• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders Will Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week: Report

BrewerBob said:
I disagree with that part. Not endorsing Hillary wouldn't make Bernie a liar. Endorsing Trump would make him a liar.
Click to expand...
If Bernie's endorsement is critical to defeating Trump and Trump's defeat is something Bernie says he's committed to, then denying an endorsement to Hillary directly contradicts his stated goals for the November election. Perhaps liar isn't the best word. Try hypocrite. That's a distinction without much difference IMO.
 
JasperL said:
No problem. I'm really never trying to insult anyone on here, except for the occasional nutjob being legitimately hateful or mean. It's all in fun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can identify with that.

JasperL said:
For the record, I don't think Warren will be picked because I don't know that she wants it or should - likely she can have a bigger impact in the Senate - and she and Hillary really do have big differences with the banks who Hillary is IMO all but owned by. I've seen anonymous quotes (of course) from big time Hillary funders who say Warren on the ticket would dry up the Wall Street money spigot for Hillary this election. That's a great thing IMO for the country, but I doubt if Hillary sees it that way. In campaigns who knows what is true - those could be quotes planted as excuses to not pick Warren or for some other reason - but they sound reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

'Tis true. The Wall Street money men who already purchased Hillary have yanked her chain and clearly dictated that Warren isn't who they want. Hillary, indebted to that special interest group, is only bound to comply. Yeah. Bought, purchased, and owned.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, he isn't. If he opposes so much of what Hillary represents that he not only ran against her, he stayed in far longer than any of Trump's opponents did, he obviously shouldn't support her. He isn't a Democrat - he says so himself. He isn't for wars and Wall Street. He isn't a liar.

You say he's principled for supporting her. I say he isn't. If he was principled, he would do what principled Republicans are doing to disavow Trump. Apparently with Sanders, it was all about party after all.
Click to expand...

Sanders and Hillary are ideologically similar on many issues. He doesn't oppose Hillary's policy positions as much as you seem to purport above. I was in the low 90%s for both Sanders and Hillary on isidewith.com. You claim also that the duration of his campaign proves that he should not endorse her, i don't understand why that's relevant. It was closer primary than the republican primary that you're comparing it to. That could explain the disparity in duration.

A lot of people have a very negative opinion of Hillary. You cannot simply claim that Sanders has no integrity because he does not share that opinion.

From a utilitarian view, Sanders may simply want what's best for the country, which likely means electing Hillary.

If politicians only endorsed other politicians that shared their exact policy views, there might not be any endorsements.
 
why would sanders endorse the establishment's candidate?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: [/FONT]Bernie Sanders Will Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week: Report

Expected that he would endorse Clinton. I thought he was gonna hold out till the convention, but it seems its going to come a little bit earlier.
Click to expand...

She finally gave out on student loans and a few issues on the platform, but possibly he also forced Warren onto the ticket. I think Sanders knew that the revolution --in terms of what it could accomplish this time around-- had done what it could. He lost by a small amount, he knew it, and he's leveraged what he could. Millennials had strongly backed Sanders, so I think he felt that if Hillary prioritized an issue important to them, that was the best he could accomplish as his final pound of flesh from Hillary.

And now I wait. I want to see how Hillary runs during the general. She has a lot to make up for given his atrocious and disgusting behavior (in terms of her tacit support of completely scurrilous attacks on Sanders and his supporters), and her history of neoliberalism. It's still a coin flip for me between Clinton and Stein. It really also depends on whether or not Trump is ousted as the Republican nominee, which I think is likely.
 
Absentglare said:
Sanders and Hillary are ideologically similar on many issues. He doesn't oppose Hillary's policy positions as much as you seem to purport above. I was in the low 90%s for both Sanders and Hillary on isidewith.com.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a serious question of which Hillary it is that we're talking about. Historically, she's pretty easy to pull to the Right, but she's goddamned hard to move to the Left. Hillary is also, on paper, for universal healthcare; in the details, however, have always been remarkably less useful or helpful than one would like, and often by a wide mile. Hillary is also nominally for addressing "money in politics," but, again, the details matter. She's against "dark money in politics" --but she's totally for corporations and special interests financing the Democratic party and it's politicians in perpetuity. The Clinton's quite literally were the people who weened the Democratic party off of union money and onto the corporate tit, via the DLC. Anyways, details matter, and in the details, Sanders and Clinton are far, far apart.

That being said, Trump is a lunatic and an imbecile who race-baits, which is particularly devastating right now. So in the end, combined with the issues that she's conceded on, right now it's likely more advantageous to vote for Hillary while continuing with the Sanders' movement. Make no mistake, while I may end up voting for Hillary (so long as she continues to drift leftward), come November 5th, there's going to have to be a serious dialogue on the current state of the Democratic party.
 
Anyone who didn't know that this would happen would have to be as naïve as the FauxNews Romney voters that were surprised by the 2012 election despite the fact that every major poll had Obama leading by 8-10 points going into the election.

There was never any doubt that Sanders would endorse Clinton....they agree on 95% of the issues.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Well, there is a serious question of which Hillary it is that we're talking about. Historically, she's pretty easy to pull to the Right, but she's goddamned hard to move to the Left. Hillary is also, on paper, for universal healthcare; in the details, however, have always been remarkably less useful or helpful than one would like, and often by a wide mile. Hillary is also nominally for addressing "money in politics," but, again, the details matter. She's against "dark money in politics" --but she's totally for corporations and special interests financing the Democratic party and it's politicians in perpetuity. The Clinton's quite literally were the people who weened the Democratic party off of union money and onto the corporate tit, via the DLC. Anyways, details matter, and in the details, Sanders and Clinton are far, far apart.

That being said, Trump is a lunatic and an imbecile who race-baits, which is particularly devastating right now. So in the end, combined with the issues that she's conceded on, right now it's likely more advantageous to vote for Hillary while continuing with the Sanders' movement. Make no mistake, while I may end up voting for Hillary (so long as she continues to drift leftward), come November 5th, there's going to have to be a serious dialogue on the current state of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

We'll have a president who won't jeopardize freedom of religion and who won't try to coerce Mexico into building a wall.

An endorsement of Hillary is about being graciously defeated, not about endorsing every decision she's going to make. Her positions are dubious, but they are still better defined than Trumps.
 
Absentglare said:
An endorsement of Hillary is about being graciously defeated, not about endorsing every decision she's going to make. Her positions are dubious, but they are still better defined than Trumps.
Click to expand...

Well, her campaign has won through unfair means and has been a rather ungracious "winner." Her positions and judgment are all things I do not trust. But if she's backed into cogent positions through threat of not voting (as she seems to be now), then at least the Democratic party will nominally be for these policies.

But, like Robert Wiessman, I think as soon as November the 5th hits --and not a second longer-- it's time to start discussing what new political party forms in a post-Trump campaign world. Until then, Teachout, Floras, Gabbard, Canova, Grayson, Ellison, Sbaih, Feingold, and so on need financial and structural support; also, stopping a lame duck TPP bill. God help us all on that issue. After that, once those battles are fought, it's time to start discussing a post-Democratic party for the future of the progressive movement. That means either staying as a caucus temporarily inside the Democrats, or just openly declaring war on them during the midterm elections in 2018.
 
disneydude said:
Uh......probably because he and Hillary agree on about 95% of the issues. The better question is why wouldn't he endorse her??
Click to expand...

because that's like ted cruz endorsing donald trump
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Well, her campaign has won through unfair means and has been a rather ungracious "winner." Her positions and judgment are all things I do not trust. But if she's backed into cogent positions through threat of not voting (as she seems to be now), then at least the Democratic party will nominally be for these policies.

But, like Robert Wiessman, I think as soon as November the 5th hits --and not a second longer-- it's time to start discussing what new political party forms in a post-Trump campaign world. Until then, Teachout, Floras, Gabbard, Canova, Grayson, Ellison, Sbaih, Feingold, and so on need financial and structural support; also, stopping a lame duck TPP bill. God help us all on that issue. After that, once those battles are fought, it's time to start discussing a post-Democratic party for the future of the progressive movement. That means either staying as a caucus temporarily inside the Democrats, or just openly declaring war on them during the midterm elections in 2018.
Click to expand...

There are interests in both parties that want to splinter off to retain ideological purity. The tea party is unwilling to commit the republicans to a near-guaranteed loss in the presidential elections for years to come. I suspect progressive interests will see the same compromise.

The fact of the matter is that people will perceive only two "real" options in this election. The more progressive options there are, the less consolidated the progressive vote is, the less likely the chance of progressive victory.

It is unrealistic to expect either candidate to be perfect. It is rational to select the best candidate.
 
I guess that Bernie doesn't have a problem with the obvious conflict of interest between her presumed White House office, and the millions that have flowed from various nefarious sources into the Clinton Foundation.

Bernie Sanders: Clinton Foundation Is A "Problem," Took Money From "Dictatorships"
Bernie Sanders: Clinton Foundation Is A "Problem," Took Money From "Dictatorships" | Video | RealClearPolitics

Sanders Blasts Clinton Foundation's Foreign Donor Conflict of Interest
Bernie Sanders: 'I Have a Problems' With Clinton Foundation's Conflicts

Sanders hits Clinton Foundation over foreign donations
Sanders hits Clinton Foundation over foreign donations | TheHill

Wow: Sanders Rips Hillary On The … Clinton Foundation?
Wow: Sanders Rips Hillary On The … Clinton Foundation? - Matt Vespa

What do you call it when someone's legitimate moral concerns are asauged, by some means, so that they don't matter, and the reason for those concerns hasn't changed?

Something smells here, and really badly.

Hillary's corruption has now compromised Bernie as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom