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

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

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.

You didn't ask me to give examples that were applicable to the situation. And you specifically asked me for "terrible changes" so I gave them. I don't advocate bloodbaths, in fact I stated the French Revolution was a hideous failure people idiotically glorify.

And your revised statement is a mess. "Real progress"? What the ****'s that? I don't even believe in progress, let alone a real one. I believe in change and a new set of factors to respond to. If people call that progress, that's fine for me, I just call it an improvement upon what I identified as a terrible situation.

And by the way, your questions about this are already rooted in the expectation that Trump is going to do something terrible. In all my previous posts the change I was referring to that Trump could bring was a public outrage due to his victory alone. So you pushing this whole thing off-topic and linking it to "terrible changes" in human history just so you can reply to me inevitably replying with something you could "own me with" (if you think I don't see through that strategy, think again) is just lame and desperate.

You started by calling me out for believing that Trump's victory could make a beneficial political shift occur (specifically due to the eruption of political outrage and awareness ànd initiative among ordinary citizens), and now we're debating history and civil war and how awful it is and how that's apparently a good reason to vote for Hillary? Why? Looks like you were better off just accepting my opinion and moving on.

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Do I have to argue the benefits of civilization? 

lmao now I understand why we don't agree.

If you consider that progress, then I get why you're voting for Hillary. I disagree completely with that statement. I don't think civilization is the bane of mankind, but I certainly don't think it brought anything good with it either. How can a socially constructed myth even have an impact on something real You might wanna check figurational sociological analyses of where the concept of "civilization" even comes from in the first place and how it has been used for centuries to systematically exploit third world countries in the name of "progress".

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Just don't make the implication that a true democracy is any better.

Never did that. Nor did I imply that Bernie would solve all my problems. I get that you're projecting delusional Bernie stan logic on me, but trust me, I don't identify with them any more than I identify with your voter's ideology.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

I think the entire argument (in this thread) is contingent upon the idea that Clinton merely represents "stasis" or complacency. I don't think thats even true in the first place. She isn't as "radical" left as Bernie, but they do actually have very similar views on many things just vastly different methodologies and experiences informing their beliefs. She will create change or "progress" just the same as he would, but maybe not with as many things. Obama was much more liberal than he was moderate in the end and I dont see a reason to believe Hillary won't do the same. 

I would expect Trump to appeal moderate and then swing to the right to appease his base and party as well (unless hes just faking it all  )

It isn't a matter of "possible bad change or no change at all", and I'm not sure why people think that.

Maybe Bernie has eclipsed Hillary's actual positions so much that people are forgetting she has been fighting for progress and change in many different sectors of society all of her life and will continue to do so. That being said, voting for Jill stein or not voting at all WILL lead to a Bush-like situation in terms of voting outcome. We can't say definitively that Trump will try to carry out all of the terrible things hes promised to do (especially since some of them are illogical and unconstitutional as well as highly impractical AND ineffective ) or even succeed, but the potential for relatively fast change in a negative manner that harms the economy, the environment, and social standings of groups of people all over the world is more than enough to outweigh trying to make a political statement in my mind. I don't see how other people can't see that (well, I mean I can, I just think this is the wrong time to do it  )

To the argument that bad or outrageous shifts in the political sphere or zeitgeist in general will inform more general citizens, that is surely possible, though it's also important to bring up that changing attitudes over time can occur when more progressive change occurs. Look at the Obama administration. We didn't need Romney or McCain to become president and outlaw Gay Marriage and set back LGBT rights and ignoring everything relating to Global Warming and Climate Change for people to realize that people deserve rights and that Science is a real thing  Changing people's minds, opening them to new ideas and making people have more empathy for each other, etc... these things are happening more rapidly because America is becoming a society where those in power respect those things. That's why it was such a big deal when Obama said he was for gay marriage. I'm merely talking about social issues atm because its easiest off the top of my head, but liberal, progressive ideas and policies in general can gain more traction when people with high authority give them credence; this seems self evident, its literally the reason why people run on party platforms and agendas in the first place.

Making change occur as a reaction to change in the opposite direction seems like an epic waste of time and suffering compared to just electing someone who will enact change themselves Maybe it will be more "drastic" but I don't think thats enough to warrant it.

[Didymus 34,380]

9 minutes ago, Whispering said:

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

Oh wait.....    

That's a ridiculous comparison. And @LebaneseDude you liking that is just the irony of all ironies since you're lecturing me about how I bring up things that aren't applicable to the present situation.

People voted for Bush because the Democrats were complete inadequates those elections. This time the tables are turned: Hillary is the obvious choice and Trump is the idiot you wouldn't vote for because what the hell is he gonna do as president? He can't run the country. And yet he's the successful one this time. So in fact, if we're gonna push the analogy, Hillary is the Bush candidate this time, not the other way around.

When Bush got elected the U.S. was at an absolute peak of power, now it's in a disaster and people need a hero to pull them out of it. A slap in the face of the Clinton/Bush faced establishment is what many people want as a counterreaction to how previous governments have ruined everything or failed to do enough in both Bernie and Trump camps. So no, that comparison is way off.

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 hour ago, Yves said:

Considered posting something other than US politics?

Why'd you click this thread? Like what skin is it off your nose?

***... 

[Didymus 34,380]

3 minutes ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

It isn't a matter of "possible bad change or no change at all", and I'm not sure why people think that.

That depends so much on where you want to see change most specifically though. I'm not saying Hillary won't change anything, I'm just saying that she's not an alternative to Bernie to me because exactly on the fronts I was most desperate to see a change, Hillary does represent stasis. Which is why I'm not sure why people like Takei think Bernie voters are some kind of half-assed meaningless anomaly to what should've been a Hillary vote anyway. That's the fallacy I responded to.

But I do get your point

[Whispering 18,865]

40 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

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!!!  

 

This does have a great deal to do with this thinking...age. That's why you see an uptick in support starting at age 25 and up. The brain is completely developed by age 25 and people begin thinking more globally and less impulsively. If you jump to those who are 30-35 and above, you have people who actually lived through the Bush years as adults and saw the results of those years. They have seen the progress we have had with a Democratic President, despite a Republican controlled congress. They know that a Republican President with a Republican controlled congress is a frightening scenario and one that is likely to set us back and reverse any progress we have made. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

16 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That depends so much on where you want to see change most specifically though. I'm not saying Hillary won't change anything, I'm just saying that she's not an alternative to Bernie to me because exactly on the fronts I was most desperate to see a change, Hillary does represent stasis. Which is why I'm not sure why people like Takei think Bernie voters are some kind of half-assed meaningless anomaly to what should've been a Hillary vote anyway. That's the fallacy I responded to.

But I do get your point

I guess that depends on where Bernie and Hillary differ on key points  They do have similar views on MANY things, but I get what you are saying as well. Like, in the thread where Bernie said Hillary will have to earn his supporters trust if she gets the nom (or w.e he said, idr) it makes sense because a lot of his followers are following for the things that he and Hillary do not see alike on, itd be hypocritical for him to be like "everyone go vote Hillary" when they do disagree with some of Hillary's positions (though id argue its less than they think, again bias has been kind of polarizing Hillary and Bernie as complete opposites but they aren't "that" far apart in reality).

I get your point as well, but I don't think Hillary represents stasis, she represents less radical change than Bernie, but still some change in the "right" (totally subjective, but its my opinion  ) direction... at least on some issues. I for one don't like her policy on war and a bunch of other things at all, but I also know voting for Jill isnt gonna get anything done and not voting for trump or actually voting for trump is statistically going to increase his chance of winnings. It's not necessarily a lose-lose situation if you consider that some of the policies Bernie wants to implement Hillary does as well. I think for a lot of people its also a kind of moral battle, they discredit Hillary's actual platform and agenda because of her supposed corruption. 

At the same time, as many people predicted, Bernie's rally for revolution CAN have the added benefit of making Hillary appeal to his fanbase. That's the best outcome I see and that many have been predicting since he first announced he was running, (in lieu of him just actually winning). 

Thats what he wants her to do and she should do it whole heartedly, she shouldnt just expect his voters to come to her, even though some may out of a sense of "the greater good" of the country. Her expecting the votes isn't enough, that leaves millions of unheard voices.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

Well thank God you don't live here

 

Amen

[Whispering 18,865]

10 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That's a ridiculous comparison. And @LebaneseDude you liking that is just the irony of all ironies since you're lecturing me about how I bring up things that aren't applicable to the present situation.

People voted for Bush because the Democrats were complete inadequates those elections. This time the tables are turned: Hillary is the obvious choice and Trump is the idiot you wouldn't vote for because what the hell is he gonna do as president? He can't run the country. And yet he's the successful one this time. So in fact, if we're gonna push the analogy, Hillary is the Bush candidate this time, not the other way around.

When Bush got elected the U.S. was at an absolute peak of power, now it's in a disaster and people need a hero to pull them out of it. A slap in the face of the Clinton/Bush faced establishment is what many people want as a counterreaction to how previous governments have ruined everything or failed to do enough in both Bernie and Trump camps. So no, that comparison is way off.

Nope, it is a valid comparison. Ralph Nader was the third party darling at that time. Even his platform sounds eerily similar to Bernie's. He took enough votes from disgruntled liberals to put Bush in office over Gore. 

Your comparison and logic here is what is way off. The reason someone like Trump is popular with white males and in the Republican Party is way more complicated than "needing a hero". 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

Nope, it is a valid comparison. Ralph Nader was the third party darling at that time. Even his platform sounds eerily similar to Bernie's. He took enough votes from disgruntled liberals to put Bush in office over Gore. 

Your comparison and logic here is what is way off. The reason someone like Trump is popular with white males and in the Republican Party is way more complicated than "needing a hero". 

So now Gore and Hillary and Trump and Bush are equatable? Jeez. Talk about things being more complicated than you're presenting them.

And I'm sorry for not writing a dissertation about why people vote for Trump, I was only noting how the political climate has changed immensely since the first Bush election and that comparing it is a weak way to mock Bernie supporters who are thinking about their options (i.e. me). No one strategically voted for Bush in order to stir political awareness among citizens as far as I know, and that was what I was talking about.

[Whispering 18,865]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

So now Gore and Hillary and Trump and Bush are equatable? Jeez. Talk about things being more complicated than you're presenting them.

And I'm sorry for not writing a dissertation about why people vote for Trump, I was only noting how the political climate has changed immensely since the first Bush election and that comparing it is a weak way to mock Bernie supporters who are thinking about their options (i.e. me). No one strategically voted for Bush in order to stir political awareness among citizens as far as I know, and that was what I was talking about.

Yeah, they are as far as what happened during the election. 

You don't have options "i.e. Me". You aren't voting. 

[PaperIz 7,354]

I don't want hilary as my president or Donald Trump either for thst matter. Neither of those pieces of trash are getting my votes. I'm literally angry at this election cycle. The country is fkd

[Didymus 34,380]

4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Yeah, they are as far as what happened during the election. 

You don't have options "i.e. Me". You aren't voting. 

And yet you haven't brought a good argument for that statement (which was already off-topic and in no way a reply to what I was saying before). But I'm the one who isn't treating the subject with the consideration it deserves Right.

And oh, now I'm silenced for not living in the U.S. Lovely atmosphere here. Lemme stay away from the political threads in the future. Just writing your simple opinion gets you nothing but off-topic, backhanded slandering apparently.

[lego 44,165]

9 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Yeah, they are as far as what happened during the election. 

You don't have options "i.e. Me". You aren't voting. 

 

LD can't vote either, but that doesn't stop him... 

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

A house divided among itself cannot stand.