|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 4:53:28 GMT
Being on message boards for a long time I have frequently seen two charges made by many atheists/secularists on religious people:
1) Religious people have tribal mentality. Sure. Many of them do. But I don't think I see your stupid Democrat party supporters being anything different. At many times they just side with their folks when their folks are bashing religious people irrespective of the soundness of the logic used in the bashing.
2) The republicans (consequently many religious people) are hypocrites because they supported someone of character of Trump. Sure. Trump doesn't represent Christian values (even if those values are in name only anyway). I have seen arguments employed by atheists on this board that republicans supported immoral person like Trump irrespective of the fact that Trump's conduct goes contrary to values of Christianity. Filmflaneur went one step further in saying that because religious people claim to adhere to greater morality they have higher degree of responsibility than non-religious. I agree with the first claim by leftists that republicans are hypocrites. But the problem is that the leftists are hypocrites as well when it comes to supporting politicians like Hillary Clinton, who doesn't adhere to leftist values. She not only supported Iraq war but was the one who played central role in Libya intervention (which almost everyone now acknowledges to be an immoral intervention leading to death and displacement of 100s of thousands of people). Not only that contrary to Trump's stance of non-intervention in Syria she had plans for intervention in Syria too! So if you democrats/leftists think that I am to be fooled by your support for third class people like Clinton who had not only done wrong things that were contrary to leftist values but was also hell bent on continuing with wrong policies then I can only laugh at you. Also, I believe leftists are the new revolutionaries so they have at least as much responsibility to stick to their moral values if not more responsibility than republicans have.
Now one can say that in general leftists have better ideals. I totally agree with that. Their stance on homosexuality, minorities, abortion, freedom etc etc are better than positions of conservatives/non-liberal religious folks. But when it comes to politics there certainly doesn't seem to be a great endeavour by the leftists to avoid corrupt people or improve the system. They indulge in tribalism in defending the folks on their side and supporting them. No matter even if it's someone horrible like the corporate Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Dec 5, 2018 7:59:05 GMT
Being on message boards for a long time I have frequently seen two charges made by many atheists/secularists on religious people: 1) Religious people have tribal mentality. Sure. Many of them do. But I don't think I see your stupid Democrat party supporters being anything different. At many times they just side with their folks when their folks are bashing religious people irrespective of the soundness of the logic used in the bashing. Religious Christians in the US wish to impose their beliefs on the entire population through government edicts. The Republican Party endorses the rightwing agenda whereas Democrats oppose it. It's supposedly praiseworthy for people to base their worldview on faith instead of evidence and logic. It's not laudable to anybody with sense. "Winning isn’t everything; it's the only thing" is a well-known quotation in sports. It is attributed to UCLA Bruins football coach Henry Russell ("Red") Sanders. Rightwingers would agree with another version: "Stopping abortion isn’t everything; it's the only thing." Creationist dumbfuck Ray Comfort said the only issue he cared about was abortion and the head of the St. Pius X group in France supported Marine Le Pen for president based on her pro-life stance, and no other reason. It doesn't matter to religious crazies if Trump is sincere in his opposition to abortion rights. The important thing is that Trump is appointing anti-abortion judges and their expectation is that abortion will be outlawed in most or all of the USA. Supporting a baby-killer (yes, that's the term they use) for president gets a rightwing Christian a ticket to Hell while a Trump vote is a prerequisite for Heaven. Yes, that's how they think. As for the American intervention in Iraq and Libya, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Kaddafi were long established tyrants and murderers who ruled at gunpoint against plenty of local opposition and not much in the way of popular support. Both leaders demonstrated that they'd kill anybody to maintain their power. Okay, the replacements in Libya and Iraq are shitty leaders but blame that on the Arab character.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Dec 5, 2018 8:14:35 GMT
Your thread talks about "anti religious extremists" and you then go on to point out the flaws in the Democratic Party.
I'm not sure that they are the same thing. I'm not sure the bulk of the DP are calling for religion to be banned or wanting to impose any sort of harsh sanctions on religious groups.
They just tend to be less accommodating. And if "failing to bend over so they can fuck you up the ass" is now the definition of "being extremely opposed to something" then US politics really is becoming more polarised...
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Dec 5, 2018 8:24:35 GMT
Your thread talks about "anti religious extremists" and you then go on to point out the flaws in the Democratic Party. I'm not sure that they are the same thing. I'm not sure the bulk of the DP are calling for religion to be banned or wanting to impose any sort of harsh sanctions on religious groups. They just tend to be less accommodating. And if "failing to bend over so they can fuck you up the ass" is now the definition of "being extremely opposed to something" then US politics really is becoming more polarised... I am sure the bulk of the DP are strongly opposed to any calls for religion to be banned or wanting to impose any sort of harsh sanctions on religious groups. It's the goal of religious people to sneak their fantasies into classrooms and to persecute groups they dislike.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 8:29:07 GMT
Your thread talks about "anti religious extremists" and you then go on to point out the flaws in the Democratic Party. I'm not sure that they are the same thing. I'm not sure the bulk of the DP are calling for religion to be banned or wanting to impose any sort of harsh sanctions on religious groups. They just tend to be less accommodating. And if "failing to bend over so they can fuck you up the ass" is now the definition of "being extremely opposed to something" then US politics really is becoming more polarised... You are right in that I did mix up what seem like different groups of people. But at this point of time I see a very high correlation between anti-religious folks and at least the white people who form the support base of Democrat party. And those are the very same people who also happen to identify as liberal in many cases even if realistically speaking Democrat party isn't even an actual leftist party.
So here is the group - White people+ anti-religious+ democrat supporter+ Liberal ( The Black democrats/ non-whites non Asians are religious to a significant extent).
The people of this group who come from America have shown very little responsibility in supporting or choosing their political leaders. If the party chose Clinton as their candidate then we can at least infer that those people have either failed to recognize that Clinton doesn't represent leftist values or that they are hypocrites. The general arguments given by liberals to defend their leaders or their people are also very poor as demonstrated by Dividavi in this very thread. For example, he contends that Iraq war and Libya intervention were OK because people of Iraq and Libya are immoral or that their leaders were killers. Not looking at the fact that those countries which became living graveyards after the war/intervention were considerably better off before the war/intervention and that in general other countries should be left alone than invaded. It's the same creepy belief that many colonialists or missionaries have. Believing that people of colonies were uncivilized so it was OK to colonize them or Christianize them even if the actual colonization meant plunder of resources of the colonies to advantage of the colonizer.. The fact is that the anti-religious have demonstrated no responsibility in selection of their political leaders but do hold the religious people responsible for choosing unwisely. I only gave example of America but it's not unreasonable to assume the same for some other countries.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Dec 5, 2018 11:43:07 GMT
At this point of time I have very little respect for anti-religious extremists. Nobody cares. your stupid Democrat party supporters It's the "Democratic Party," not the "Democrat Party." Just as it's the "Republican Party," not the "Republic Party." www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2010/03/since_when_did_it_become_the_d.htmlthe problem is that the leftists are hypocrites as well when it comes to supporting politicians like Hillary Clinton, who doesn't adhere to leftist values. She not only supported Iraq war but was the one who played central role in Libya intervention You are right in that I did mix up what seem like different groups of people. But at this point of time I see a very high correlation between anti-religious folks and at least the white people who form the support base of Democrat party.... So here is the group - White people+ anti-religious+ democrat supporter+ Liberal ( The Black democrats/ non-whites non Asians are religious to a significant extent).
You evidently have only a very superficial understanding of American politics. Word to the wise: you might do well to reserve holding such strong opinions until after becoming better informed about the breadth of views of nearly 250 million people. I'm not sure what to make of your declaration about anti-religious extremists and white Democrats without a more precise definition of what you mean by "anti-religious extremists." The majority of white Democrats (almost 4 out of 5) are religious/are not atheist. www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/And many of the minority of white Democrats who are atheist are accepting of other people's choices to believe in God or other supernatural powers.
Also, many progressive Americans would have preferred Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. Clinton defeated Sanders in the primary elections, leaving Clinton as the highest-profile alternative to Trump in the general election.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 12:38:11 GMT
At this point of time I have very little respect for anti-religious extremists. Nobody cares. your stupid Democrat party supporters It's the "Democratic Party," not the "Democrat Party." Just as it's the "Republican Party," not the "Republic Party." www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2010/03/since_when_did_it_become_the_d.htmlthe problem is that the leftists are hypocrites as well when it comes to supporting politicians like Hillary Clinton, who doesn't adhere to leftist values. She not only supported Iraq war but was the one who played central role in Libya intervention You are right in that I did mix up what seem like different groups of people. But at this point of time I see a very high correlation between anti-religious folks and at least the white people who form the support base of Democrat party.... So here is the group - White people+ anti-religious+ democrat supporter+ Liberal ( The Black democrats/ non-whites non Asians are religious to a significant extent).
You evidently have only a very superficial understanding of American politics. Word to the wise: you might do well to reserve holding such strong opinions until after becoming better informed about the breadth of views of nearly 250 million people. I'm not sure what to make of your declaration about anti-religious extremists and white Democrats without a more precise definition of what you mean by "anti-religious extremists." The majority of white Democrats (almost 4 out of 5) are religious/are not atheist. www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/And many of the minority of white Democrats who are atheist are accepting of other people's choices to believe in God or other supernatural powers.
Also, many progressive Americans would have preferred Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. Clinton defeated Sanders in the primary elections, leaving Clinton as the highest-profile alternative to Trump in the general election. That nobody cares is irrelevant to my expressing my "opinion". Opinions are not always expressed to get acceptance. And thanks for this awsome correction. I am sure the intent was not conveyed by the use of "Democrat" party.
Yes, there may be many religious people in "democratic" party and none of that makes my point any less true. The party at the end of the day supported Hillary. Had I been supporting a party like that then I would have dissociated with it. Sure, there were some people in favour of Sanders but it's not the same as party choosing sanders. The "democratic" party is the voice of liberals or whoever pretend to be liberals/leftists. It's reasonable to say that the liberals or those who pretend to be so keep pushing the party forward. They didn't do their job well and thus you had Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 12:51:23 GMT
By the way it's funny how some people are of the opinion that nobody cares. People do care. People do form opinions slowly and steadily based on overall world view based on interactions with other human beings. The people here means all sorts of people and not the people of any particular ideology. The fact that whenever someone points out something wrong about the inherent failings among liberals/Democrats some of the more vocal ones get instantly displeased. At end of the day that plays part in neutral people looking for alternatives. I wouldn't be surprised if the "Democratic" party once again fails because of the sheer arrogance of their supporters. I saw the entire drama on old boards. Not one of the democratic party supporters that I remember ever seemed to accept that it was a grave mistake that the party chose Hillary. Yes, PD did say it would have been better had they chose Sanders but for the most part majority of them were pleased with the choice. And leave apart Bryce and Smithy almost all the Democrats on the old board that I remember were whites.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Dec 5, 2018 13:24:57 GMT
Aj_JuneAgain, who are the anti-religious extremists you are talking about? You keep prattling on about Hillary Clinton. Hillary, if anything, is the very opposite of anti-religious. By all accounts, she is a very religious person.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 13:31:51 GMT
Aj_June Again, who are the anti-religious extremists you are talking about? You keep prattling on about Hillary Clinton. Hillary, if anything, is the very opposite of anti-religious. By all accounts, she is a very religious person. Who are the anti-religious extremists? The many people who keep fretting about religion. That would be a good number of democrats. Using the term "a good number" doesn't automatically mean majority. And being anti-religious doesn't necessarily mean being out rightly opposed to religion. One can be anti-religious in subtle ways. But if you observe people over the long term you get vibes of whether they are anti-religious or just non-religious.
A good example of who I am talking about would be Dividavi for instance. He is vocally anti-religious and yet readily excuses Hillary Clinton from any of the criticism that any reasonable person would make of her.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Dec 5, 2018 13:45:13 GMT
Aj_June Again, who are the anti-religious extremists you are talking about? You keep prattling on about Hillary Clinton. Hillary, if anything, is the very opposite of anti-religious. By all accounts, she is a very religious person. Who are the anti-religious extremists? The many people who keep fretting about religion. That would be a good number of democrats. Using the term "a good number" doesn't automatically mean majority. And being anti-religious doesn't necessarily mean being out rightly opposed to religion. One can be anti-religious in subtle ways. But if you observe people over the long term you get vibes of whether they are anti-religious or just non-religious.
A good example of who I am talking about would be Dividavi for instance. He is vocally anti-religious and yet readily excuses Hillary Clinton from any of the criticism that any reasonable person would make of her.
In other words, you have very little respect for certain participants on this board who you say have leftist views and are anti-religious. I suggest that that group is hardly synonymous with a significant proportion of self-identified Democrats.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Dec 5, 2018 13:47:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 13:54:34 GMT
Who are the anti-religious extremists? The many people who keep fretting about religion. That would be a good number of democrats. Using the term "a good number" doesn't automatically mean majority. And being anti-religious doesn't necessarily mean being out rightly opposed to religion. One can be anti-religious in subtle ways. But if you observe people over the long term you get vibes of whether they are anti-religious or just non-religious.
A good example of who I am talking about would be Dividavi for instance. He is vocally anti-religious and yet readily excuses Hillary Clinton from any of the criticism that any reasonable person would make of her.
In other words, you have very little respect for certain participants on this board who you say have leftist views and are anti-religious. I suggest that that group is hardly synonymous with a significant proportion of self-identified Democrats. He is among the more vocal anti-religious people and more easily identifiable.
But let's for an instant remove the word "anti-religious" and shift over to Democrats in general.
Do you believe their contention that conservatives/republicans are hypocrites for choosing Trump is any different from what an objective person's contention would be for charging Democrats/liberals as hypocrites for picking someone like Hillary whose actions do not represent liberal values in the same way as Trump's do not represent Christian values?
And before you try to allege that I am mixing Democrats and liberals who are two separate groups of people then I do have to say that draw a Venn diagram of those two groups and try to identify the people who fall into the common area. That would amount to "significant" number.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 5, 2018 14:13:01 GMT
Do you believe their contention that conservatives/republicans are hypocrites for choosing Trump is any different from what an objective person's contention would be for charging Democrats/liberals as hypocrites for picking someone like Hillary whose actions do not represent liberal values in the same way as Trump's do not represent Christian values?
The charge of hypocrisy is leveled against the segment of Trump supporters who are the evangelical Christians. Prior to Trump, that group would overwhelmingly answer "Yes" to surveys asking if a person's personal character was an important factor in voting for President. But then they voted for Trump in huge numbers, and subsequent surveys showed the majority answering "No" to the same question about personal character. Is there a group of voters that showed some kind of comparable hypocrisy in the case of Clinton? Certainly not people who preferred Sanders, but settled for voting for Clinton over Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 14:16:03 GMT
Do you believe their contention that conservatives/republicans are hypocrites for choosing Trump is any different from what an objective person's contention would be for charging Democrats/liberals as hypocrites for picking someone like Hillary whose actions do not represent liberal values in the same way as Trump's do not represent Christian values?
The charge of hypocrisy is leveled against the segment of Trump supporters who are the evangelical Christians. Prior to Trump, that group would overwhelmingly answer "Yes" to surveys asking if a person's personal character was an important factor in voting for President. But then they voted for Trump in huge numbers, and subsequent surveys showed the majority answering "No" to the same question about personal character. Is there a group of voters that showed some kind of comparable hypocrisy in the case of Clinton? Certainly not people who preferred Sanders, but settled for voting for Clinton over Trump. Okay, so your contention is that the democrats who chose Hillary irrespective of knowing her past stance on Iraq war, her stance and active role in Libya intervention and her stated interventionist policies are a bit less hypocrite than the evangelicals. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 5, 2018 14:26:15 GMT
The charge of hypocrisy is leveled against the segment of Trump supporters who are the evangelical Christians. Prior to Trump, that group would overwhelmingly answer "Yes" to surveys asking if a person's personal character was an important factor in voting for President. But then they voted for Trump in huge numbers, and subsequent surveys showed the majority answering "No" to the same question about personal character. Is there a group of voters that showed some kind of comparable hypocrisy in the case of Clinton? Certainly not people who preferred Sanders, but settled for voting for Clinton over Trump. Okay, so your contention is that the democrats who chose Hillary irrespective of knowing her past stance on Iraq war, her stance and active role in Libya intervention and her stated interventionist policies are a bit less hypocrite than the evangelicals. Okay. Favoring intervention in foreign affairs is not contrary to liberalism. It's something that liberals argue among themselves about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism So that's not a question of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 5, 2018 14:34:18 GMT
It’s a mistake to mix religion and politics to explain religious belief and especially in the states where there are only two main parties.
Both parties present difficulties if one bites based on belief.
Still Trump is an idiot and if ones are defending his actions then it is horrible at a secular level.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 5, 2018 14:37:10 GMT
Okay, so your contention is that the democrats who chose Hillary irrespective of knowing her past stance on Iraq war, her stance and active role in Libya intervention and her stated interventionist policies are a bit less hypocrite than the evangelicals. Okay. Favoring intervention in foreign affairs is not contrary to liberalism. It's something that liberals argue among themselves about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism So that's not a question of hypocrisy.
Okay, so Iraq war and Libya intervention come under "Liberal internationalism". Or wait, Iraq war was a conservative thing but Libya Intervention was a liberal one. I suppose that changes the widespread non-interventionist stance of many liberals. Or that changes Clinton's support for Iraq war or her claim to continue the interventions in future whenever needed. I suppose those pro-peace stances are awesome when contending that Bush was a monster for having played the main part in Iraq War. No hypocrisy whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 5, 2018 14:47:07 GMT
Okay, so Iraq war and Libya intervention come under "Liberal internationalism". I suppose that changes the widespread non-interventionist stance of many liberals. I suppose those stances are awesome when contending that Bush was a monster for having played the main part in Iraq War. No hypocrisy whatsoever. It's not hypocritical for liberals who supported the invasion of Iraq to criticize Bush's appalling and negligent mishandling of the occupation once Saddam was toppled.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 5, 2018 14:50:58 GMT
Being on message boards for a long time I have frequently seen two charges made by many atheists/secularists on religious people: 1) Religious people have tribal mentality. Sure. Many of them do. But I don't think I see your stupid Democrat party supporters being anything different. Are you talking about just the Christian democrats, just the non-Christian democrats, or comparing being a democrat to being a Christian? Because you're definitely implying one of these three things right now by trying to compare Christians with Democrats. At many times they just side with their folks when their folks are bashing religious people irrespective of the soundness of the logic used in the bashing. Are you aware that Democrat is not the opposite of Christian? 2) The republicans (consequently many religious people) are hypocrites because they supported someone of character of Trump. Are you implying that all, most, or even a majority of Republicans champion Christian values? All I'm saying is that I think your post injects a lot of stereotypes that don't often hold up. Almost everyone in my family is a Christian, and they all vote Democrat. On the other hand, I know right-wing Repubicans who voted for Clinton because they couldn't stomach the idea of Trump. I also know a lot of Republicans who are about the least religious people I know. Now, I'm willing to acknowledge that this may be unique to me (a bizarre coincidence), or perhaps shaped by the fact that I was in the military for a long time (surrounded by non-Christian Republicans), or grew up in New York (surrounded by non-Religious Republicans like Donald Trump). Sure. Trump doesn't represent Christian values (even if those values are in name only anyway). I have seen arguments employed by atheists on this board that republicans supported immoral person like Trump irrespective of the fact that Trump's conduct goes contrary to values of Christianity. I've seen that too. And I may have even made arguments similar to this in the past myself. But usually I phrase it as "the Christian Right", which is a subset of Republicans, not Republicans as a whole. Because there are many Republicans who don't give a rats ass about Christian values. Many care only about money, capitalism, and greed (which Trump represents). Others care more about nationalism, and frankly racism and xenophobia (which he also represents). And Trump won largely because independents and blue collar Democrats voted for him looking for a change. So it's not like every Trump supporter is a Christian or cares about Christian values. About the only thing I'd agree with is that many of the Republicans who claim to champion Christian values are hypcrites for voting for Trump. But I think that's a discussion more applicable to the Politics section. Filmflaneur went one step further in saying that because religious people claim to adhere to greater morality they have higher degree of responsibility than non-religious. I agree with the first claim by leftists that republicans are hypocrites. I am a leftist, and I actually don't agree with that. I think the Christian Right are hypocrites. But other Republicans are just being consistent with their values (greed and capitalism). It may be morally questionable, but it's not necessarily hypocritical. But the problem is that the leftists are hypocrites as well when it comes to supporting politicians like Hillary Clinton, who doesn't adhere to leftist values. I would agree with this IF I believed that most leftists support Hillary Clinton. But I don't think they do. I think they accepted Hillary Clinton largely due to lack of options and the fact that the alternative was Donald Trump. But hardly anyone I know actually likes Hillary Clinton as a person, or believe that she is a sincere individual. Most liberals also view her as too conservative and not a real progressive either. Frankly, even Barack Obama wasn't a true liberal. He was slightly to the left of Hillary, but that's not saying much because Hillary was a centrist Democrat. She just happened to be the most qualified and knowledgeable person for the job, and slightly more trustworthy than Trump. But that doesn't reflect true support to me. She not only supported Iraq war but was the one who played central role in Libya intervention (which almost everyone now acknowledges to be an immoral intervention leading to death and displacement of 100s of thousands of people). Not only that contrary to Trump's stance of non-intervention in Syria she had plans for intervention in Syria too! I don't see that as being a "liberal" or "conservative" position. I actually think intervention in Syria should have been done. And by failing to intervene in Syria the US is being hypocritical in its national security strategy of "preserving peace through strength, and advancing American influence in the world". How many innocent Syrians have we let Bashir Al Assad murder and get away with it? We claim to uphold principles of democracy and human rights, and also claim to condemn WMDs. Yet when Assad uses them to murder babies, we do nothing. That's not leading from the front; that's being a hypocrite. And this is one of the reasons why America is losing respect with our enemies and allies. We are becoming an "all talk no action" country, which does nothing to extend American influence. So if you democrats/leftists think that I am to be fooled by your support for third class people like Clinton who had not only done wrong things that were contrary to leftist values but was also hell bent on continuing with wrong policies then I can only laugh at you. Also, I believe leftists are the new revolutionaries so they have at least as much responsibility to stick to their moral values if not more responsibility than republicans have. I think you're generalizing too much and conflating moral values that have nothing to do with voting Demomcrat or Republican. Now one can say that in general leftists have better ideals. I totally agree with that. Their stance on homosexuality, minorities, abortion, freedom etc etc are better than positions of conservatives/non-liberal religious folks. But when it comes to politics there certainly doesn't seem to be a great endeavour by the leftists to avoid corrupt people or improve the system. They indulge in tribalism in defending the folks on their side and supporting them. No matter even if it's someone horrible like the corporate Clinton. I disagree. I think your argument works if you were talking about "Democrats". And in that case, I largely agree. Democrats have been hugely disappointing, but they mostly consist of center left, often ignorant, party line voters who are just as tribal as Republicans. Liberals on the other hand are usually strong-armed into voting Democrat because that's the only viable alternative to getting SOME liberal ideals enacted into policy. Bernie Sanders is a liberal (socialist), but he ran on the Democratic ticket for just that reason. And his campaign was ultimately derailed due to some duplicity by the Clinton supporters (establishment Democrats) being shady. I suspect that most liberals wanted Bernie Sanders to be President. And as liberal as he is, he still has some conservative principles that a lot of liberals do not support (like being an NRA supporter). So there has really been no perfect liberal candidate who has run for President in my lifetime that ever had a snowballs chance of winning.
|
|