claim to represent them.

Representative democracy is an absolute poison, a disastrous outgrowth of monarchy that is taking its toll on enough levels to ring the alarm. There is no level of "reasonable stability" that is going to make it crumble, since that's exactly the ideology politicians use to defend the systematic exploitation of the ordinary citizen. Some people are sick of it and are fine with suffering the consequences by letting it all explode. Some people prefer that over falling back into the familiar "oh well, there's nothing I can do about it" weakness. I know I do and I'm not demanding anyone to join me. But I am not gonna let some stranger outline my ideology for me.

24 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Also not you hanging up on the word "family", considering you post in this cult site and have made statements about solidarity before.

I don't get that. I was responding to the idea Takei presented about the Democratic party being a united family (apparently led by the matriarch Hillary). I do believe that is a ridiculous idea that has nothing to do with solidarity, in fact, I think it has more to do with the opposite of solidarity.

Eh, whatever. I just said I'd consider it.

[Didymus 34,380]

27 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'd like for someone to give me a reason why Hillary is not an alternative on at least some level without using the same old rhetoric of "liar, Benghazi, e-mails,  Wall St" despite all four of those being composed of nothing more but hyperbole and assumptions.

Because she represents complacency and stasis. Easy as that. I don't give a **** about what she actually does, I think people are generally disinterested enough in politics to just take notice of what a figure symbolizes in a context and respond accordingly. That might be a pessimistic take on things, but I do think it applies here.

A Bernie victory would bring the standard of political awareness and activity among citizens to a new height. As would a Trump victory (mainly because people wouldn't be able to believe he actually won and is going to ruin the world). A Hillary victory means people will make themselves comfortable in their lazy couch and imagine she'll take care of everything.

**** that. I don't want this surge of political awareness to drop after this election.

And, besides, it's not my fault people didn't vote for Bernie as they should have I wouldn't have to think about voting for Trump if the Democrats acted like a big happy family indeed and decided to unite in voting for the Bern for all obvious reasons. And that's that.

[Didymus 34,380]

32 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

In any case, if you don't know much about US politics, it would be preferable if you did not post general theoretical remarks that do not apply to the USA. It's like me using the same logic I apply in Lebanon as in the USA.  

What have I said that "doesn't apply to the USA"? I'm just a Bernie supporter explaining why I don't respond to this guilt trip people are using to get Hillary to win.

Has nothing to do with how much I know about US politics.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

14 minutes ago, Didymus said:

1. World War II brought Europe together, secured international relations with the U.S. and kept even the possibility of war among its members to a 0.00% risk.

2. The invasion of European countries by Muslim armies brought Greek philosophical scriptures to Western Europe for the first time since antiquity, as well as Arabic scientific thought, which had a massive impact on the progression of Western European mathematics, science, and medicine. Some historians would argue that this shift in cultural interests made secularism possible in the first place.

3. The Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War bankrupted the French government, which resulted in the French Revolution, which was an absolute bloodbath, but is still hailed as a victory for the common people.

4. Terrorism in the last few decades has had an enormous impact on safety regulations, and thousands of terrorist attacks have been prevented by these instances that would never have been given the resources if it weren't for events like 9/11.

I already told you that the current situation is incomparable. You quoting extreme examples does not serve your purpose.

1. World War 2 was a fight against fascism and totalitarianism. It was a defensive fight. It was a terrible thing FORCED upon people, not endorsed by it. By taking this stance, you are making the unforunate implication that it would alright for you if a Nazi group took over because good things happened! May I remind you of the cost?

2. Not you using ancient history to justify modern history. Again it is irrelevant. Globalization has rendered isolationism virtually nonexistent, and while wars and their consequent results have shaped the world we are today, who is to say it could not have been better? Have we not transcended such warmongering ideologies yet? You are making the unfortunate implication that you support internal warfare to handle situations rather than using diplomacy. You are making the unfortunate implication that you support brute force transfer of knowledge. Do you want to plunder their loot too?

3. It's nice to see you advocating bloodbaths. Also the situations are incomparable. We're talking about an oppressive regime, not you being concerned about not affording the latest iPad.

4. You cannot use counterterrorism as a good thing. The mere fact that these exist is a testament to the failure of humanity, not its successes.

14 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Give me one good example in human history where real progress occurred by "stability" and "reason" Look, I agree with you that change is often ugly and revolutions always fail (as did the French Revolution which everyone idolizes like a ****ing idiot), but the point is that some people like me are tired of letting politics run its course while the people are left to sit still, obey, and swallow the terrible decisions that are made by the people who claim to represent them.

All you did is quote warfare as if that is applicable to this situation. The USA is not entering a civil war. War is the great unknown. It brings changes both horrible and good, but it almost always costs heavily. In a twisted light, one can make the statement that civil war is good because it lets all the pent up disagreements burst open. It may be disgusting, but it eventually allows the nation to recover.

The thing is you don't want a civil war. 

I'll revise my statement. Give me one example in human history where real progress was the result of terrible change that did not involve warfare in a civilized society.

Right. You'll find none.

To answer your question, scientific progress since the end of forced nationalism and the rise of intercollegiate exchanges. Even before, golden ages during any of the civilizations' periods you wish to mention. Unlike popular belief, most of humanity's advancements have been a result of the desire for prosperity, not destruction. The two often interact, but it would be naive to call them "terrible" events. Rome's conquests of the Mediterranean world brought civility to barbaric tribes. Do I have to argue the benefits of civilization? 

----

Look it's clear by your statements you have a problem with representative democracy. That's fine. Just don't make the implication that a true democracy is any better. One glaring example is that true democracy would essentially diminish the voices of minorities. Politics will always be a dirty thing. There's no need to revolutionize it because of your "Grass Is Greener" syndrome.

[Whispering 18,865]

49 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Give me one good example in human history where a terrible change within a society turned out to be a good thing?

You're making things up to rationalize your stance. Change for the sake of it isn't always good. Few revolutions have truly succeeded, and they were more or less due to systems that were infinitely more oppressive than what people are facing now.

It worked when we got Bush for two terms! Look how well that turned out!!

 

Oh wait.....