Zeddicuszull
37533
716
55
Jun 20, 2024 7:21 PM
Zeddicuszull
37533
716
55
ToSisPoS
“But patriot and eagle are our words!” -Conservative, angrily
JackalopeElope
Honestly I just try to convince other people that my politics lead to profits.
F4ndango
Similarly, I try to frame my arguments in self interest. To show how my preferred policy benefits me and them.
vericon151
Sorry kid, your dad is a POS.
Vallete
But that's not right! Slaves benefited from slavery! /S
https://www.wusf.org/education/2023-07-27/politifact-fl-do-school-standards-say-enslaved-people-benefited-from-slavery-harris-said
Capnrory
conservatism is the belief that liberals have been right about everything throughout the entirety of human history until about the time you entered high school
HonestCommentFarmer
Boy this is some serious "written by the victors" energy here. Liberalism also gave us the American Empire, which among other things gave us the Panama Canal (for good and ill). It gave us Containment which gave us Vietnam. It gave us Corporatism. A version of it gave us the Iraq War. Looking outside America's borders, its excesses gave us Putin. There's a lot out there for Liberalism to be criticized over.
yokwe
What is the connection between liberal excesses and Putin?
HonestCommentFarmer
I forget the organizations involved, but when the USSR collapsed, a number of liberal institutions got involved with liberalizing Russia's markets and basically these institutions said "we won, our economic system is superior, liberalize everything now" and the shock of suddenly shifting from a planned economy to a completely open one created a lot of destitution, created a new crop of ultra-wealthy, and basically created the power-base from which Putin could take power under.
tr26
As a hard progressive (vs liberal), I feel we need some sort of check and balance, but it sure ain’t the conservatives.
CliffWestern
Not exactly. Socialists and anarchists were (pretty much) always right. Liberals were dipshits like thomas jefferson who hemmed and hawed about slavery while actively protecting the institution. There have always been those fighting evil but they were not liberals. Liberalism is just another rich guy ideology meant to placate people away from politics that actual address their plight.
Zeddicuszull
Liberals are always right since it is liberals that support and defend institutions. In order to ensure that conservatives cannot gain permanent power and harm everyone you require this capacity for good government which only liberals can provide.
CliffWestern
What good is a government conservatives created to own people? How is that rich liberals defense righteous? Liberals ally with conservatives as it suits them and there is nothing noble about native boarding schools which was the liberal response at the time. Not progressive, liberal. Liberalism is rich white dude enlightenment nonsense. It's a lot of talk about universality but quick to pull out markers. Like Jefferson. All talk while consistently defending slavery at every turn. But there were1
CliffWestern
People then just as there are now who know that nobody will be free until all of us are. Those are the people liberals vehemently fight and only co-op after they've won. 2/2
nasukkin
Remember that our Interstate Highways were once described as a communist ploy by conservatives when our nation was deciding whether or not to build them.
Nonada
I feel it would be more accurate to say progressives rather than liberals, but otherwise yeah, conservative ideals have always been shit and wrong.
Zeddicuszull
Liberals support institutions, which are required for long term and lasting improvements.
Nonada
Yes but so are progressives and liberals are usually late to the stances that progressives are already at.
Zeddicuszull
Which doesn't mean anything. What actually matters is the creation and sustaining of institutions so these ideals can be protected long term. Nobody cares who came up with a good idea first. Don't be an egoist.
Nonada
Sometimes it does matter when it's shit like people suffering for decades or when those institutions are on the verge of collapse from facist malfeasance. There's a reason MLK Jr. mentions the dangers of the moderate liberal. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that liberals EVENTUALLY get on the right side, but that's why I said the comic could stand to swap "liberals" with "progressives". I don't understand why my pedantry is so offensive to you dude.
Zeddicuszull
For example is female suffrage. Is easy to be the first to say that women should be allowed to vote. Speechifying is easy. It took liberals and institutions to craft and pass the 19th amendment. That was hard to do. It was liberals that sat down and actually wrote out what suffrage meant and then convinced others to ratify it. It is with liberals that we get lasting and permeant progress.
mechscientist
Quick thing "liberal" in the american sense, isn't a liberal, but a progressive. This is important to know, because the people who are frequently "liberal" are the Republicans. After all, they hate big government, which is a key thing liberalism wants.
Zeddicuszull
Other way around. Liberals believe in institutions which is the government they are trying to keep running. This is the primary difference between leftists and liberals. Leftists want to burn everything down while liberals want to keep the lights on and work within the system.
mechscientist
With how americans use it, Liberals and Leftists are the same thing. The right just want "leftist" to have a negative connotation, to stain those who identify with left leaning ideology. You have to get all the way out until communism before you get a lefty that wants no state, and even then, Marxists (which are the only major communist line, without the authoritarian corruption of the ideology) want us to transition peacefully, because the state becomes superfluous
FoxPesdassi
It's more true to say that whenever a liberal disagrees with a conservative, the liberal might not be right, but the conservative is ALWAYS wrong.
ThePetrichorian
SerialChickenLover
Even when I was a conservative, I noticed that history always trended toward liberal values and came to the same conclusion. I lived in cognitive dissonance for several years after that, mostly out of spite and anger at society for my own personal failings.
twodamngoon
Yes! This cannot be emphasized enough to children.
trekkiedane
But... my Rose!!!
Crowlands
I once asked a forum of historians to provide an example, in all of human history, in all the world, where conservatives were found to be right.
I was provided One answer, of some small middle eastern country (I apologise for the lack of specifics, this was many years ago.) that recovered from losing a war through the use of conservative economic policies.
And that was it. One example. Across thousands of years of recorded history.
ArcaneConjecture
Public Housing in the United States. We spent billions concentrating poor and uneducated people into huge apartment complexes that became centers for crime and drugs. The conservatives who said "do nothing instead" were wrong, but the ones who said "use vouchers instead of building instant slums" were correct.
Zeddicuszull
Another example of when conservatives can be correct is when ancient farming techniques are used that have shown to be superior to current methods using fertilizer and pesticides. Which is getting way into the weeds with agriculture.
HonestCommentFarmer
-The Adenauer Administration had its faults, but was decidedly Conservative (if a European flavor of Conservatism) and decidedly put (West) Germany back together after WWII.
-I hesitate to call it Conservative, but Napoleon III's government definitely had revanchist "Make France Great Again" energy to it.
The main problem is in the use of terms. Conservatism is a relatively modern set of ideas that tack onto some common revanchist power-preserving instincts.
HonestCommentFarmer
So there are plenty of successful "Return to Greatness" administrations or "preserve the existing power structure" movements throughout history. But Conservative governments have only been around for ~130 years.
YouTubeRed
sound
ObiHaiv
I am laughing WAY too hard at this. My wife is looking at me funny now. Not cool!
YouTubeRed
A re-enactment. :)
dajustifier
Noooooo, the LEFT is always correct. Liberalism is NOT by definition Progressive.
Zeddicuszull
Yes, liberals are always correct. You need someone at the institutional level capable of enacting permanent change and improvement for these ideas to stick long term. It is liberals that raise armies, pass legislation, and get control of Congress. Leftists exist primarily as rabble rousers to keep the masses energized and focused on the target.
dajustifier
How do you define a "Liberal"? How do you define a Leftist?
Zeddicuszull
Liberal is the person in Congress passing legislation. A leftist is the guy on the street yelling at people. Both are important but it's ultimately the liberal that gets stuff signed into law. MLK had nothing to do with the passing of the Voting Rights Act. He was never elected into office.
dajustifier
Apologies for the delay, I didn't get a notification. That reply wasn't in good faith. You don't think unelected or appointed officials can impact policy?
Zeddicuszull
"You don't think unelected or appointed officials can impact policy?"
Notice how I did not say anything remotely close to this. Which means you are arguing with the voices in your head. You should get that checked out.
Mnbvvxz
Hey quick favor can you not co-opt socialism when liberals are reaching across the aisle to do everything in their power to quash it? Thanks. We look poorly on Stolen Valor here.
Zeddicuszull
These are indeed liberal victories. It takes liberals having the skills required to create an army powerful enough to defeat the Confederacy. Socialists didn't do that.
Nengex
See, that's weird, because I thought it was the Confederates preemptively firing on Fort Sumter that forced the liberals to finally realize the stakes of the fight and let the US Army helmed by a progressive president who supported Karl Marx to respond and put down the rebellion. But whatever, I guess historical revisionism isn't just a conservative thing anymore. Liberals can do it too.
Zeddicuszull
Lincoln didn't start the war as a progressive. Lincoln at the start wanted to preserve slavery and was convinced later into the war to get rid of it. Lincoln also didn't have anything to do with the reconstruction amendments. Since he was dead. In addition, Marx was a nobody during the 1860s as his support meant little.
Nengex
No. Holy shit no. Lincoln had a LONG history of being abolitionist. The south seceded because they were suspicious that Lincoln would abolish slavery. Here's a whole Wikipedia article citing his own fucking letters and motions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
Marx was the President of the world's largest Union in 1864, when he and Lincoln corresponded. Also, Marx was Britain's lead correspondent to British newspapers about the American Civil War as it happened.
Zeddicuszull
Lincoln admitted out loud to crowds that if elected he wouldn't abolish slavery. What he actually thought in private meant little. His politicial Capitol was being spent to sustain slavery.
ishovethingsupmyass
There is seriously something fucked up about the U.S when I see U.S politics comics every fucking third view
badpuppeh81
I have politics blocked and now I'm going to have to block comic as well
VinchVolt
It's a presidential election year and this is one of the least-talked-about elections in a long while, it's only natural that you'd see a lot of folks trying to encourage voting.
ishovethingsupmyass
I was being a little bit silly, All I hear is american politics on Imgur, because your country is run by pedophiles and sociopaths. You know I am right, uuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaah.
wodensday
Is there a country on this planet that isn’t?
Cryolith
Conservatives don't see politics as a tool for implementing policies. They see it as a team sport to be won. They're the ultimate Identity politics people. If you're an R, you are automatically a "Good American", regardless of behaviors or ethics or even competence. The reason Dems have such a hard time despite having better outcomes and better policies, is that they aren't playing the same game.
Columbus43219
But also, it's who gets to be "in charge." Those in charge can do whatever they want without being held accountable. They want people trampling our rights who think like they they do and trample on the right people.
icantbelieveistillhavetoprotestthiscrap
You don't know how right you are. My parents are both die-hard Republicans. I'm a gay man happily married to my husband, so I asked them "when Republicans overturn Obergefell who am I going to blame?" They looked me dead in the eyes and said "but we don't support that". So I asked "will that matter to me?" and they were SHOCKED. It never occurred to them that I would be hurt if they had a hand in things that directly impacted me.
Cabreza
We see that disconnect a lot. Yes you might not support it, but you support the party that supports it. Worse, you know the party supports it and still go along because it’s not a deal breaker and you’ve chosen to prioritize something else over it. Like yeah the government is putting LGBTQ people in camps, but have you seen the temporary tax cut Trump gave me?!
icantbelieveistillhavetoprotestthiscrap
Yep. They thought it was fine so long as they paid lip service.
keystotheairlock
Often it's because the first appeals to ignorant folks who haven't been given a system outside of hatred and exploitation to follow, and the second only *mostly* aligns with community values held by educated, critical thinkers and folks of diverse (often post-conflict) backgrounds. The issue is a lot more complicated than the aforementioned blanket statements, but I only have 500 characters and a limited amount of time to spend on the toilet. ^Cryolith has a pretty succinct viewpoint here.
Zeddicuszull
Conservatism is indeed an appeal to low effort and low education. You just need to follow your leaders to be one. No thinking required.
Strategicgnomer
It's also pushed by people without empathy. Narcissists and bootlickers carry it along and sociopaths fund it. I'm simplifying but yeah. And they always win because they don't have to play fair. Won't end until we create systems to restrain such people.
Zeddicuszull
Conservatives always lose due to them also being unable to create and sustain institutions long term. Each time they've tried it fails miserably.
Strategicgnomer
Tell that to Putin... Kim jong il and his son in.
Merky600
Understand wrestling and you’ll understand their outlook. The debate is coming up. Watch for “Who won?”, “Smackdowns”, etc. Not best policy. Hence Dark Brandon might be a genius idea.
Illithidbane
That's their whole identity. They are white, therefore better than non-whites. They are straight, therefore better than LGBT. They are christians, therefore righteous and forgiven no matter what and better than all hellbound people actually doing good things.
L1ttl3J1m
And in order for them to "win", of course, somebody else has to "lose". Very important to the "winner" that there be a "loser", otherwise who are you going to teabag?
Zeddicuszull
Yeup. Conservatives have transactional ethics and think in terms of zero sum. They don't actually care about anything besides winning since otherwise they are losers and they hate that.
TheBretters
Leftist were right libs at the time agreed with conservatives on most of these issues until after the fact
ArcaneConjecture
This is about the USA. Here in the USA, a "leftist" is basically a liberal.
helljack
Do you have any citations to strengthen your point?
VashTehStampede
.
adowntoearthkindofguy
If it comes down to contents of the OP. It's Leftists all the way down. If you're going further back (e.g. 1776), then sure Liberals were the radicals of that era since other ideologies either didn't exist or were in their infancy.
3Davideo
Note: using the *American* definition of Liberal. A number of political "commentators" / meme reposters on Imgur, such as abbistabbi, tend to use the *European* definition of Liberal, which tends to cause confusion when one person uses one meaning and another person uses the other meaning.
On the bright side, this picture does very clearly illustrate what is meant by American-definition Liberalism, so I'm going to save it to aid communication during such miscommunication episodes.
Nengex
The picture might adhere to the *American* definition of liberal (insofar as that definition as it stands is the result of decades of conservative propaganda, so can be a bit poisonous to adhere to), but it's not what OP meant. Their entire comment history throughout this post has been some of the most unhinged takes I've seen, up to and including that Progressives 'simply don't know how to navigate the political machine' and 'Lincoln was pro-slavery until late in the war.'
VinchVolt
The European definition is also more common among further-left folks, which is where you get memes like this: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-hate-liberals-so-much-its-unreal
OliverOtter
It's also a little bit of "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy." They declare the successful winning sides of every issue to be "liberal" after the fact, based on them being: a) the winning side; and b) successful. Neglecting of course to mention any of the grotesque liberal failures. The same "liberal" administration and congress responsible for panels 7 and 8 were also the "conservatives" responsible for panel 9, Japanese internment camps, and making women obligate homemakers again after the war.
LoudBirb
Liberalism is relative, but you are correct in that liberals have been wrong in the past. Specifically, whenever they've agreed with conservatives. See: the examples you listed. So, I suppose it'd be more accurate to say "Conservatives are always wrong".
kamenhokage
I'm curious what the main difference between the two definitions is. I tend to view American political sides generally as complete fucking lunatics who take their politics way too far, with 0 room for nuance, and everyone just wanting to 'win'. So I'm curious what the difference in European and American Liberalism, if you don't mind.
3Davideo
Well, the most important distinction is that European-type Liberals would actually oppose economic interventionism and creation/expansion of welfare programs, at least in general, while American-type Liberals view such programs as the cornerstone of their economic policies. Granted, American-type Liberals don't really go as far to the economic left as actual European leftists, but given the present economic-policy status quo in the US and the difficulty faced in trying to move it to the left, >
3Davideo
> the distinction between American-type Liberals and actual leftists is generally not all that important in practice.
Crowlands
Effectively, the more corporate side of Democrats are "Liberals", and could be considered a right party in much of Europe.
The fact that many of them don't support universal healthcare could even be seen as so far right they're outside the window of acceptable politics.
Saying your country is so damn backwards it cannot keep its own people alive is practically unthinkable in a real modern nation.
kamenhokage
Got it. Thank you very much.
Zeddicuszull
Liberals are those that defend and use institutions to enact longer and more permanent solutions. Leftists are rabble rousers that get swept up into smaller day to day atrocities while never putting in the hard work necessary to end them.
kamenhokage
That honestly sounds about right from what I'm looking into. Thanks.
GriffinMann41
#8, the one about WW2 is just....WILDLY incorrect. Did US arms, and, much later into the war direct military action? Yes. After MILLIONS had already died. The US only took definitive action after it's own servicemembers on it's own land had died. We supplied arms, fuel, and food, sure. But to our critical ally the USSR it was already pretty late. The nazi invasion of the Soviet Union had begin to turn before 1941 was over, and the Nazis were more or less already in retreat by 42. Before 1/
kamenhokage
Yay someone else other than me who credits the USSR (the rightful movie heroes of WW2) with their role in the European theater. The Pacific theater WAS mostly the USA tho so that part I'll concede.
GriffinMann41
Yeah like, if this were a conversation on the USSR's Moral or Political failures? Perfectly understandable, there's a LOT to cover there. But one of the things the USSR and it's constituent SFSR's excelled at is heavy industry, which is THE thing that wins wars. And this is because the USSR spent 20 years constantly forcibly investing in it's heavy industry, often to the detriment of other sectors. At the very least i'm glad the comic didn't pull the hyperbolic near-nazi-propaganda of the 2/
GriffinMann41
'human wave' shit and the like. The stuff that exists in popular media but heavily, HEAVILY contradicts actual time-accurate accounts of what soviet tactics and strategy were like (which are very well documented and actually VERY impressively advanced/specialized for the time's tactics)
GriffinMann41
allied plans for a landing in europe were even drawn up for *italy* the Soviets were making huge gains on the Eastern Front and the Nazi loss was already guaranteed. To say the US alone "Saved the world" is spitting in the face of MILLIONS of victims of two genocidal murder regimes. The US was important in supplying arms, fuel, and munitions sure, but mostly to it's Western allies, which while very useful still came pretty late. In the Pacific? Yeah you can say they were of immense value. 2/2
adowntoearthkindofguy
Liberals sometimes cement these ideas and changes; however, Liberals are reluctant to propose or implement them in the first place unless they are forced to do so by the Left.
Zeddicuszull
Leftists lack the institutionalized knowledge necessary to enact better and more permanent peace. That is what liberals are good for. Without liberals nothing would get accomplished and conservatives would win by default and through violence.
adowntoearthkindofguy
Funny you'd say that because in MLK Jr's "Letter from Birmingham Jail", one of his most scathing critiques was that Liberals are "more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice." Whether they're good at making a "permanent peace" is questionable at best; e.g. The civil war being exacerbated by tepid incremental reforms over decades rather than immediately ripping the band-aid off earlier.
Zeddicuszull
MLK Jr never went into politics or ran for public office. Once you do so you have to work within a system to get legislation passed. Which requires time and compromise in a democracy. Always getting your way is tyrannical.
adowntoearthkindofguy
No idea why you bothered posting nearly two weeks after my post. Also, it's weird to say anything about my post being tyrannical. Do you honestly think it would have been "tyrannical" to abolish slavery at the founding of the nation in 1776? Like seriously, think about that. Like, really really think about that. Let it sink in. Maybe you'll get close to how perplexed I was to find this response.
Zeddicuszull
It was liberals that ultimately abolished slavery, remember? Again, your thinking is tyrannical. You offer no opportunity for democracy or compromise to be made. You just think by default that you're right and that everyone should step in line.
It's far more impactful and lasting for social progress to be done via society via democracy. That we the people taking command of our own lives.
Nengex
Important point: I was a liberal before I gained the institutionalized knowledge on systems. Gaining that knowledge made me a leftist. The claim that leftists lack the institutionalized knowledge to enact better change might be the shittiest take I've seen on this website.
Zeddicuszull
Knowledge isn't the same as applicability. Being able to use systems and institutions is a trait that only liberals have as that is what you need to sustain lasting victory. Us liberals need to maintain systems continuously to win. Conservatives only need to destroy these systems once to win. The struggle here is with liberals.
Nengex
Okay so first of all, you're arguing with me about the shit I literally have two degrees in, so slow the fuck down. Maybe do some actual reading so you get an idea of what you're actually arguing for here instead of retreating to a singular idea and making it your entire paradigm. The definition of a liberal is someone who upholds existing systems and institutions as they exist. Conservatives do not just destroy systems. They also wrest control of them to steer them in a regressive direction,1/8
Nengex
Or they spin up new institutions through which they can enact their ideals. A progressive/leftist can often do the same. The difference between the two comes down to paradigms. Conservatism favors resource access for the few in control, as it was founded in 1794 specifically to use Capitalism to reinstate Feudalism and aristocracy. Progressives/leftists favor human rights over property, and act thusly. 2/8
onlyhalfghost
it's almost accurate if you take them to have meant institutional representation (i.e. government presence) thanks to Cold War purges.
onlyhalfghost
that said my experience is the same as yours: I used to be a liberal, then I learned history, poli sci and econ, now I'm hard left
Cabreza
I’m not a fan of saying liberals are always right as if it’s a universal truth inherent to liberalism, but Americas history has certainly born it out thus far
xXxX66SICKXxXx
Progressives are always right. I’ve met some liberals who are just as bat shit crazy as GQP dipshits in ideals (minus the wanting to kill everyone different from them thing…. for the most part that is)
apLundell
Really, it's more about the USA's conservatives always being wrong while most everyone else in the world is only sometimes wrong. That's less catchy of a comics, I suppose.
Enoan
There are times where conservatives rejecting new ideas has been good, because some new ideas are really stupid. However ideas that get rejected before getting a chance to entrench in conservatives intending to perpetuate them really don't get to do much harm.
LustrousShadow
I do worry that the message as delivered reinforces liberal arrogance. In most cases, liberals start off on the same side as conservatives on an issue and get pulled to the correct position by people further to the left.
Look at attitudes towards Israel. Consider how attitudes towards marriage equality came around. There's the lackluster progress on environmental protections. Universal healthcare is another example. Martin Luther King Jr. even called out the white moderate-- which was very(1/2)
LustrousShadow
(2/2) apt given their willingness to bend over backwards and set the rest of us on fire to appease conservatives/fascists.
rgraz65
The issue always seems to be that they spend an inordinate amount of energy and time trying to convince those who will never be swayed to help in the policies that they are championing. UHC, equal rights, eliminating unethical student debt, reducing gun violence and restraining the corporations from continually trashing the place to fill their pockets, and then using taxpayer cash to keep afloat.
Cindex1337
The word "liberal" really doesn't seem to actually nail down anything solid. Some people on the left and on the right will call themselves liberal, it's really kind of nonsense at times.
Really it's just that conservatives are basically always wrong, on top of being on the wrong side of history. I mean, look back to right vs left being in power vs results through history. By basically any measure, the people are better off when it's the left in charge.
LustrousShadow
You're not wrong. I usually associate the word with the center-left and corporatist Democrats.
apLundell
The USA's contribution to WW2 was important. Especially for Britain. But "saved the world" is a bit strong.
ArcaneConjecture
No we SAVED THE WORLD. Stalin could have beaten back Hitler, but Stalin was a snake and he would've cut a deal (again). The European borders would look the same, but the Third Reich would've survived. Which is unacceptable. Also Japan would've taken over India and committed God-knows-what atrocities. Only the USA provided the military and moral backbone to insist on Unconditional Surrender.
kamenhokage
America was a very nice backup to the USSR in WW2. They did most of the work in the Pacific Theatre, that's for certain, but like... they were there to help the Russians on the European front so.. well done, America. You helped..!!
DukeDarkwood
"Helped save the world" I will accept. Yes, our contribution was significant enough that its lack may have led to Allied defeat - but we are not the ONLY country that is true for. D-Day alone could have failed if either the U.S. or U.K. were missing, as the pair contributed about 80-90% of the manpower. And surely, USSR tying up German forces in the east GREATLY inhibited them from doing near so much damage in the European theater as they otherwise might have.
ReconfigureTheCitrus
Ah, but Garbo the spy might have the claim to being the single biggest impact on the war's outcome. He was so good he got Germany to stop trying to infiltrate the UK for fear they might accidentally draw suspicion to his spy ring, and he would never have become an Allied spy if the US hadn't convinced the UK to let him in.
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
The liberals torpedoed Bernie, who could have beaten Trump, so we had Hilary vs Trump and LOST, and hundreds of thousands of americans died needlessly. No, the liberals are not always right. I concede that the vast majority of the time, they are, but "Always" is dangerous.
Qualtagh
I don't think you understand the disgusting depths of antisemitism that would have risen up if Bernie had gone up against Trump.
ArcaneConjecture
I knocked on doors for Bernie in 2016. Voters told me they were scared of Bernie's healthcare plan (and they had logical, rational reasons for this). We got beat because Hillary got more votes. It wasn't any conspiracy.
Zeddicuszull
This is a funny fantasy that bernie bros like to tell to themselves. What would have had actually happened is trump and republicans going JJJJJJEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW for months and Bernie losing hard to Trump.
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
Right. It wasn't trendy for liberals to bemoan the fact that there wasn't anyone to "challenge" Hilary at the same time that Bernie was beating her in polls.
Bernie losing to Trump is even sillier, the notable majority of Trump voters I went to school and work with, which was a lot, preferred Bernie to Trump but Trump to Hilary. Soothe your conscience all you like, Trump was 100% avoidable, and it was called *then*. It was "Hilarys Time" though, right?
Zeddicuszull
The jew bashing on the part of Trump and republicans if Bernie got the nomination would have had ensured that he lost. America isn't enlightened enough for either a woman or jewish president yet. We need more boomers to die off first for that to occur.