Is any former Bernie voter going Trump just to stop Hillary?

[Monk Of Reason]

How so? Clinton got a lot more votes than Sanders.

After fraud and suppression you mean. And that isn't even touching the overwhelming favor of all mainstream left leaning media. Independents see it. Bernie supporters see it. Even Republicans see it. The only 2 demographics that don't see it are those ignorant to politics and hardcore Hillary fans.

 

[YmirGF]

After fraud and suppression you mean. And that isn't even touching the overwhelming favor of all mainstream left leaning media. Independents see it. Bernie supporters see it. Even Republicans see it. The only 2 demographics that don't see it are those ignorant to politics and hardcore Hillary fans.

Sing it from the rooftops, babe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

After fraud and suppression you mean. And that isn't even touching the overwhelming favor of all mainstream left leaning media. Independents see it. Bernie supporters see it. Even Republicans see it. The only 2 demographics that don't see it are those ignorant to politics and hardcore Hillary fans.

And don't forgot B. Clinton violating campaign laws by campaigning too close to a polling place - but not that anyone really even cares about such laws because the mayor of the city he was in was there supporting the Clintons, and even locally I've seen many times places violating this law.

 

[Draka]

It's a two party system. If you are not voting Clinton, you are voting Trump, and vice versa. So instead of writing in Bernie you might as well just check the Trump box because that's who you really voted for.

That's ridiculous. That's the precise type of thinking that has locked us into a two party system when it doesn't have to be that way.

Voting for who you want as president is simply exercising your vote. Not voting for someone else by default. And the idea that one is doing that is simply fear mongering to keep the crappy system in place.

 

[suncowiam]

Let's face it, I feel Bernie supporters were robbed by the Democratic establishment. What are your thoughts?

If enough Bernie folks vote independent/dont vote at all, Trump would win via a divided democratic voting base.

What mastermind doesnt point out because he is completely biased and has man crush with Trump, is that this is true with the GOP. One can make the same silly argument for all of Trump's former opponents.

Mastermind will you just update your signature to say that Trump has his hand up your you know what.

 

[Draka]

Yes. That's what some just don't want to hear about. They keep talking about the Sanders/Clinton split and what it means for the election, but ignore the fact that Trump has split his party as well. There are those in the Republican party that are so opposed to Trump that they will vote by write in, will switch to Libertarian, or will not vote at all. It's not like Trump is a slam dunk if the Democratic party is split in its voting base. This election is entirely different than what we have seen before. Never before have both candidates so completely split the following of their parties. This time around it is truly up in the air.

 

[Mindmaster]

What mastermind doesnt point out because he is completely biased and has man crush with Trump, is that this is true with the GOP. One can make the same silly argument for all of Trump's former opponents.

Mastermind will you just update your signature to say that Trump has his hand up your you know what.

What I read was: I have nothing else, let's start with the ad hominem.

Trump and Bernie agree on a lot of points, but in some cases have different implementations. Going from Bernie to Trump makes more sense than going from Bernie to Hillary if you are focused on issues. If you are part of the never Trump crowd, I'd question whether you are as serious about Bernie's issues vs his hype.

I am not the only one to have noticed some crossover and to be clear: I have been supporting Bernie since Jan, but he has repeatedly failed to take the battle to Hillary to win, and I can't imagine he'd do much better in an office. He has been anemic and ineffective in his campaign past the point of playing to the crowd. Hillary has so much dirty laundry that it would have taken literally nothing to destroy her at the debates. He just wanted to put the kid gloves on and "talk about issues" rather than going for the kill. Imagine having that guy in the office: "Oh. I just didn't want to offend X so we're gonna take it on the chin in the deal." Blah... HIs testicles are in her purse and they aren't even married.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/what-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-have-in-common/422907/

 

[Draka]

Bernie Sander's platform is far closer to the Green Party's platform than the Democratic one and certainly a far cry from Trump's as Trump comes no where near the Green Party platform at all. going from Sanders to Trump honestly does make about as much sense as deciding that since you can't have your favorite drink to just chug a bottle of bleach. If you favor Sander's platform you really can't get more removed from it than Trump.

 

[Mindmaster]

That's ridiculous. That's the precise type of thinking that has locked us into a two party system when it doesn't have to be that way.

Voting for who you want as president is simply exercising your vote. Not voting for someone else by default. And the idea that one is doing that is simply fear mongering to keep the crappy system in place.

Not ridiculous. Voting anyone but Trump (if you want to stop Hillary) means your vote is basically off the roll, and as bad as that is other countries have one party systems. Be happy it isn't like that.

 

[Mindmaster]

Bernie Sander's platform is far closer to the Green Party's platform than the Democratic one and certainly a far cry from Trump's as Trump comes no where near the Green Party platform at all. going from Sanders to Trump honestly does make about as much sense as deciding that since you can't have your favorite drink to just chug a bottle of bleach. If you favor Sander's platform you really can't get more removed from it than Trump.

You even read that linked article? Trump and Bernie both agree on healthcare reform (and that's a big one) and any number of other important things. I think the areas where they diverge are immigration and Syrian refugees. Past that, no they are close. Trump doesn't really address education, but that's the big difference.

 

[Draka]

You even read that linked article? Trump and Bernie both agree on healthcare reform (and that's a big one) and any number of other important things. I think the areas where they diverge are immigration and Syrian refugees. Past that, no they are close. Trump doesn't really address education, but that's the big difference.

There are HUGE differences between Sanders and Trump. Oh, I'm sorry, YUGE. The least of which is that at least Sanders isn't a raving misogynistic bigoted egotistical narcissistic orange douchewaffle. But hey, you vote for who you want, or misled into following as the case may be.

As to your previous post, if I voted for the mere reason to vote AGAINST someone I would be voting AGAINST Trump. Hillary may not be the best, by far, out of the two I wholeheartedly believe her to be the "lesser evil". Not that it matters in the end when it comes to my vote. I don't vote for the lesser evil, I vote for the greater good. My conscience is clean.

 

[Mindmaster]

There are HUGE differences between Sanders and Trump. Oh, I'm sorry, YUGE. The least of which is that at least Sanders isn't a raving misogynistic bigoted egotistical narcissistic orange douchewaffle. But hey, you vote for who you want, or misled into following as the case may be.

As to your previous post, if I voted for the mere reason to vote AGAINST someone I would be voting AGAINST Trump. Hillary may not be the best, by far, out of the two I wholeheartedly believe her to be the "lesser evil". Not that it matters in the end when it comes to my vote. I don't vote for the lesser evil, I vote for the greater good. My conscience is clean.

Man, this is just personalization where it is unwarranted and has nothing to do with the issues. You do not know personally how nice person any of these people really are, only what the media portrays them to be. I've heard several reports of how nasty Clinton is in person, and how nice Trump actually is. Sanders is worse than a misogynist, he's a beta male - afraid to say anything disparaging about a woman even when it is completely true. Neither Sanders nor Hillary represents equality at all -- true equality is merit based, and that is what Trump is all about. Trump values whoever is the most useful regardless of race or sex and has said that a million times in interviews and articles, and it's a far cry from how you think.

I think you want him to be all these things, and that's called a strawman. I can't do much for you if the strawman is more important than the man.

 

[Draka]

Man, this is just personalization where it is unwarranted and has nothing to do with the issues. You do not know personally how nice person any of these people really are, only what the media portrays them to be. I've heard several reports of how nasty Clinton is in person, and how nice Trump actually is. Sanders is worse than a misogynist, he's a beta male - afraid to say anything disparaging about a woman even when it is completely true. Neither Sanders nor Hillary represents equality at all -- true equality is merit based, and that is what Trump is all about. Trump values whoever is the most useful regardless of race or sex and has said that a million times in interviews and articles, and it's a far cry from how you think.

I think you want him to be all these things, and that's called a strawman. I can't do much for you if the strawman is more important than the man.

Merit based??? You honestly believe a human being must earn their worth as a human being? And how is that done and why should it? Who determines "the most useful" and by what criteria? If anything, if there was nothing else known about someone, this stance right here is enough reason not to support them. That's just sick.

 

[Mindmaster]

Merit based??? You honestly believe a human being must earn their worth as a human being? And how is that done and why should it? Who determines "the most useful" and by what criteria? If anything, if there was nothing else known about someone, this stance right here is enough reason not to support them. That's just sick.

I believe people are important to others based on merit, and so does he. This revelation is simply how the world works since forever. Do you think someone who is simply sucking up welfare and free resources is as useful as someone who is producing more value? You have a strange world outlook. Merit and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive they are part of the whole picture. The government should treat people fairly, but we all have the right to vote with dollars to decide who is the most useful among us. Maybe, you are mixing these things up? I don't know.

I am starting to think you just personalize every single comment you read. You must have a stressful life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes. That's what some just don't want to hear about. They keep talking about the Sanders/Clinton split and what it means for the election, but ignore the fact that Trump has split his party as well. There are those in the Republican party that are so opposed to Trump that they will vote by write in, will switch to Libertarian, or will not vote at all. It's not like Trump is a slam dunk if the Democratic party is split in its voting base. This election is entirely different than what we have seen before. Never before have both candidates so completely split the following of their parties. This time around it is truly up in the air.

I'd personally rather just not take that chance. Maybe if there was a moderate Republican running who doesn't have a rabbies-foamed mouth when speaking about minorities and the poor, but this election may be too important for LBGT rights to take that wager.

You do not know personally how nice person any of these people really are, only what the media portrays them to be.

With the following clip, there is no way, no how, not ever the words "nice" can apply to the speaker. More like disgusting scum that shouldn't even be allowed to run.

And of course there is offering to pay the legal fees for any of his followers that act violently, and dismissing his violent followers as being "passionate." And we also have all the things he has said about women, in how he feels they are valuable as sex objects and not as people. And saying a homeless guy was at one point in time worth more than him.

 

[Draka]

I believe people are important to others based on merit, and so does he. This revelation is simply how the world works since forever. Do you think someone who is simply sucking up welfare and free resources is as useful as someone who is producing more value? You have a strange world outlook. Merit and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive they are part of the whole picture. The government should treat people fairly, but we all have the right to vote with dollars to decide who is the most useful among us. Maybe, you are mixing these things up? I don't know.

I am starting to think you just personalize every single comment you read. You must have a stressful life.

But what is the basis for judgment of "useful" and who gets to determine that basis and why? People are important for many many reasons to different people. The father who works only part time and is on food stamps and other welfare in order to take care of his three kids by himself is just as "important" as the single businessman who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and employs many people. And depending on whose criteria the father may be more "important" because, though he may rely on financial help, he is providing for his children and is dedicating his time into raising them well and put out in the world upstanding people willing to make a difference themselves. This "merit" idea based upon financial value or worth to determine the worth of a person themselves is abhorrent.

 

[Mindmaster]

But what is the basis for judgment of "useful" and who gets to determine that basis and why? People are important for many many reasons to different people. The father who works only part time and is on food stamps and other welfare in order to take care of his three kids by himself is just as "important" as the single businessman who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and employs many people. And depending on whose criteria the father may be more "important" because, though he may rely on financial help, he is providing for his children and is dedicating his time into raising them well and put out in the world upstanding people willing to make a difference themselves. This "merit" idea based upon financial value or worth to determine the worth of a person themselves is abhorrent.

Any system not based on merit fails when mediocrity takes over, and the quicker you realize it the better. We could argue someone who creates over one-hundred jobs creates more value to society than someone working part-time on welfare. One person is helping his small circle of people, and the other is helping hundreds of families. I don't ascribe to this hate the rich phenomena, and I think it is rather disingenuous to assume someone is working against the average Joe purely on that fact. I think businesses do better when people are happier, and statistics bear that out. They are financially interested in keeping society running smoothly so they can make profits. No one spends money in a panic!

Financial worth is the only non-bigoted or non-biased way to actually determine someone's merit. What other criteria shall we use? Idealism doesn't translate into an advantage that someone can see. Scientific achievements are largely valuable on how they improve us economically as well. Even quests like cures for cancer are largely financially motivated. Do you think Trump does more damage than good when you consider how many people he employs? He can be a complete ***, but his net value to society is high just on the number of jobs he creates.

You're trying to paint this into a rich vs poor issue and it's not, it's about numbers. Seeing it in black and white ways like this is just promoting the biases, bigotry, and racism in most cases. I don't care about people's situations I care about their contributions, and maybe for your hypothetical case this man is doing the best he can, but to say he is doing good in comparison to others is dishonest. On the whole, it is business owners and risk takers that are doing the most to improve society and it isn't going to change because people don't want to hear it. This is why certain people are worth more than others to society as a whole. Does that mean we seek to hurt them or cause them problems because of it? No...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Any system not based on merit fails when mediocrity takes over, and the quicker you realize it the better.

Chances are pretty good you're using a Windows-based computer, which is vastly inferior compared to Mac and Linux. We have talentless hacks making the big bucks in the entertainment industry while those who spend years to master their instrument to play the finest pieces of music ever composed go largely and mostly unrecognized and unappreciated. Scripted "reality TV" is a big hit, and even printed medium has been progressively dumbed-down and simplified over the decades. And of course you don't have to be old to realize that things are not built to be as durable or long lasting as they used to be.

Financial worth is the only non-bigoted or non-biased way to actually determine someone's merit.

Crime lords, politicians, profits-over-people/environment corporate executives, there a million reasons how financial worth does not determine someone's merit but can easily determine how big of a piece of **** they are.

On the whole, it is business owners and risk takers that are doing the most to improve society and it isn't going to change because people don't want to hear it.

Yet so very often they are poisoning people, destroying the environment, using courts to bully communities and steal their resources, pushing untested and dangerous products, creating eating disorders and self-image problems, praying upon children and insecurities, and if they have enough money they can kill people and get way with it because they have "affluenza."

 

[suncowiam]

What I read was: I have nothing else, let's start with the ad hominem.

Trump and Bernie agree on a lot of points, but in some cases have different implementations. Going from Bernie to Trump makes more sense than going from Bernie to Hillary if you are focused on issues. If you are part of the never Trump crowd, I'd question whether you are as serious about Bernie's issues vs his hype.

I am not the only one to have noticed some crossover and to be clear: I have been supporting Bernie since Jan, but he has repeatedly failed to take the battle to Hillary to win, and I can't imagine he'd do much better in an office. He has been anemic and ineffective in his campaign past the point of playing to the crowd. Hillary has so much dirty laundry that it would have taken literally nothing to destroy her at the debates. He just wanted to put the kid gloves on and "talk about issues" rather than going for the kill. Imagine having that guy in the office: "Oh. I just didn't want to offend X so we're gonna take it on the chin in the deal." Blah... HIs testicles are in her purse and they aren't even married.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/what-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-have-in-common/422907/

"I see absolutely no negatives in Trump's platform"

That is a direct quote from you. Here is the thread for a full context: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-ohh-i-mean-ex-kkk.188210/page-2#post-4784567

By asserting this, it suggests your position is mutually exclusive with other ideals contradicting Trump's platform. How can you even suggest you support Bernie if you claim that Trump's ideals have no negatives?

It's a smoke screen to indirectly cause a divide in the democratic party which this thread is really about. It's not objective in any form as you are pushing propaganda to suite your own ideals.

Plus, if it was a race between Bernie and Trump, who would you really support and vote for?

So yeah, ad hominem, indeed.

 

[Mindmaster]

"I see absolutely no negatives in Trump's platform"

That is a direct quote from you. Here is the thread for a full context: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-ohh-i-mean-ex-kkk.188210/page-2#post-4784567

By asserting this, it suggests your position is mutually exclusive with other ideals contradicting Trump's platform. How can you even suggest you support Bernie if you claim that Trump's ideals have no negatives?

It's a smoke screen to indirectly cause a divide in the democratic party which this thread is really about. It's not objective in any form as you are pushing propaganda to suite your own ideals.

Plus, if it was a race between Bernie and Trump, who would you really support and vote for?

So yeah, ad hominem, indeed.

There are things that Bernie addresses concerning the environment that I am interested in (although I don't buy the global warming hype), Trump doesn't even address those issues though the Republican platform does to some degree. I see Bernie and Trump both as progressives, but I see Trump more focused on the immediate need problems, as well as the long-term socioeconomic issues. To me, both platforms would have value just different ones. Both agree on healthcare reform (almost exactly actually), etc.

So, the question is does building the wall a sticking point for people? Like, such a big deal that they won't vote for him? Well, that's ridiculous, because people who live the border are behind it nearly regardless of their race or origin. I guess it's easy to be "against it" while you live in a posh white neighborhood or in the middle of Detroit, but it's silly -- people who live the border get it. They'd overwhelmingly vote for it, so what is everyone else's problem? For most in America, it doesn't even matter but it does for these folks. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a44782/donald-trump-the-wall/

Bernie has destroyed himself, so I wouldn't vote for him at this point. He would be a weak and ineffectual President, and no nation in the world would think he would be an equal. I don't hate him, I love parts of his platform, but he dug his own hole. He lost the race for himself. I agree with his platform sans immigration, and I'm pretty much with Trump minus the wall. Could Bernie be a valuable asset such as a cabinet member or some office? Hell yes, but President? Nah, that ship has sailed.