• 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.

Sanders Downsizes Campaign

1.) Ah, the Clintonite bubble again. I'm loyal to Bernie Sanders, yes, but he doesn't speak for me nor did he create this movement. It's not his fiefdom, and unlike Hillary supporters, Sanders supporters aren't bound by oaths of loyalty and fealty to Bernie Sanders. This whole sentiment has been building up, without specific leaders, for years now. And it'll go on without a national Bernie Sanders presidential bid.

2.) He's not getting his head chopped off; he's still going to be around, just with a much, much larger audience than he had last year. He, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Tulsi Gabbard, Jesse Sbiah, and soon hopefully Tim Canova, Zephyr Teachout, Lucy Flores, and the list goes on, will all still be there. Each of them will continue to play a role, and some of them will start playing a more central role. We lost the presidency, so now it's time to move onto Congress and make ground there.

Speaking of Warren, why hasn't she endorsed Sanders? Surely that would have helped him. Alan's a funny guy and I like him but he's hardly a standard bearer. The rest I have no clue about so that's a problem that needs to be over come. A ship without its captain is going to hard to navigate and if Clinton loses by some off chance your movement will scatter in the wind like Naders did when Bush won.. What a shame you don't care. It is the future but you seem to want a setback. All because of an obsession with Hillary. Isn't that ironic?
 
Last edited:
I dont like any of Sander's platforms: free college tuition, universal HC, $15 minimum wage, carbon taxes and massive trade wars against other countries? He is all talk and a lefty loon- like an American Maduro. I'm glad Hillary beat him. She isnt perfect but she has got Bill and he was our only decent president in the last 25 years.

It will be nice to have Bill "back in the house" won't it?
 
Speaking of Warren, why hasn't she endorsed Sanders?

She's stated publicly that it's because she doesn't believe in getting involved in primary endorsements. Personally, I think she's nuts for it and she's pissing off a lot of people, but she seems to be sticking by that principle. Although, she's certainly gone out of her way to tell voters that they should be very concerned with past voting records and who has a long term, undeniable progressive values, so it's not exactly like it's a hidden secret who she voted for, either.

Surely that would have helped him.

I don't disagree, that's why she's pissed off a lot of Sanders supporters. Ironically, I would say the only person who's image got worse over the 2016 primary cycle was Warren's.

A ship without its captain is going to hard to navigate and if Clinton loses by some off chance your movement will scatter in the wind like Naders did when Bush won.. What a shame you don't care. It is the future but you seem to want a setback. All because of an obsession with Hillary.

Naders movement likely would have scattered to the wind no matter what, as their was a number of issues regarding the demographics of that movement. The likelihood, due to demographics alone, that Sanders supporters will just disappear is very small. That's something that should concern Hillary, although it pretty manifestly isn't. This is totally needless. Hillary could just accept to fight alongside Bernie on a few specific common issues to the left of her current positions and remove the teeth from all arguments against voting for her. Instead, she's hellbent on moving towards the "center" (which is now just Right of most of the country) and continuing to pump her mudslinging machines to continue to slander Sanders supporters. There's really no other way to describe this than monumentally idiotic, but it's what Hillary Clinton has decided on. Now Trump is declaring that the Democratic party has been unfair to Sanders and that he should run as an independent --all of which is insincere bull**** designed to pull in left-wing independents who're furious with Clinton. But in a certain percentage of cases, it may work.

It really is amazing how out of touch Hillary is and how in touch with average America Trump is. The man is racist, misogynistic scumbag, but he at least understands who to effectively lie to his own base and tap into what's driving them to vote. If he can cut the misogynistic crap out, he'll actually stand a decent chance of beating Hillary. Again, this should terrify Clinton supporters, but they just keep on tripling down on the idea that yelling at Sanders supporters to toe the line is going to work, insisting that neoliberalism is the future of the Democratic party and so they shouldn't be expected to compromise on these issues, and that the movement will die as soon as Sanders loses the nomination... It's completely delusional. That's not a way to unify the party (if that is Hillary's intention, which I now sincerely doubt), it's a way to give Trump level-odds (despite his severe demographic disadvantage) by alienating nearly half of her base and nearly tossing out a substantial portion of the independents she will definitely needs to win.
 
She's stated publicly that it's because she doesn't believe in getting involved in primary endorsements. Personally, I think she's nuts for it and she's pissing off a lot of people, but she seems to be sticking by that principle. Although, she's certainly gone out of her way to tell voters that they should be very concerned with past voting records and who has a long term, undeniable progressive values, so it's not exactly like it's a hidden secret who she voted for, either.



I don't disagree, that's why she's pissed off a lot of Sanders supporters. Ironically, I would say the only person who's image got worse over the 2016 primary cycle was Warren's.



Naders movement likely would have scattered to the wind no matter what, as their was a number of issues regarding the demographics of that movement. The likelihood, due to demographics alone, that Sanders supporters will just disappear is very small. That's something that should concern Hillary, although it pretty manifestly isn't. This is totally needless. Hillary could just accept to fight alongside Bernie on a few specific common issues to the left of her current positions and remove the teeth from all arguments against voting for her. Instead, she's hellbent on moving towards the "center" (which is now just Right of most of the country) and continuing to pump her mudslinging machines to continue to slander Sanders supporters. There's really no other way to describe this than monumentally idiotic, but it's what Hillary Clinton has decided on. Now Trump is declaring that the Democratic party has been unfair to Sanders and that he should run as an independent --all of which is insincere bull**** designed to pull in left-wing independents who're furious with Clinton. But in a certain percentage of cases, it may work.

It really is amazing how out of touch Hillary is and how in touch with average America Trump is. The man is racist, misogynistic scumbag, but he at least understands who to effectively lie to his own base and tap into what's driving them to vote. If he can cut the misogynistic crap out, he'll actually stand a decent chance of beating Hillary. Again, this should terrify Clinton supporters, but they just keep on tripling down on the idea that yelling at Sanders supporters to toe the line is going to work, insisting that neoliberalism is the future of the Democratic party and so they shouldn't be expected to compromise on these issues, and that the movement will die as soon as Sanders loses the nomination... It's completely delusional. That's not a way to unify the party (if that is Hillary's intention, which I now sincerely doubt), it's a way to give Trump level-odds (despite his severe demographic disadvantage) by alienating nearly half of her base and nearly tossing out a substantial portion of the independents she will definitely needs to win.

As you know, I agree with Sanders that dividing the democratic is not the way to get the reforms he wants. You seem to disagree with him on this and hope others do too. It just seems distructive and counter productive to me. I also disagree that Hillary is ignoring the meaning of the Sanders movement and it will certainly be included more than it would have been otherwise. She will not agree to scaring the middle class with threats of high tax increases though that is a non-starter. The last thing we want to do is give Trump that kind of edge as he is promising to cut taxes (mostly on himself of course.)
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Warren, why hasn't she endorsed Sanders? Surely that would have helped him. Alan's a funny guy and I like him but he's hardly a standard bearer. The rest I have no clue about so that's a problem that needs to be over come. A ship without its captain is going to hard to navigate and if Clinton loses by some off chance your movement will scatter in the wind like Naders did when Bush won.. What a shame you don't care. It is the future but you seem to want a setback. All because of an obsession with Hillary. Isn't that ironic?

So if we don't shut up and vote for someone who doesn't share any of our beliefs the other person who doesn't share any of our beliefs is going to win? Sounds convincing.

I know you're a huge proponent of not rocking the boat and just mindlessly voting for whoever the democratic nominee is, regardless of their alignment with our beliefs, but that's not how most Sanders supporters think. Without Sanders I never would've considered the Democrats in the first place so I don't have an obligation to stay in a party that did everything in their power to tip the scales against my candidate.


You are as radical as the Right and just as wrong. Your ideology is just as frightening and wrong headed. It is a good thing Sanders is not going to be the nominee if the rest of his followers are anything like you. Do you have any idea what would happen to this country if we withdrew from the world and began to have multiple attacks like 911? The fear backlash would make Americans into right wing fascist supporters and we would get a police state. It is happening in Europe right now. Progressives must provide security for America if they are to continue in power. It is odd that you don't see any of that.

LOL. If we stopped invading places and pulled back our imperialism we'd be having 9/11 all the time!! Thank god our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan kept us safe from all that terrorism.

Man, you really are a Hillary supporter. Hawkish imperialism above reason.
 
Last edited:
So if we don't shut up and vote for someone who doesn't share any of our beliefs the other person who doesn't share any of our beliefs is going to win? Sounds convincing.

I know you're a huge proponent of not rocking the boat and just mindlessly voting for whoever the democratic nominee is, regardless of their alignment with our beliefs, but that's not how most Sanders supporters think. Without Sanders I never would've considered the Democrats in the first place so I don't have an obligation to stay in a party that did everything in their power to tip the scales against my candidate.




LOL. If we stopped invading places and pulled back our imperialism we'd be having 9/11 all the time!! Thank god our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan kept us safe from all that terrorism.

Man, you really are a Hillary supporter. Hawkish imperialism above reason.

That's pretty funny coming from a Trump supporter, because that is what you all are when it comes down to it. Don't worry though, we will pull the weight for you....and so will Hillary.
 
Nope, just mostly Republican DINOs that lick the hand of slavery, mindlessly support whatever boogeyman that is propped up in front of them without question and will mindlessly support the status quo. Because change is bad, right? At least Trump doesn't try to hide the fact that he's a raving lunatic.

Now you are being honest, you actually admire Trump. That explains a lot. Trump is stumping for your vote and I have no doubt that will be attractive to you....because his views are in line with yours and because he is so honest and trustworthy of course. I know you value that above all. Maybe he'll even pick Sanders for VP...oh wait Sanders hates Trump and is voting for Hillary because he is a no good DINO too I guess.

"I think Bernie Sanders should run as an independent. I think he'd do great," Trump said at a victory rally in New York City Tuesday night, after sweeping five GOP contests in the Northeast.
The next morning, Trump said on MSNBC: "Bernie Sanders has a message that's interesting. I'm going to be taking a lot of the things Bernie said and using them."
Trump's advisers say these comments are a preview of more explicit overtures the campaign is ready to make to Sanders' supporters once the populist liberal exits the 2016 race. That strategy is based on the broad areas of overlap between voters attracted to Trump and those who have flocked to Sanders. Both have angrily denounced the political system as corrupt and expressed deep frustration that Washington is not helping ordinary people. They both oppose international trade deals, saying they hurt American jobs.
Donald Trump's new target: Bernie Sanders supporters - CNNPolitics.com
 
Last edited:
So, I guess this means those 14 dead people were not caused by American intervention, then. Yes?

SMDH. Right over your own.

You just need to accept that the Democratic party was taken over by moderate/right-wingers in 1992, and has grown steadily worse since then. Now it's just genuinely been overrun with right-wingers. So, it's unlikely that you're going to get an honest conversation here. A high percentage of Hillary Clinton supporters are "with her" for whatever that entails, whatever it means accepting. Although most seem to genuinely believe in a right-wing vision for America. As near as I can tell, the only way you could get them to say that bombing people in other parts of the world is immoral is if a Republican did it.
 
Now you are being honest, you actually admire Trump. That explains a lot. Trump is stumping for your vote and I have no doubt that will be attractive to you....because his views are in line with yours and because he is so honest and trustworthy of course. I know you value that above all. Maybe he'll even pick Sanders for VP...oh wait Sanders hates Trump and is voting for Hillary because he is a no good DINO too I guess.

Donald Trump's new target: Bernie Sanders supporters - CNNPolitics.com

Yeah, Donald Trump is going to pull off a certain number of Sanders supporters, and he's going to do an exceedingly good job at it. If you don't think that Donald Trump is going to start talking about income inequality (he'll phrase it as "bad deals" for Americans) and how Hillary Clinton supported the trade deals, then you'll be making the same mistake that the RNC made --and without the excuse for why you couldn't have foreseen it.

What the Hillary bubble doesn't seem to understand that is that rather than yelling at Sanders supporters to toe the line because they won, they should be doing what every president has done during the end stretch of a primary time immemorial, which is position herself to become attractive enough to Sanders supporters that she secures their vote going forward. Instead, she's "triangulating" like Bill did. The problem? We're not in 1992 anymore. What she's actually doing is dousing half of the Democratic base and making the Democratic-voting bloc of the Independents exceedingly angry. And for Clintonites to complain about how awful the Sanders supporters are just re-affirms the bubble that they live in: The Democratic party keeps on losing members precisely because they feel left behind by the Democratic party. Democratic politicians like Hillary are the reason why Independents are now the largest (non)affiliation, and why the number of Independents increases every year. The Democratic party continues to move to the Right of America, and increasingly people feel left behind by the DNC (and, honestly, they should). So yelling at them to get in line is a terrible, terrible tactic that does nothing but strengthen Donald Trump's bid for presidency.

The DNC and the so-called loyalists shouldn't get themselves confused over this. They are the ones who are helping Donald Trump's bid for presidency, not anyone else. It's literally Hillary's job to convince Sanders voters, left-wing independents, etc, why they should vote for her. If you or any other "loyalist" doesn't understand this point, then you better brace yourselves for a Trump presidency because that's right where we're headed.
 
Yeah, Donald Trump is going to pull off a certain number of Sanders supporters, and he's going to do an exceedingly good job at it. If you don't think that Donald Trump is going to start talking about income inequality (he'll phrase it as "bad deals" for Americans) and how Hillary Clinton supported the trade deals, then you'll be making the same mistake that the RNC made --and without the excuse for why you couldn't have foreseen it.

What the Hillary bubble doesn't seem to understand that is that rather than yelling at Sanders supporters to toe the line because they won, they should be doing what every president has done during the end stretch of a primary time immemorial, which is position herself to become attractive enough to Sanders supporters that she secures their vote going forward. Instead, she's "triangulating" like Bill did. The problem? We're not in 1992 anymore. What she's actually doing is dousing half of the Democratic base and making the Democratic-voting bloc of the Independents exceedingly angry. And for Clintonites to complain about how awful the Sanders supporters are just re-affirms the bubble that they live in: The Democratic party keeps on losing members precisely because they feel left behind by the Democratic party. Democratic politicians like Hillary are the reason why Independents are now the largest (non)affiliation, and why the number of Independents increases every year. The Democratic party continues to move to the Right of America, and increasingly people feel left behind by the DNC (and, honestly, they should). So yelling at them to get in line is a terrible, terrible tactic that does nothing but strengthen Donald Trump's bid for presidency.

The DNC and the so-called loyalists shouldn't get themselves confused over this. They are the ones who are helping Donald Trump's bid for presidency, not anyone else. It's literally Hillary's job to convince Sanders voters, left-wing independents, etc, why they should vote for her. If you or any other "loyalist" doesn't understand this point, then you better brace yourselves for a Trump presidency because that's right where we're headed.

I have yet to hear one thing about what Hilary could do that would satisfy you. Vague generalities are not answers. You do know that his tax increases for the middle class are non-starters which means universal HC is out too. But there must be some compromises you would make...or are there?
On the Trump thing. What does it say about Sanders supporters when you claim they will be fooled by Trump's "overtures". Do you think Trump REALLY cares about your issues or is he just trying to steal your votes?
I told you before that a Trump victory would spell the end of Sander's movement and you passed it over like it was nothing. You are the one who should worry the most about Trump. It will set the progressive movement back another generation and anything bad that happen under him will be blamed on Sanders diluting the Democratic vote.. Is that what you want?

There’s a common misconception that elections are job interviews; and that candidates need to “earn” our vote, as if we’re doing them a favor by putting them in office. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Elections are selfish. They’re not about the candidates, they’re about us. They’re about choosing someone who will have inordinate influence over our lives and our livelihoods for the next four years.

To the degree that the job metaphor is apt, picking a president is more like picking a nanny for your kids. Except in this case, it’s down to two candidates, and one is going to get hired. Your only options are to pick one, pick the other, or don’t pick either and let someone else make the choice for you.

To take the analogy a bit further, let’s call the first nanny Hillary. As hard as you try, Hillary just doesn’t move you. You see, there was another nanny named Bernie, and you adored Bernie. But Sadly, Bernie didn’t make the cut. So now you’re left choosing between Hillary, who doesn’t excite you, and another nanny named Donald, who is categorically crazy and hates your kids.

Your only choice is to hire Hillary, hire Donald, or let some stranger choose which of the two is going to have ultimate say over the most important thing in your life.
Why it's the duty of every Sanders supporter to vote for Hillary - AMERICAblog News
 
Last edited:
That's pretty funny coming from a Trump supporter, because that is what you all are when it comes down to it. Don't worry though, we will pull the weight for you....and so will Hillary.

Doubling down on the "vote whoever the DNC tells you to or you're a tool ruining our democracy" nonsense. Hillary is even more hawkish than Trump. You may be perfectly happy with the status quo, but Hillary does not share any of my core values, so she will not be getting my vote. Do you really think always voting for the lesser evil is good for our country?


OMG!!! THE Americablog News says we should vote who they tell us to! Why, let me just change all of my beliefs!
 
Doubling down on the "vote whoever the DNC tells you to or you're a tool ruining our democracy" nonsense. Hillary is even more hawkish than Trump. You may be perfectly happy with the status quo, but Hillary does not share any of my core values, so she will not be getting my vote. Do you really think always voting for the lesser evil is good for our country?

Consistently voting for the lesser evil is how we have ended up with Trump v Clinton in the first place.
 
Hillary Clinton is not entitled to the Sanders supporters.

The election is not about that. It is about who will have an inordinate effect on your welfare for the next 4 years. Get real.
 
I have yet to hear one thing about what Hilary could do that would satisfy you. Vague generalities are not answers. You do know that his tax increases for the middle class are non-starters which means universal HC is out too. But there must be some compromises you would make...or are there?
On the Trump thing. What does it say about Sanders supporters when you claim they will be fooled by Trump's "overtures". Do you think Trump REALLY cares about your issues or is he just trying to steal your votes?
I told you before that a Trump victory would spell the end of Sander's movement and you passed it over like it was nothing. You are the one who should worry the most about Trump. It will set the progressive movement back another generation and anything bad that happen under him will be blamed on Sanders diluting the Democratic vote.. Is that what you want?

Why it's the duty of every Sanders supporter to vote for Hillary - AMERICAblog News

Yeah, just keep that up, and in no time we'll be hearing on MSNBC, "President Trump, what are you going to do about the economy?"
 
Iguanaman has so little conviction in his beliefs it makes it impossible for him to understand how some of us actually do.

And your "conviction" will mean so much if Trump is running the country into the ground because you do not understand what elections are about. Hint: they are not about a candidate winning your vote.
 
Yeah, just keep that up, and in no time we'll be hearing on MSNBC, "President Trump, what are you going to do about the economy?"

And the progressive movements name will be mud. You would like that I bet. Well there is always 2018....

Yes, that was what I feared: The discredited notion that lefties and the tea party can make common cause in something other than hating on the Clintons and Barack Obama is back with a vengeance. And worse yet, Donald Trump — Donald Trump — is being touted as an example of a Republican capable of progressive impulses because he shares the old right-wing mercantilist hostility to free trade and has enough money to scorn lobbyists. Does your average Trump supporter really "believe climate change is real" and disbelieve that "all Muslims are terrorists"? Do Obamacare-hating tea-partiers secretly favor single-payer health care? Do the people in tricorn hats who favor elimination of labor unions deep down want a national $15-an-hour minimum wage? And do the very activists who brought the Citizens United case and think it's central to the preservation of the First Amendment actually want to overturn it?

It's this last delusion that's the most remarkable. If there is any one belief held most vociferously by tea-party activists, it's that anything vaguely approaching campaign-finance reform is a socialist, perhaps even a satanic, conspiracy. These are the people who don't think donors to their political activities should be disclosed because Lois Lerner will use that information to launch income-tax audits and persecute Christians. The tea folk are much closer in their basic attitudes toward politics to the Koch brothers than to conventional Republicans.

But there persists a sort of "tea envy" in progressive circles. Here's Salon staff writer Sean Illing in a piece celebrating Brand New Congress:

Real change in this country will require a sustained national mobilization, what I’ve called a counter-Tea Party movement. While their agenda was nihilistic and obstructionist, the Tea Party was a massive success by any measure. And they succeeded because they systematically altered the Congressional landscape.
Well, you could say that, or you could say the tea party's excesses cost Republicans control of the Senate in 2012, and produced an environment that's made Donald Trump and Ted Cruz the GOP's only two options for this year's presidential nomination. Indeed, you can probably thank the tea party for the likelihood of a very good Democratic general election this November.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/really-bad-idea-of-a-tea-party-of-the-left.html
 
Consistently voting for the lesser evil is how we have ended up with Trump v Clinton in the first place.

In reality NOT voting for the lesser evil is what brought us GW Bush and if you get your way it will bring us President Donald too. Bush wasn't bad enough for you? Trumps Supreme Court picks alone will set the Progressive movement back a generation all by themselves.
 
Last edited:
In reality NOT voting for the lesser evil is what brought us GW Bush and if you get your way it will bring us President Donald too. Bush wasn't bad enough for you? Trumps Supreme Court picks alone will set the Progressive movement back a generation all by themselves.

c9fda2da-cedb-4071-a3cd-badfbd8f27d4.jpg


Hillary Clinton praises a president. But not the one you think. (Or the other one you think.)

“I publicly say thank you to President George Bush,” Clinton said, after sharing the story of her and New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer lobbying for $20 billion to help rebuild New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. “He asked us what we needed. … We said, ‘We need $20 billion.' He said, ‘You got it.’ Despite intense Republican pressure to back down, he never did.”

The Troubling Friendship of Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush

Despite the Bush family being Republican and the Clinton family being Democrats—especially as the polarity between parties is arguably broader than it ever has been in the past few decades—the two political dynasties have maintained a surprisingly close relationship. In a 2014, George W. Bush called Bill Clinton his “brother from another mother” on Instagram, in response to a tweet from Mr. Clinton about Mr. Bush’s latest book. That same year, in an interview with Real Clear Politics, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Clinton, “He’s got a good spirit about him. We’re the only baby-boomer presidents. We were both Southern governors, and we both like each other. He’s fun to be around. I hope he would say I’m fun to be around. And we’re both grandfathers.” In a separate interview with CNN, Mr. Bush described Ms. Clinton as his “sister-in-law.”

Are you trolling?
 
Back
Top Bottom