• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Best move for Bernie and Dems!

Frank, I think the American people have enough at stake here. No one is teaching a lesson in vain.

If you want to be a pragmatic person, you should live life pragmatically. The presidential candidates know that you can't please everyone. Conviction is one thing, but not participating in an open forum or debate doesn't make me see HRC as a more pragmatic candidate.

BS has said he does not consider himself a leader, but if you look back to what has been accomplished, HRC will try oneupmanship where Bernie can point to a meaningful contribution which directly impacted his constituents. Democrats should be interested in bipartisanship in the long term, inasmuch as Republicans will allow it. By stating that BS policies won't work, HRC has shown that she's very adverse to positive change. BS is not a wishful thinker. Trump is not a wishful thinker. I don't think HRC can win the election by playing hardball and victim at the same time, simply because she's a philanthropist. People don't want to see the President throw money around willy nilly. They don't want someone who's a "gosh darn good person," although that would be a significant benefit to that candidate's accountability. It's not enough to ignore the distaste people have for certain candidates, so what more can the DNC do for this country?

Any voter who feels that for whatever reason...he/she should not vote for Hillary Clinton...that person SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER.

If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter and you feel that Hillary or the DNC has not conceded enough to Bernie Sanders to earn a vote for Hillary Clinton...YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER.

Whether it is teaching her a lesson...or simply standing on principles...THE PERSON SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER.

If enough do not...we will live with he consequences.

I'm agreeing with the people who are saying they cannot vote for her.

Okay?
 
The best move for HRC supporters: cut the crap, dems. Vote for the girl who's gonna win.
The best move for BS supporters: cut the crap, dems. Vote for the guy who's accountable and liberal.

The best move for dems, bottom line? Who knows! :lol:

Who really knows, because voters will decide anyway. I just saw an episode of The Young Turks on Facebook. It talked about how May polls are supposedly just a "snapshot" at a notoriously bad time of the year. But voices in the DNC are speaking out. I don't see Bernie running as an independent, even after the convention. He's doing all he can to appeal to independents, where the DNC has done virtually nothing. Just because he once ran as an Independent candidate for office doesn't mean he's any less of a Democrat than HRC. Some people say she's a wolf in sheep's clothing playing liberal but just a moderate conservative.

But seriously, hasn't she been shadowboxing Trump with all the oneupmanship? I mean, it's just a disgrace with the false alacrity and the pompous dismissal coming from someone with questionable integrity. Trump agrees with BS on one thing, and that's the questionable personality of the DNC frontrunner. So no, I don't think anyone in the DNC should vote for a candidate who's qualified, with grit to get the job done; that lacks integrity to do it right.
 
Bernie is every bit the independent that most independents are.....I suspect I could say the same about you. They have political leanings and a strong proclivity to vote certain ways. They just chose not to wear a party label, yet most are loyal to a party.

No he really isn't. Again. He is democratic socialist.
That is no being an independent.
 
No he really isn't. Again. He is democratic socialist.
That is no being an independent.

Not very independent, just like almost all of the independents..... you know, IINO's.

The myth of the independent voter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

There are very few real independents. A true independent would vote about 1/3 one and 2/3 the other... you know, look at these things independently...

BTW, did one third of your vote go to various Democrats over the past 10 years? I suspect you are in the exact same club as Bernie, an IINO.
 
Last edited:
Not very independent, just like almost all of the independents..... you know, IINO's.

The myth of the independent voter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

There are very few real independents. A true independent would vote about 1/3 one and 2/3 the other... you know, look at these things independently...

BTW, did one third of your vote go to various Democrats over the past 10 years? I suspect you are in the exact same club as Bernie, an IINO.
He is a declared democratic socialist, that is not an independent.
 
He is a declared democratic socialist, that is not an independent.

An independent is someone that chooses to not wear the Democratic or Republican label (or other party). Their not wanting to wear the label does not change their stripes. Bernie may have certain proclivities, he is considered an independent and is the longest serving independent in US Congressional history.

About - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Just as you are a conservative bearing an independent label, Bernie is a democratic socialist bearing the independent label. But, the net-net, you and Bernie are each independents. So, I guess we can say you are brothers, eh?

This is all a bit moot now, as Bernie is now a full-fledged Democrat. He had to declare in order to seek the nomination of the party.
 
Last edited:
An independent is someone that chooses to not wear the Democratic or Republican label (or other party). Their not wanting to wear the label does not change their stripes. Bernie may have certain proclivities, he is considered an independent and is the longest serving independent in US Congressional history.

About - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Just as you are a conservative bearing an independent label, Bernie is a democratic socialist bearing the independent label. But, the net-net, you and Bernie are each independents. So, I guess we can say you are brothers, eh?

This is all a bit moot now, as Bernie is now a full-fledged Democrat. He had to declare in order to seek the nomination of the party.
Wrong on all counts.

Bernie is a democratic socialist. That is not being an independent.
He used Independent to run in Vermont to carry forth his democratic socialist ideology.
Just like he is now using Democrat to run in the National election to carry forth his democratic socialist ideology.




Secondly. You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to me, and worse than that is that you apparently do not know not to make things personal.
I am not the topic of discussion, so I would suggest you leave "me" or what you think of "me" out of it.
 
Wrong on all counts.

Bernie is a democratic socialist. That is not being an independent.
He used Independent to run in Vermont to carry forth his democratic socialist ideology.
Just like he is now using Democrat to run in the National election to carry forth his democratic socialist ideology.




Secondly. You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to me, and worse than that is that you apparently do not know not to make things personal.
I am not the topic of discussion, so I would suggest you leave "me" or what you think of "me" out of it.

Wait, are you admitting that you're an ex-convict in a debate about political credibility? :roll:
 
Wait, are you admitting that you're an ex-convict in a debate about political credibility? :roll:
Besides being totally irrelevant to what was said, what did you not understand about what you quoted?

Let me provide the relevant portion for you again.

I am not the topic of discussion, so I would suggest you leave "me" or what you think of "me" out of it.

If you do not understand that let me know so I may take the appropriate steps.
 
I would much rather EW remain where she is, where she has actual power and influence.

Beyond that, Bernie supporters would rightfully perceive an EW appointment as a betrayal of him and her principles for political favours given that her endorsement absolutely would have made the difference in Massachusetts, so this would ultimately prove a strategic misstep for Hillary.


Also, I do note with amusement sudden, concerted attempts at coercion by the Hillarites to terrify Bernie supporters with the ridiculous prospect that his name and movement will be discredited and cast down in the event they do not support Hillary: that if you care about Bernie and his legacy, you will shut up, sit down and and get in line or he will take the blame and all he will have worked for will be lost; as if responsibility would or should be accorded with them rather than the DNC's attempts to rig the nomination process against Sanders however it is able, or a neoliberal false progressive with terrible favourability ratings hopelessly beholden to the corrupt system she falsely claims to be willing and able to fix. The desperation of Clinton backers is becoming painfully obvious; it seems her camp will do anything and everything to get our vote _except_ commit to pursuing any of Sanders' key policies.

How can she commit when you don't believe her? Which key policies are you talking about? It appears there is no way she can satisfy those "conditions". Is that your aim? Is free college for all and universal healthcare what you are demanding?
 
Last edited:
How can she commit when you don't believe her? Which key policies are you talking about? It appears there is no way she can satisfy those "conditions". Is that your aim? Is free college for all and universal healthcare what you are demanding?

tumblr_inline_n32el9gQPc1sqwhx7.png
 
How can she commit when you don't believe her? Which key policies are you talking about? It appears there is no way she can satisfy those "conditions". Is that your aim? Is free college for all and universal healthcare what you are demanding?

I want her to commit to Bernie's far more comprehensive and effective plan for separation of money and politics and universal healthcare; those are my two key pieces of policy.

And no, I don't have faith that she will follow through, but if she's willing to go on the record as making this a part of her core platform, then suffer the consequences in 2020 for not keeping her promises, I'd be willing to vote for her in 2016.
 
I want her to commit to Bernie's far more comprehensive and effective plan for separation of money and politics and universal healthcare; those are my two key pieces of policy.

And no, I don't have faith that she will follow through, but if she's willing to go on the record as making this a part of her core platform, then suffer the consequences in 2020 for not keeping her promises, I'd be willing to vote for her in 2016.

There is a reason that Obama did not push for UHC....he knew it would not have a chance of passing and nothing would be done. That is still true, it cannot be done now and Hillary will not lie and say she will get it passed. Free health care for all also requires that a huge tax be levied on the middle class and that alone won't fly with voters. Remember 80% of Americans get their healthcare from their employers now so they feel they don't pay for it. Telling them that they suddenly have to pay another 8.4% out of their already slim pockets for something they already get for "free"is not a good way to get elected.
She will on the other hand sign any Campaign finance reform bill that comes to her desk and that has always been true. I suggest that and her much more liberal SC picks are enough to vote for her regardless of your reservations. Not to mention the disaster that Trump will make.

The biggest tax increases in his plan, accounting for two-fifths of the overall sum, would be the new 6.2 percent payroll tax and 2.2 percent income tax implemented to pay for Sanders "Medicare-for-all" health care plan.

Critically, Sanders' campaign has maintained that middle-class households would benefit in the deal: They would save more in health insurance premiums, which would be eliminated, than they would have to pay in new taxes.

But the result of those and other new taxes is that middle-class families would be hit with significant tax increases, an election-year liability for the Democratic candidate.

Study: Sanders' $15.3T tax hike would hit middle class, rich | Washington Examiner
 
Last edited:
There is a reason that Obama did not push for UHC....he knew it would not have a chance of passing and nothing would be done. That is still true, it cannot be done now and Hillary will not lie and say she will get it passed. Free health care for all also requires that a huge tax be levied on the middle class and that alone won't fly with voters. Remember 80% of Americans get their healthcare from their employers now so they feel they don't pay for it. Telling them that they suddenly have to pay another 8.4% out of their already slim pockets for something they already get for "free"is not a good way to get elected.
She will on the other hand sign any Campaign finance reform bill that comes to her desk and that has always been true. I suggest that and her much more liberal SC picks are enough to vote for her regardless of your reservations. Not to mention the disaster that Trump will make.



Study: Sanders' $15.3T tax hike would hit middle class, rich | Washington Examiner

You conveniently ignore the fact that the poor and middle class get far more out of it than they pay in because more of the tax burden will be placed upon the wealthy; it's a net gain for them, not a loss.

Universal health care also has widespread and majority support per all the latest polling data I've seen. One example: They agree with Bernie: Majority of Americans support single-payer, ?Medicare-for-all? health care system - Salon.com

In balance, it's a boon not a detriment in the general.


Second, campaign finance reform and money in politics are an iota of an afterthought to Hillary despite being by far the most important issue, who didn't even mention it until September of last year; her plan goes nowhere near far enough vis a vis Bernie's: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...intons-plan-to-reform-campaign-finance-i.html

She needs to adopt his plan wholesale.


Lastly, Obama didn't push for UHC because as a neoliberal unduly influenced by health industry money ( Obama Received $20 Million from Healthcare Industry in 2008 Campaign | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community ) he had no interest in UHC; the man didn't even try: even when he controlled the House and Senate.
 
I just want to repeat what I said in the OP. I still think this is the best move for everyone involved. And the people who do not want to vote for Hillary Clinton can do with their votes what they choose to do.



In my opinion...the best move for Bernie and the Democrats would be for Bernie to acknowledge that he is not going to get the Democratic Party nomination...and to return to Independent status immediately.

Then for the Democratic Party to invite him as an Independent to address the Democratic Party convention...to speak to them in prime time as an INDEPENDENT...offering an Independent's view of what independents expect from a major party.

Perhaps even lecturing the Dems on moderating the tone of the "gun control" bandwagon...a bandwagon that will NEVER have significant success...and will always alienate many people who otherwise would be inclined to vote Democratic.

I think such a deal worked out could be to the maximum benefit of both the Dems and Bernie Sanders.
 
You conveniently ignore the fact that the poor and middle class get far more out of it than they pay in because more of the tax burden will be placed upon the wealthy; it's a net gain for them, not a loss.

He is not the only one who ignored it. The Tax Policy Center, who did the study, admitted in a Politco interview that they did not account for such savings and that they only examined the tax expenditures. If you only look at the taxes and ignore the money you save from a program the analysis is pointless. Well, not pointless. If the point is to give an inaccurate view in order to smear a candidate you don't support then mission accomplished, I guess.
 
He is not the only one who ignored it. The Tax Policy Center, who did the study, admitted in a Politco interview that they did not account for such savings and that they only examined the tax expenditures. If you only look at the taxes and ignore the money you save from a program the analysis is pointless. Well, not pointless. If the point is to give an inaccurate view in order to smear a candidate you don't support then mission accomplished, I guess.

How are they going to get more for their 8.4% pay cut when they already have HC that is paid by their employers like the vast majority do? It is a non-starter that will cost the Dems the election. You don't ask the already strapped middle class voters to take a pay cut, it is suicidal. It plays right into Trumps hand.
 
You conveniently ignore the fact that the poor and middle class get far more out of it than they pay in because more of the tax burden will be placed upon the wealthy; it's a net gain for them, not a loss.

Universal health care also has widespread and majority support per all the latest polling data I've seen. One example: They agree with Bernie: Majority of Americans support single-payer, ?Medicare-for-all? health care system - Salon.com

In balance, it's a boon not a detriment in the general.


Second, campaign finance reform and money in politics are an iota of an afterthought to Hillary despite being by far the most important issue, who didn't even mention it until September of last year; her plan goes nowhere near far enough vis a vis Bernie's: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...intons-plan-to-reform-campaign-finance-i.html

She needs to adopt his plan wholesale.


Lastly, Obama didn't push for UHC because as a neoliberal unduly influenced by health industry money ( Obama Received $20 Million from Healthcare Industry in 2008 Campaign | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community ) he had no interest in UHC; the man didn't even try: even when he controlled the House and Senate.

Give me a break Obama was not bought off, he was pragmatic and barely got the AHC through. If you want to say the Congress was bought off that is closer to the truth. There was/is no way to get UHC through Congress and you should know it. As long as 80% of Americans get their HC through their employers there no chance that UHC will be implemented.
 
How are they going to get more for their 8.4% pay cut when they already have HC that is paid by their employers like the vast majority do? It is a non-starter that will cost the Dems the election. You don't ask the already strapped middle class voters to take a pay cut, it is suicidal. It plays right into Trumps hand.

Because SP would give them better, more comprehensive care on average at a fraction of the cost, while insuring tens of millions more Americans? The final calculus is that the middle class both gets more out of SP than it pays in, _and_ that it has more than majority support among the electorate. Again, it is a _boon_ to run such policy as a candidate, not a hindrance.


Give me a break Obama was not bought off, he was pragmatic and barely got the AHC through. If you want to say the Congress was bought off that is closer to the truth. There was/is no way to get UHC through Congress and you should know it. As long as 80% of Americans get their HC through their employers there no chance that UHC will be implemented.

Again, Obama didn't even make the attempt when the Democrats had full control of the House and Congress; he clearly wasn't interested. Why wasn't he interested? Either because he was paid not to be per those tens of millions of dollars donated to him by the healthcare industry, or because he wasn't a supporter of SP in the first place, which is a lose/lose.
 
Because SP would give them better, more comprehensive care on average at a fraction of the cost, while insuring tens of millions more Americans? The final calculus is that the middle class both gets more out of SP than it pays in, _and_ that it has more than majority support among the electorate. Again, it is a _boon_ to run such policy as a candidate, not a hindrance.




Again, Obama didn't even make the attempt when the Democrats had full control of the House and Congress; he clearly wasn't interested. Why wasn't he interested? Either because he was paid not to be per those tens of millions of dollars donated to him by the healthcare industry, or because he wasn't a supporter of SP in the first place, which is a lose/lose.

Obama was not interested in a futile effort and chose to get pharma and the insurers on board first and still very nearly failed to get anything passed. You seem to forget that Congress was needed and not even all Democrats would have voted for UHC. Stop using GOP talking points about Obama having control of both Houses for 2 years it is still a lie not matter who says it. The Senate had a 60 vote Dem majority for 72 DAYS not 2 years. They did not even have 60 votes for the AHC.

I also would like a link to the polls that say a majority support a 8.4% tax increase on the middle class. That is pure poppycock.
A Rasmussen Reports poll in April 2014 found that only 37 percent of Americans favored single-payer. And although the proposal has largely been out of the public debate since before Obamacare became law, earlier polling also didn’t find clear support.

In 2009, with the Obamacare bill being pushed in Congress, filmmaker Michael Moore said a majority of Americans favored a single-payer system. PolitiFact National rated his statement False.
For 70 years, most Americans have supported single-payer government-run health insurance? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate - San Diego Free Press
 
Last edited:
Obama was not interested in a futile effort and chose to get pharma and the insurers on board first and still very nearly failed to get anything passed. You seem to forget that Congress was needed and not even all Democrats would have voted for UHC. Stop using GOP talking points about Obama having control of both Houses for 2 years it is still a lie not matter who says it. The Senate had a 60 vote Dem majority for 72 DAYS not 2 years. They did not even have 60 votes for the AHC.

I also would like a link to the polls that say a majority support a 8.4% tax increase on the middle class. That is pure poppycock.

The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate - San Diego Free Press

There are plenty of recent polls out there which show decisive majority support for SP; take your pick. Some form of UHC gets even more support; neither Obama or Hillary have tried for either.

Further, I didn't say that Obama had a filibuster proof Senate, I said that he wasn't interested in SP (or UHC) and never even made the attempt even at the time he had by far his best shot at getting it done which is absolutely true. Instead he chose to blow most of his political capital on deeply flawed Republican legislation that was both only incrementally better than the existing system and a huge giveaway and government subsidy to insurers which is the only reason the GOP passed it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of recent polls out there which show decisive majority support for SP; take your pick.

Further, I didn't say that Obama had a filibuster proof Senate, I said that he wasn't interested in SP and never even made the attempt even at the time he had by far his best shot at getting it done which is absolutely true. Instead he chose to blow most of his political capital on deeply flawed Republican legislation that was both only incrementally better than the existing system and a huge giveaway and government subsidy to insurers which is the only reason the GOP passed it in the first place.

You sound more and more like Nader all the time. Remember him? Not many do after his 2000 debacle that gave us GW Bush. I think you guys want a repeat of that and another generation that will fail to get Progressive ideas into law.
And I said Obama was not interested in lip service and any attempt he might have made would have undermined the fragile coalition that got us the AHC. A 2014 Rasmussen poll found only 37% of Americans favor UHC, hardly a majority and that did not even include the tax hikes Sanders wants to pay for it.
For 70 years, most Americans have supported single-payer government-run health insurance? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
 
Last edited:
You sound more and more like Nader all the time. Remember him? Not many do after his 2000 debacle that gave us GW Bush. I think you guys want a repeat of that and another generation that will fail to get Progressive ideas into law.
And I said Obama was not interested in lip service and any attempt he might have made would have undermined the fragile coalition that got us the AHC. A 2014 Rasmussen poll found only 37% of Americans favor UHC, hardly a majority and that did not even include the tax hikes Sanders wants to pay for it.
For 70 years, most Americans have supported single-payer government-run health insurance? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

See my last post.

Even if you grant that SP wasn't popular at the time in 2008, some form of UHC (such as a public option) was, which the article you linked does not discount, and which Obama never tried for.

In the present, both SP and UHC are extremely popular for good reason, and Hillary has no excuse whatsoever not to adopt such policy.
 
Bernie Sanders introduced legislation for state level, single payer healthcare back in 2013.

I think that it's pretty well known that Bernie Sanders is strong on his policy, and he understands how Congress works. Contrast this with HRC, the frontrunner from the Executive branch, who is willing to make concessions like a diplomat. But a diplomat usually exercises diplomacy abroad, so she is not a diplomat. I don't see waffling and adopting other people's policy as anything more than basic assimilation of policy. The only difference between the assimilation and common plagiarism in an undergraduate level paper is that she isn't writing it down. Unfortunately, the word "plagiarism" is also used to indicate the passing off of ideas which do not belong to oneself, but to someone else.

A lot of democrats think HRC is a dirty liar, but because she's willing to negotiate she'll make a good leader. I'm not going to try to refute that and I will just say it is a selling point of which not all political drivers will make use as a hood ornament.

Now what about intellectual property in politics? In Congress, it's clear who wrote what legislation. In the State department, apparently it's ok to steal someone's ideas and then address them as a subordinate, thereby justifying the means by the end result, i.e. promotion. HRC is personally motivated to assimilate her opponent's ideas and pass them off as her own when it comes to healthcare reform, minimum wage, and discretionary spending among other things.

Why are we debating this? Because HRC loves to waffle (gay marriage, Benghazi, big money & power politics), we know she is not going to exhibit the same leadership to which we are accustomed.

So the best option for dems in June is to stay the course. Bernie will bring the campaign to the DNC if they won't come to him. Every time you say HRC is being "pushed left" by some mysterious force, remember that the force is the American people represented by Bernie Sanders. Every time she assumes a new political stance, she is not playing hard to get but playing by ear. Every time she adopts a new cause, she is not learning but being misunderstood as a samaritan in partisan clothing. Bernie Sanders is addressing the American people. HRC is addressing the DNC and the DNC superdelegates are not acting in the best interest of the people represented by regular delegates.
 
Bernie is finished...he lost fair and square.

He should drop out and make room for Hillary Clinton to take the fight to Donald Trump.

He has no obligation to do so, however...so if he want to persist...let him persist.

In the end, he is gone and Hillary is the candidate.

And I hope she wins...although his continued presence does not help her at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom