Why i believe Sanders needs to win

[Thumpalumpacus]

Prior to Nixon, almost nobody was voting with their brains. Do you think JFK would win today with "Ask not what your country can do for you..."?

Actually, anyone who knows history would know that he didn't campaign on that phrase. He issued that challenge in his Inaugural Address.

Never mind that niggle, though.

The rest of your post is post-hoc fallacy and sharpshooter fallacy, so meh.

[Crossless2.0]

I've been watching this country slide down the shitter since Nixon.

You'd be fucking amazed what that does to your outlook.

Prior to Nixon, almost nobody was voting with their brains. Do you think JFK would win today with "Ask not what your country can do for you..."? How about the "I like Ike!" campaign? A couple of decades before that, the women didn't vote. Oh, and these populations were all vastly more religious than people have been since Nixon, and vastly more ignorant in general. So if the country has been sliding down the shitter, maybe it isn't that people waste their votes, but that they are so disillusioned with the thugs and ass clowns who are on the ballot that they don't want to vote at all.

Thump mentioned the JFK inaugural speech before I got to it.

I'll just stick to asking you to (1) clarify what you meant in the bolded part and (2) substantiate that claim.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Read the post above.  Maybe you'll learn something.

I doubt it.

OK, then!

I was there too, when Nixon stepped down. Before Nixon the voters were vastly more ignorant, a herd of sheep who could be swayed by Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you..."  After this huge embarrassment, they became too intelligent for system which unfortunately remains today. This is why so many stopped voting. You would call that irresponsible, but as one who has sat out a few elections myself there is not wanting to be responsible for okaying any of the ass clowns and thugs who are on the ballot. So how does this smart-ass generation try and fix it, 42 years later? You go after the voter, bashing any who won't vote as "lazy", when the right to reject all of the fuckers and demand better candidates has been ignored. Yes, that was actually part of the national conversation a couple of decades ago, and people with your sort of attitude ignored it. You are now teaching Joe Sixpack Voter that his vote counts, but that what he wants doesn't matter, and that is just utterly shameful!

I'll level with you: I've not decided whether I will vote for Bernie, even if he does surge ahead of Hillary when the primaries come to my State, and for the same concerns which you voice. But if I choose to compromise my vote for one who can win, this will be my personal decision, and I won't be proud of it. When you teach young voters to vote anything other than their own interests or their conscience, you teach them to give up on both prematurely, which is why this should not be taught.

If you want Candidate A in office, and you don't vote for Candidate A, then there will be no record that you wanted Candidate A. If the majority in your State want A, but vote to elect B, then the thugs and clowns under the dome will continue to behave as if you wanted B.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Prior to Nixon, almost nobody was voting with their brains. Do you think JFK would win today with "Ask not what your country can do for you..."? How about the "I like Ike!" campaign? A couple of decades before that, the women didn't vote. Oh, and these populations were all vastly more religious than people have been since Nixon, and vastly more ignorant in general. So if the country has been sliding down the shitter, maybe it isn't that people waste their votes, but that they are so disillusioned with the thugs and ass clowns who are on the ballot that they don't want to vote at all.

Thump mentioned the JFK inaugural speech before I got to it.

I'll just stick to asking you to (1) clarify what you meant in the bolded part and (2) substantiate that claim.

Nixon was there at the height of a major social transition which began with the JFK assasination, followed up very closely by assassinations of other public figures, including MLK. This time of disillusionment was coming-of-age time for the huge Baby Boomer generation, which rebelled against the establishment with sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. The Hippie movement grew out of the social shift from accepted rule of authority in the 50's to modern individualist culture. People were experimenting a lot, and those who survived that came out wiser. The Boomers led the anti-war demonstrations, and more people became aware that wars which cost millions of lives may not be necessary. They were doing this while Nixon was in office. Yes, I think this all justifies my saying that people became smarter after this, even while so many withdrew from society upon their disillusionment.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Prior to Nixon, almost nobody was voting with their brains. Do you think JFK would win today with "Ask not what your country can do for you..."?

Actually, anyone who knows history would know that he didn't campaign on that phrase. He issued that challenge in his Inaugural Address.

Never mind that niggle, though.

The rest of your post is post-hoc fallacy and sharpshooter fallacy, so meh.

Ok.

I really don't need to to apologize for my objections to teaching young voters that what they should vote for "my" candidate because he can win, and that's more important than telling the world what he really wants as an end-of-political-line, voting citizen. You're likely as not to discourage people from voting at all that way.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Bread and circuses.

Exactly -- bread and circuses. The thing is, we're not supposed to be the modern equivalent of the Roman mob, but in many ways we're worse since we're supposed to know better. As a people, we've become soft and willfully ignorant of how thoroughly we're being fucked. I could go on and . . . oh, look at that shiny wedge issue! It's . . . irresistible and . . . shiny!

I'm a bit younger than Min, but my dawning awareness of politics as a child began around the time of Watergate. I, too, have been watching the whole thing go down the toilet since the Nixon years.

Revolution? In this country? What a fucking joke. We're a disgrace as a people. I want to puke in my soup every time I hear someone solemnly intone the founders, as though they would have done anything but despise us and everything we've become.

I feel no differently than you on all that, but please don't discourage the younger voters by spewing it here - they need all the encouragment they can get!

[Whateverist]

Read the post above.  Maybe you'll learn something.

I doubt it.

You go after the voter, bashing any who won't vote as "lazy", when the right to reject all of the fuckers and demand better candidates has been ignored. Yes, that was actually part of the national conversation a couple of decades ago, and people with your sort of attitude ignored it.

When you 'vote' for none of the above you actually have zero chance of actually electing none of the above. Instead a random clown will be elected and perhaps a more destructive one. By not voting you just show you're disaffected. So what? The 1% don't care how you feel about it they just want their candidate elected, the one you thought was just one of many bad choices. That works for them.

You are now teaching Joe Sixpack Voter that his vote counts, but that what he wants doesn't matter, and that is just utterly shameful!

I'll level with you: I've not decided whether I will vote for Bernie, even if he does surge ahead of Hillary when the primaries come to my State, and for the same concerns which you voice. But if I choose to compromise my vote for one who can win, this will be my personal decision, and I won't be proud of it. When you teach young voters to vote anything other than their own interests or their conscience, you teach them to give up on both prematurely, which is why this should not be taught.

You are once more engaged with an opponent who isn't here. No one is suggesting that what you want doesn't matter. It is just that if you really hope to get as much of what you want as possible, you've got to be strategic.

Then there is also the need to avoid that which you don't want. The status quo is not a given. While you sulk about the poor quality of the candidates the vipers continue to dismantle still more of what you want but take for granted. Losing ground happens very easily compared to gaining new ground.

If you want Candidate A in office, and you don't vote for Candidate A, then there will be no record that you wanted Candidate A. If the majority in your State want A, but vote to elect B, then the thugs and clowns under the dome will continue to behave as if you wanted B.

Leaving a clear record of the candidate with whom I felt the most affinity is a poor substitute for getting what I want, and no consolation for losing still more ground. Of course what you want matters but that is why you must be strategic and vigilant. The possibility of things getting still worse is very real.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You go after the voter, bashing any who won't vote as "lazy", when the right to reject all of the fuckers and demand better candidates has been ignored. Yes, that was actually part of the national conversation a couple of decades ago, and people with your sort of attitude ignored it.

When you 'vote' for none of the above you actually have zero chance of actually electing none of the above.  Instead a random clown will be elected and perhaps a more destructive one.  By not voting you just show you're disaffected.  So what?  The 1% don't care how you feel about it they just want their candidate elected, the one you thought was just one of many bad choices.  That works for them.

That's right, the 1% don't care how you feel about it when you don't vote. But if a majority of those who go to the polls reject all candidates on the ballot when they have that option, then they can force a new election, with different candidates.

You are now teaching Joe Sixpack Voter that his vote counts, but that what he wants doesn't matter, and that is just utterly shameful!

I'll level with you: I've not decided whether I will vote for Bernie, even if he does surge ahead of Hillary when the primaries come to my State, and for the same concerns which you voice. But if I choose to compromise my vote for one who can win, this will be my personal decision, and I won't be proud of it. When you teach young voters to vote anything other than their own interests or their conscience, you teach them to give up on both prematurely, which is why this should not be taught.

You are once more engaged with an opponent who isn't here.  No one is suggesting that what you want doesn't matter.  It is just that if you really hope to get as much of what you want as possible, you've got to be strategic.  

Then there is also the need to avoid that which you don't want.  The status quo is not a given.  While you sulk about the poor quality of the candidates the vipers continue to dismantle still more of what you want but take for granted.  Losing ground happens very easily compared to gaining new ground.  

There's no denying any of this, but I still have to wonder, when I think about it, whether the compromises we make at the polls are worth the price of having our true voices heard. When you give up the right to put it on record that you want a true socialist candidate like Bernie, the record will forever say that you wanted who you voted for. Well, that's what the poll mongers do with voting data!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, anyone who knows history would know that he didn't campaign on that phrase. He issued that challenge in his Inaugural Address.

Never mind that niggle, though.

The rest of your post is post-hoc fallacy and sharpshooter fallacy, so meh.

Ok.

I really don't need to to apologize for my objections to teaching young voters that what they should vote for "my" candidate because he can win, and that's more important than telling the world what he really wants as an end-of-political-line, voting citizen. You're likely as not to discourage people from voting at all that way.

Actually, I've voted third-party since 1996. Pointing out your fallacies doesn't mean I disagree with you, necessarily.

Do you see what happens to your thought-process once you've adopted dichotomous thinking as your own norm?

[The Grand Nudger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA