Those are the ages that Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be when the next president is sworn in, respectively. The next president we elect (assuming he or she serves two terms) could very well be the individual who selects four Supreme Court Justices.
Now, in a world where we’ve all seen how powerful the Supreme Court can be concerning the laws that impact all of us, who on the left wants a Republican such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Scott Walker potentially selecting four Supreme Court Justices?
Listen, I know quite a few people on the left aren’t huge Hillary Clinton supporters. I personally like her, but I understand that a lot of people don’t. Even as a supporter, I know she’s far from perfect – but there’s a harsh reality that Hillary haters on the left need to face.
Listen, I love Bernie Sanders, but it’s highly unlikely that he could win a general election and become president. He’ll be 75 in 2016, meaning that if he served eight years he’d be 83-years-old. Even if you get past his age, which many wouldn’t, he’s also a self-described socialist. If you really think this country is going to elect a self-described socialist to the White House, you really should take a look at the Gallup poll that shows even 41 percent of Democrats won’t support a socialist. That’s significant, whether or not many Sanders supporters want to admit it. Furthermore, Sanders is really best suited for the Senate. It’s where he can do the most good.
Outside of those two, it’s almost too late in the game for someone like Joe Biden to sneak in and stand a chance. Especially after the first Democratic debate where both Clinton and Sanders performed well.
Liberals might not like hearing this, but it’s almost certainly going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016. It really breaks down to these two options:
- Either get on board with Hillary Clinton, even if she’s not everything you’ve dreamed of. – or –
- Whine because Sanders probably won’t win the nomination, become apathetic, then let Republicans win the White House in 2016; likely replace four Supreme Court Justices over the following 8 years; start a war with Iran; ruin the planet; destroy our economy again; and undo all the good that’s been done these last 6 years.
Yes, it’s really that simple.
The question is, would you rather have a candidate who supports 60-70 percent of what you support, or almost none of it?
And spare me this, “I’ll vote for an independent because Americans need to move away from the two-party, corrupt system that’s ruining this country” nonsense. Look, if you want to waste a vote based on principles, that’s your choice. I’m telling all of those people right now, Republicans won‘t. In fact, Republicans are hoping that’s exactly what many liberals and independents will do.
The system is what it is and it’s unlikely to ever change. We’ve mostly been a two-party system since the founding of this nation, and definitely have been for the last century and a half. While some liberals will go off and pout in a corner, pointlessly carrying on about how their wasted vote is a “stance against a system they don’t support,” you know what Republicans will be doing? Voting for Republicans and destroying this country.
Republicans overwhelmingly won last November, not because they were popular or ran the better candidates, but because liberals let them win. For every liberal who didn’t cast a vote, that was essentially a vote for a Republican. The GOP thrives on lower voter turnout and a disjointed Democratic party. Hell, they count on it.
So, while I understand that Hillary Clinton isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, I can promise you this much – she’s a hell of a lot better than any Republican alternative. So to all of you liberals who loathe her and feel that voting for her would be “selling out,” do you really want a Republican president potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices? Do you really want someone like Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Marco Rubio setting up the power in our Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years?
It all goes back to one simple fact: If liberals don’t want to get behind whomever is the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, then a Republican is going to occupy the White House after President Obama. This isn’t me trying to sensationalize anything or using hyperbole, I’m just telling you the truth.
If it’s Sanders, back Sanders. If it’s Clinton, back Clinton. But as someone who’s studied a ton of data over the last few months, Sanders as the Democratic nominee makes it very likely Republicans win next November. I know that’s not what many Sanders people want to believe (or will they) but I’m not someone who deals with knee-jerk reaction or hopes and dreams. My goal – my only goal – is to ensure our next president is anyone but a Republican. And facing one of the most important elections in many of our lifetimes, I’m sorry, but I’m not ready to roll the dice on a candidate that polls show even 41 percent of Democrats might not support. Though, don’t get me wrong, if he were to win the nomination I’d be one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bernie Sanders just as I will be for Hillary Clinton.
But even if I break this down to its simplest form, ignoring any mention of who is or isn’t running for president, then the question really comes down to: Who do you want potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices in the next 8 to 10 years – a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights, health care and the separation of church and state, or a Republican who opposes all of that and then some?
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- I Have a Few Words for the Fake Republican Outrage Over Trump’s Racism - August 19, 2017
- The Analogy That Left a Trump Supporter Defending His Racism Speechless - August 18, 2017
- 5 Words the Media Needs to Start Using When Describing Donald Trump - August 18, 2017