Would a Bernie Sanders backer vote for Trump?

I would really like to know what proportion of people who would vote for Bernie, would rather vote for Trump than Hillary? I don't think many would but would like to discuss this with a person who might do so.

I've explained elsewhere why I would vote for Trump over Clinton if denied the opportunity to vote for Sanders in November.

For me it's clear that there's a priority in breaking the stranglehold which a neo-conservative group, the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC), has held over the Democratic party ever since Bill Clinton was elected. As long as these people are in control of the party, the so-called two-party system does not even rise to the level of a bad joke.

By rejecting Clinton, people can mark their disapproval and deny this group its force.

That's a vitally important step and it has to be done one way or another or we're going to be continually offered these shit false choices and told--again--"there's no alternative!," we "have to" take "the lesser of two evils." As a people, we're being shamelessly played for suckers and Hillary Clinton is an integral actor in this long-running con. Unfortunately, most Americans are far too politically stupid to understand these basic and obvious facts.

I am sure you are not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. After all, it's that kind of speech toward people who see things differently that has contributed to the toxic and intractable political environment we now face.

>3 stellarexplorer:

I'd be very interested to read your detailed explanation of where, how and why you dispute something in the chain of reasoned argument I set out above.

Do you have a substantive argument to make about why my reasoning is mistaken?

--or is your only point here that it is unkind or improper of me to refer to certain of my opponents or their views as "stupid"-- even if, let us suppose, you are unable to explain why they are not fairly liable to be described that way?

You have correctly interpreted that the only point I choose to make is about the form of your statement. You are naturally entitled to any opinion you hold, and I have no wish to discuss those convictions. Not because there is anything wrong in having that conversation; it's just not my wish to do so. Of course it is a leap, if not to say ungenerous, to assume this is because I am unable to respond. My own conviction is that we in the US must find a way to speak to the other side in a way that does not intensify conflict and harden positions. Things are bad enough.

>5 stellarexplorer:

We do have a fundamental difference of opinion even in so far as goes your limited interest in the scope of a discussion here.

Briefly, I don't agree that the conflicts could be more intense or that the positions could be any harder than they already are. As I see it, my opponents have already monopolized the entire political game-board leaving to me and my like-minded citizens a role which amounts to being simple stage-props in a play which they themselves write, produce, direct and star in for their own exclusive pleasures, benefits, profits and selfish interests. That means, of course, nothing less than an elaborate fraud upon democracy and its institutions. These opponents may put things in the politest terms in the world but their polite terms do not in the least change the fact that, at bottom, what they are politely "offering" comes to this: "shut up and take what we offer and be grateful it's not less."

That there are actually those who stand between me and my opponents and, as partial victims of this outrage, persist in trying to mediate a "cordiale entente" is hardly less insulting and infuriating to me. My preferred candidate, Bernie Sanders, is already doing the work of making the polite, well-reasoned case. My place is to arrest and awaken those other victims of this fraudulent political order who still naively think that all that's needed is a little tinkering around the margins and all shall be right again and leave them as little chance as possible to duck, deny or fail to see the point and the stakes in front of them.

I am not interested in negotiating terms of surrender with my opponents who are not offering any terms in the first place.

If this year the corrupt political order can offer the "choice" between a Clinton and a Trump--shutting out a Sanders in the preliminary rounds--then the next time it's clear that a Trump could be proposed instead of a Clinton and someone even more extremely right-wing can be offered instead of a Trump. Like a tightening noose, with each election-fraud cycle, I find the circle smaller than it was before.

I have no more patience for the morally-bankrupt "lesser-of-two-'evils' " claims. The starting-and-ending offer is itself an insult.

For you you to imply that you have good reasons to know that my premises and conclusions are faulty but that you cannot be bothered to state those reasons--or for you to concede my basic views as valid but quibble over the language by which I express those views strikes me as odd to say the least.

I am not stating or implying that you are wrong or right. I understand that you have deep convictions. My comment was about form, because, while we may see this differently, I believe that the way we speak to each other directly affects how the message is received, and shapes the climate of discourse. This is not to deny the frustration that surrounds the status quo for so many people on all sides of the issues.

Discussions should be conducted without fondness for dispute or desire for victory -Ben Franklin

Fast forward to today:

7 stellarexplorer
I believe that the way we speak to each other directly affects how the message is received, and shapes the climate of discourse.

I believe that civility in discussions is an increasingly rare virtue. I know I try to search out people who I know I disagree with and listen to their point of view, rather than convert them to mine. It's a challenge but worthwhile, I believe.

Also worthwhile noting is that this is a history blog. If someone wishes to discuss current events in light of historical events then fine. But if you want a current events blog then by all means set up a separate one.

I will never understand why someone has not set up a Current Events blog.

Thank you stellarexplorer. You walk it the way you talk it and that is not easily done.

Well said :)

>8 Urquhart:

"Also worthwhile noting is that this is a history blog. If someone wishes to discuss current events in light of historical events then fine. But if you want a current events blog then by all means set up a separate one."

That's fair enough. In LT, the "Pro and Con" blog is for all practical purposes also a current-events blog on social and political matters.

This thread might be better placed there.

This thread could be redirected to a new thread at the Pro and Con blog.

10 proximity1

Many thanks I did not know about Pro and Con.

>11 Urquhart:

you're welcome!