[Max Goodman]

I don't find it ridiculous (as it was called at the convention last night) for progressives to feel marginalized by a party whose official machinery works against candidates like Sanders and Grayson.

A Trump presidency would be a disaster. So, particularly on climate change, would another 16 years of Democratic administrations that ignore progressives. If, after Sanders's campaign, the Dems continue to take progressive votes for granted, and if progressives support them anyway, when will progressive voices be heard? And why?

I still hope Clinton will give progressives reasons to vote for her (and not just against Trump). Progressives would be foolish to support her before she does.

[Roger Slater]

I strongly disagree. Bernie Sanders is obviously a progressive, isn't he? And he's supporting her. And he's nobody's fool.

It's really very simple. Progressives may resent the position they're in, but it's still the position they're in. Unless they are utterly blind to the unprecedented horrific danger posed by a Trump presidency, they will join Bernie in doing everything they can to prevent it.

I have no patience for telling 20 million people, "I'm a progressive, so I'm going to help elect the candidate who will cancel your health insurance, but it's all for the long-term good." Or telling 11 million people, "Sorry, but I'm going to have to break up your families by deporting the parents of children who are American citizens."

And as far as climate change is concerned, I don't get your point at all. Trump not only denies it, but says it is a hoax cooked up by China and that coal is a clean form of energy that should be expanded upon. Hillary acknowledges climate change fully and is prepared to advocate policies to combat it. Whether you think her policies are sufficient or not, they are obviously better than the alternative of doing nothing.

Oh, and Trump is a fascist.

These should be all the reasons progressives need.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

I have no patience for telling 20 million people, "I'm a progressive, so I'm going to help elect the candidate who ...

I reject the equation of not supporting one candidate with helping to elect another.

I was so strongly against W that I traveled to the nearest swing state to campaign for Kerry. I thought it was crucial to win that election and that the choices would have to get better after that. I was wrong. Now I see that if "I'm better than Trump" is enough to earn my support, the parties will never have reason to offer me a better choice. Soon I'll be admonished that unless I support Kaine I'll be responsible for the Arpaio presidency.

[Pedro Poitevin]

The solution involves the collapse of the two-party system and the adoption of instant runoffs as an electoral system. If there were four significantly supported parties (instead of the traditional two) right now, they might be look like this:

Nationalist Party: Trump
Conservative Party: Rubio
Neoliberal Party: Clinton
Social Democratic Party: Sanders

I bet if this were the electoral landscape, people wouldn't feel like the always need to vote the lesser of two evils. At the very least, one could rank four evils from least to greatest.

Pedro

[Charlie Southerland]

Does being "Pro-American" automatically make a person a Nationalist? If it does, is it appropriate to label or tie everyone to an ism or ist and make it stick? It just seems that we are Balkanizing our country for expedience's sake, are we not?

[John Whitworth]

A Trump Presidency wouldn't be very nice for middle class Americans. But I can't see it would do us in old England any harm. Perhaps someone can explain to me how? Is he going to blow up the world? No. Is he going to give succour to our enemies (the Argentinians for instance)? No. Is he going to put us at the back of the queue? No. He applauds Brexit. Good. He is certainly horrible to women. But I can't see he can harm our women.

[Richard Meyer]

Originally Posted by Pedro Poitevin

The solution involves the collapse of the two-party system and the adoption of instant runoffs as an electoral system. If there were four significantly supported parties (instead of the traditional two) right now, they might be look like this:

Nationalist Party: Trump
Conservative Party: Rubio
Neoliberal Party: Clinton
Social Democratic Party: Sanders

I bet if this were the electoral landscape, people wouldn't feel like the always need to vote the lesser of two evils. At the very least, one could rank four evils from least to greatest.

Pedro

Yes to this view. I have felt for many, many years that the two-party system, at its core, is essentially corrupt and bankrupt.

Richard

[Charlie Southerland]

I keep waiting for someone, anyone, to say any positive things about the democrat nominee. This is a democrat thread, is it not? Why are you guys busting John's balls here? Come on, Hillary supporters, give it up. Let's see some love for your champion. No? Oh, well.


About foolishness: Barack Hussein Obama never held a non-government job, unless you count the community organizer gig. He barely got his feet wet in the US Senate before he clobbered Hillary in the 2008 primaries. Other than his vast experience growing up in a Madrassa in his youth, what foreign relations experience had he exhibited before he was elected? Hell, I can't even keep up with how many times he changed his name or even who raised him. And you guys are gonna' land on John over Trump's lack of experience? Really? And calling an unproven guy a "fascist pig" when the democratic alternative is called what, a saint or savior? Wouldn't it be much more honest for you guys to just say: We're all royally screwed, and get on with it? At least show some integrity.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

I reject the equation of not supporting one candidate with helping to elect another.

I was so strongly against W that I traveled to the nearest swing state to campaign for Kerry. I thought it was crucial to win that election and that the choices would have to get better after that. I was wrong. Now I see that if "I'm better than Trump" is enough to earn my support, the parties will never have reason to offer me a better choice. Soon I'll be admonished that unless I support Kaine I'll be responsible for the Arpaio presidency.

Don't tell that to me, Max. Tell it to one of the 20 million people who will lose their health insurance under Trump. Tell it to one of the 11 million people who will be deported. Tell it to your fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim when their Fourth Amendment rights are suspended. Tell it to gay couples whose right to marry is abrogated by a fresh crop of Scalia-like justices. Tell it to people working for $7.25 an hour who might have gotten a doubling of their wages. Tell it to those who looked forward to a public option and buying into Medicare at age 55. Tell all these people that you thought it was best to elect a crooked fascist pig named Trump in service of your long-run hope that someday this would lead to a better world. Personally, I wouldn't have the nerve to tell them.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Tell all these people that you thought it was best to elect a crooked fascist pig named Trump ... Personally, I wouldn't have the nerve to tell them.

You're not showing any lack of nerve today, Bob. You make a straw man of my position when you suggest I "[think] it ... best to elect ... Trump." You are usually fairer than that.

I think we have similar goals though we disagree about tactics and maybe priorities.