Excellent column on Sanders for VP

[Lovebug]

If Sanders lowered himself to the level of kissing Hillary's rear end, he is not the man I thought he was.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If the Sanders supporters actually sit this election out...Trump, and the Republican Party, may very well win.

Boy...that would show those Hillary Clinton supporters how to deal with opposition!

The "never Trump" group among Republicans seems to have thinned out now that Trump appears to have his nomination sewn up. The "never Hillary" group among the Democrats are still holding their breath and kicking their heels. They may not grow up in time...which is something those of us who see danger in Republican control of the SCOTUS nominations have to live with.

We'll survive whatever happens...although if the babies get their way, it won't be pretty.

You may be content to always vote for whatever candidate the private Democratic party presents to you, but some of us have principles. You're free to follow the herd like a sheep, but I will vote for the candidate that best represents my beliefs. Hillary is a crooked liar and I disagree with her on just about everything. She has ridiculed Sanders and his supporters and refuses to adopt any of our positions into her platform.

We're not all mindless democratic party robots like you, and I wouldn't even be on the democrats side if it wasn't for Bernie.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Elections are about choices. If you prefer Trump over Hillary that is your business but don't blame her for your lack of intelligence. If you throw away your vote that same logic applies. You also give up all rights to complain about whomever wins since you bailed on your responsibility as a citizen.

That is completely and utterly false. Whether you're voting against Trump, voting against Clinton, voting for either, voting for someone else, or abstaining because none of the options appeals, nobody has a right to your vote. If you vote your conscience, then that is a win for you no matter who wins the election. After all, your one vote isn't going to affect the election one way or the other, so why not use it in a way that gives you peace rather than being a piece of the problem?

 

[iguanaman]

That is completely and utterly false. Whether you're voting against Trump, voting against Clinton, voting for either, voting for someone else, or abstaining because none of the options appeals, nobody has a right to your vote. If you vote your conscience, then that is a win for you no matter who wins the election. After all, your one vote isn't going to affect the election one way or the other, so why not use it in a way that gives you peace rather than being a piece of the problem?

Like I said if you believe Trump is a better choice than Hillary then don't vote for her. Anything else is pure semantics. You get one vote and throwing it away does not make you a better person, it only serves those you should be opposing..

 

[iguanaman]

You may be content to always vote for whatever candidate the private Democratic party presents to you, but some of us have principles. You're free to follow the herd like a sheep, but I will vote for the candidate that best represents my beliefs. Hillary is a crooked liar and I disagree with her on just about everything. She has ridiculed Sanders and his supporters and refuses to adopt any of our positions into her platform.

We're not all mindless democratic party robots like you, and I wouldn't even be on the democrats side if it wasn't for Bernie.

Yet when you look at their platforms they are nearly identical, it seems you are being "herded" by the other side.

Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on the issues - Business Insider

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The point is, do you think Bernie would be willing to follow Hillary's strategy of moving to the center in the general.
I may be wrong about Bernie but he doesn't strike me as that kind of of guy.
Wait ... I hope you're not thinking Hillary ran a centrist primary campaign.

She's Diet-GOP, but what she doesn't understand is that she cannot afford to alienate over half her own party.
She is already going to face record obstruction from the GOP, so she needs all the friends she can get in her own party.
So Bernie acting as an agent to move her leftward into the center is potentially a good thing.
Sanders supporters might want to be mindful of the fact that he has not only earned a ton of political capital, he has also changed American politics forever.
Ask yourselves if you can realistically view a candidate with credibility if they don't crowdsource their campaigns from now on.
So because of that, in some ways, Sanders has already won even if he loses the nomination.

Which president was it that said, "Make me do the right thing"?
Was it LBJ? Perhaps Sanders can occasionally "make her do the right thing".
She certainly could claim an alibi to her disappointed conserva-Dem backers when she doesn't go along with some of their policy positions.
"Bernie is making it impossible for me to support your ideas."
Love her or hate her, you have to admit she is a brilliant strategist.

And as an aside, I am aware that there are equally valid arguments for Bernie to just return to Congress and spend his political capital there instead, also a very satisfying idea.

I am still a Bernie man, but we're going to have to work together after the fat lady sings, so I am willing to consider a Bernie Veep slot.
But primary season ain't over yet!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Yet when you look at their platforms they are nearly identical, it seems you are being "herded" by the other side.Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on the issues - Business Insider

While you posted a cute little picture that you think makes your point, it's not quite accurate. She fails completely on 4 out of 5 of my top issues:

1) Campaign finance reform - She is the poster child of dirty money in politics and has absolutely zero intention of reforming our political system. She and her husband used their political careers to get massively wealthy, then used that wealth to advance their political careers so that they could amass more wealth. She takes money from all of the people she would allegedly be taking on, and her history shows that's not going to happen.

2) Criminal justice reform and drug war - She and her husbands policies are one of the major reasons our criminal justice system is screwed up in the first place. She supports throwing people in prison for owning plants and she has repeatedly taken money from private prisons.

3) War and peace - She is without a doubt the biggest war-hawk on either side. She is the definition of a neocon on foreign policy.

4) Climate change - The one issue she's not all bad on. She does however support only narrow-scope bandaid changes and has not presented any plan of us getting off oil, nor could she, because she takes massive amounts of cash from the oil companies.

5) Health care - Opposes single payer and wants to continue our current disasterous system with minor incremental changes.

She is not economically progressive and she's not socially libertarian. She's a neocon warhawk who sells her power to corporations and has belittled the progressive base. I will always vote for the candidate that best represents my beliefs. I would've voted for Paul in '12 had he gotten it, and Bernie in '16. I vote for the person, not blindly for the party because someone on the internet thinks I should.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That is a very small number and yes - they will be tamed in good time.

Number of Bernie delegates arrested: ZERO

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I would much rather see a Trump/Sanders ticket.

You're actually serious...?

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Like I said if you believe Trump is a better choice than Hillary then don't vote for her. Anything else is pure semantics. You get one vote and throwing it away does not make you a better person, it only serves those you should be opposing..

Or don't vote for either. That's not "throwing away your vote", that's using it to reflect your beliefs. Whether your beliefs are shared by 50% +1 of the electorate shouldn't really matter to you. If it does, then act accordingly.

 

[iguanaman]

While you posted a cute little picture that you think makes your point, it's not quite accurate. She fails completely on 4 out of 5 of my top issues:

1) Campaign finance reform - She is the poster child of dirty money in politics and has absolutely zero intention of reforming our political system. She and her husband used their political careers to get massively wealthy, then used that wealth to advance their political careers so that they could amass more wealth. She takes money from all of the people she would allegedly be taking on, and her history shows that's not going to happen.

2) Criminal justice reform and drug war - She and her husbands policies are one of the major reasons our criminal justice system is screwed up in the first place. She supports throwing people in prison for owning plants and she has repeatedly taken money from private prisons.

3) War and peace - She is without a doubt the biggest war-hawk on either side. She is the definition of a neocon on foreign policy.

4) Climate change - The one issue she's not all bad on. She does however support only narrow-scope bandaid changes and has not presented any plan of us getting off oil, nor could she, because she takes massive amounts of cash from the oil companies.

5) Health care - Opposes single payer and wants to continue our current disasterous system with minor incremental changes.

She is not economically progressive and she's not socially libertarian. She's a neocon warhawk who sells her power to corporations and has belittled the progressive base. I will always vote for the candidate that best represents my beliefs. I would've voted for Paul in '12 had he gotten it, and Bernie in '16. I vote for the person, not blindly for the party because someone on the internet thinks I should.

Since you seem to know everything, tell me how making it easier for Trump to win advances your cause? It certainly did not advance Nader's causes when his candidacy was blamed for Bush's win in 2000. In fact it set the progressive movement back considerably. Is that what you are going for also or do you just not give a damn?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

She has ridiculed Sanders and his supporters and refuses to adopt any of our positions into her platform.

Actually she has glommed onto almost all of them, immediately after Sanders supported them first.
It's almost like she was an echo chamber. Me too, me too!!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am personally on the fence over whether or not I would be willing to vote for her if she made Bernie her running mate. I would have to hear from Bernie what we would be getting out of it.

Of COURSE that is the central point that everything hinges on.
If he's really just going to be the "Hey BOY!" character as Risky claims, there's nothing in it for him.

There ARE equally valid arguments for him to simply return to the trenches in Congress with a ton of very well earned political capital.

 

[iguanaman]

Or don't vote for either. That's not "throwing away your vote", that's using it to reflect your beliefs. Whether your beliefs are shared by 50% +1 of the electorate shouldn't really matter to you. If it does, then act accordingly.

A lot of liberals throwing away their votes is just what Trump needs to win, why do you think he wants Sanders to run as an independent?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's an extemely insightful post and the analogy to Henry Wallace thought provoking. I can't see Bernie "the Peacenik" allying with Hillary "the Warmonger." They are on opposite sides of the fence on almost all issues. Hillary is sold out to Big Money and it is irreversible. I don't think Bernie could swallow that turd.

You together with Risky Thicket are starting to convince me it might be a bad idea.
I think I may still be on the fence but that fence is starting to get wobbly.

The question that still keeps popping up is, does Hillary really think she can afford to alienate that many in the Democratic Party? To all who think Bernie's support is still fringe, you may want to take a closer look.
I say the Bernie liberals make up more than half the party.

Put the record obstructionism from the GOP together with half the Dems alienated and what base does she have remaining?
I say barely any at all. How does one lead with half or more of your own party saying "Go to Hell"?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Because of his use of the label Socialist.

It is my opinion that America is not ready to elect a person who claims to be a socialist at this time.

Oh God, here we go again with the red baiting.
Sorry, that wad was already shot a long time ago.
Eight presidents over three generations, courtesy of the GOP.
FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama.

And now people in the Democratic Party want to be the echo chamber for the Bircher right?

 

[iguanaman]

She's Diet-GOP, but what she doesn't understand is that she cannot afford to alienate over half her own party.
She is already going to face record obstruction from the GOP, so she needs all the friends she can get in her own party.
So Bernie acting as an agent to move her leftward into the center is potentially a good thing.
Sanders supporters might want to be mindful of the fact that he has not only earned a ton of political capital, he has also changed American politics forever.
Ask yourselves if you can realistically view a candidate with credibility if they don't crowdsource their campaigns from now on.
So because of that, in some ways, Sanders has already won even if he loses the nomination.

Which president was it that said, "Make me do the right thing"?
Was it LBJ? Perhaps Sanders can occasionally "make her do the right thing".
She certainly could claim an alibi to her disappointed conserva-Dem backers when she doesn't go along with some of their policy positions.
"Bernie is making it impossible for me to support your ideas."
Love her or hate her, you have to admit she is a brilliant strategist.

And as an aside, I am aware that there are equally valid arguments for Bernie to just return to Congress and spend his political capital there instead, also a very satisfying idea.

I am still a Bernie man, but we're going to have to work together after the fat lady sings, so I am willing to consider a Bernie Veep slot.
But primary season ain't over yet!

Unfortunately, in Washington nothing changes without changing the actors and that requires winning elections, not filling stadiums with supporters. Dividing the party will not help to win elections, it will help Trump and the GOP maintain their majorities in both Houses.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am much, much closer in personal political philosophy to Bernie Sanders than I am to Hillary Clinton, Winchester. But I am a pragmatist...and I DO NOT WANT A REPUBLICAN in the White House.

Hillary Clinton can win; Bernie Sanders cannot.

I hope we SOON get to the point where a socialist COULD be elected; we could use a healthy dose of socialism to rein in the abomination capitalism has become here.

But we ARE NOT there yet.

All opinion, of course.

Sorry but you're not helping any, and Sanders is "such a socialist" that the real actual Democratic Socialist Party barely wants anything to do with him except in the last two weeks, and only because they have a wet dream about Dr. Rainbow Farting Unicorn (Jill Stein - the REAL socialist) joining him on some third party ticket.

You know the old bald guys with the gray hair who keep a few dozen strands of hair in a mini ponytail just so they can whip it out to prove that they still let their freak flag fly but keep it tucked away all other times?
That's Bernie's so called "socialism"....I think he keeps the tag around because it makes him feel exotic.
He's a New Deal liberal, something America needs DESPERATELY, and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is making it clear in no uncertain terms that we shall never see another New Deal this century.

No matter how much you insist Sanders is some kind of Socialist with the capital "S", it's clear that his "socialism" is really a combination of FDR and Ike. Oh yeah, the Birchers labeled Ike a commie, is that what you want the legacy of today's Democratic Party to be, that you wanted approval from the Birchers??

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would ever compromise with Sanders. She may pick Warren, but even then, I'm not convinced I'd vote for her. Still, I might because after Hillary is done, Warren would become president for sure in 2024, should Hillary get elected. That means 8 more years of neoliberalism, but the country would be shifting to the Left, so maybe not.

I'm not sure, Hillary has to do something about party unity, but I can say quite confidently she and DWS are currently doing their damnedest to divide the party.

DWS is toast, they just can't switch horses mid stream because it would serve as a signal that the party is failing.
Yeah, America is shifting to the Left. Considering that we're thirty steps to the right of GENGHIS KHAN right now, that would put us roughly in the center, wow....big left shift you got there LOL.
Meanwhile the rest of the world MIGHT decide that we're just conservative instead of extreme fascist, because as far as they are concerned our "center" is still very much to the right.

In any other country Sanders would still be considered somewhat conservative.
It's important to remember that America doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Lovebug]

Sorry but you're not helping any, and Sanders is "such a socialist" that the real actual Democratic Socialist Party barely wants anything to do with him except in the last two weeks, and only because they have a wet dream about Dr. Rainbow Farting Unicorn (Jill Stein - the REAL socialist) joining him on some third party ticket.

You know the old bald guys with the gray hair who keep a few dozen strands of hair in a mini ponytail just so they can whip it out to prove that they still let their freak flag fly but keep it tucked away all other times?
That's Bernie's so called "socialism"....I think he keeps the tag around because it makes him feel exotic.
He's a New Deal liberal, something America needs DESPERATELY, and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is making it clear in no uncertain terms that we shall never see another New Deal this century.

No matter how much you insist Sanders is some kind of Socialist with the capital "S", it's clear that his "socialism" is really a combination of FDR and Ike. Oh yeah, the Birchers labeled Ike a commie, is that what you want the legacy of today's Democratic Party to be, that you wanted approval from the Birchers??

Perhaps it is time for a Republican, Democrat and Socialist party. Countries much smaller than ours have broadened their choices, while we seem to be stuck with the 2 party nonsense. I know, we do have some other occasional noise makers, but non that have enough impact to make a difference in this 2 party, back and forth, power grab.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Just remember when Hillary wins without you she has no reason to listen to Sanders or his supporters again.

Think very carefully about how large the Bernie wing of the party really is
Clinton cannot afford to throw that many people under the bus.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He may want to "Bern it down" with the rest of the Bernie or Bust voters and take his chances fighting the Trump presidency as a minority Senator leading the revolution for himself or Warren in 4 years.

If Sanders returns to the Senate, he will not be returning as the same man he was before he announced.
Love him or hate him, the man has forever changed American politics at all levels.

 

[Riveroaks]

For a few weeks now I have been edging closer and closer to the idea that the Democratic Party should unite behind a ticket of Clinton & Sanders to preserve party unity and win the November election. Today, we have an excellent column from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal in which she explores the case for such a ticket. In addition ot the obvious short term advantages, she has some very insightful observations about both parties and their future.

Clinton-Sanders: Maybe That?s the Ticket - WSJ

Should Sanders continue to win, especially if he wins in California, this only becomes more and more the realistic way to go the same way that JFK picked his hated opposite Lyndon Johnson in 1960 and thereby won the election.

Your comments and observations are encouraged.

Bernie and Hillary would be the strongest possible DEM ticket.

Just as Donald and Mitt would be for the GOP.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

A lot of liberals throwing away their votes is just what Trump needs to win, why do you think he wants Sanders to run as an independent?

If what Trump wants worries you so, then by all means choose the lesser of two evils. However, people of conscience vote for their beliefs rather than reacting to someone else's. Many on the left detest HRC, and state they won't vote for her. Personally, I don't think the numbers who will actually follow through are significant to affect the election one way or the other. You always have the supporters of the also-rans seething that they lost, but they'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya at the convention, and dutifully vote "correctly" in November. Sure, they'll be a few principled people, but they are always a tiny minority and they are always cajoled and pressured my the majority so that their numbers shrink even more. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And that is why the staus quo stays the status quo.

 

[washunut]

For a few weeks now I have been edging closer and closer to the idea that the Democratic Party should unite behind a ticket of Clinton & Sanders to preserve party unity and win the November election. Today, we have an excellent column from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal in which she explores the case for such a ticket. In addition ot the obvious short term advantages, she has some very insightful observations about both parties and their future.

Clinton-Sanders: Maybe That?s the Ticket - WSJ

Should Sanders continue to win, especially if he wins in California, this only becomes more and more the realistic way to go the same way that JFK picked his hated opposite Lyndon Johnson in 1960 and thereby won the election.

Your comments and observations are encouraged.

If Sanders was somehow invested in the Democratic party this fantasy might make some sense. The reality is that Sanders used the democratic party just like Trump used the Republican party. Both could care less about unifying the party unless it is around them. So Trump will now have the problem of trying to get people he could less about to support him.

As for Bernie he would be betraying everything he stands for if he to run as VP. He would rightfully be called out as a charlatan. Does anyone here really believe he would be part of a campaign financed by the people he truly finds offensive.

You have to believe that Bernie is just another cheap politician to think he would sign up and be part of Hillary's team. You don't have to agree with him to find him to be genuine.