Sanders supporters have a point

[Wiggen]

I see that happening too. That somehow Sanders supporters are "entitled" to all the goodies he has promised and they are indignant that Hillary won't make the same pie in the sky promises. They blame Hillary for taking away all those perks instead of the Republican Congress that would not even discuss any of those tax increases in a million years. It is childish in the extreme.

Much like most of Sanders' positions.

 

[Phys251]

It's actually called not comparable.

First of all, the Florida count was contentious, and in my view, incorrect; it was an election stolen by the SCOTUS, and Nader's direct culpability is at best dubious.

Second, we don't actually know what the hell Trump is going to do in office unlike Bush.

Third, again, culpability lies with the candidate and the platform they choose to adopt; Gore could have easily ran more progressive and stolen away whatever few votes you feel made the difference, yet chose not to be. The onus on Clinton is even greater with 44% of her own team directly voting for FDR style policy, which is tremendously popular with independents; this is an utterly preventable fracture among Democrats and an utterly preventable loss, yet she refuses to take accountability and compromise (while talking out of the other side of her mouth about how good she'd be at it as president; perhaps with the GOP of course, but never with the true progressives in her own party), seriously damaging her credibility as a leader and a uniter of the party.

Hand-waving. 600/100,000 X 100% = 0.6% of all Florida Nader voters. That is a fact. Had they voted for Gore instead, Florida and thus the presidency would have gone to Gore. That is a fact.

The denial of Far-Left liberals has approached the same level as that of Far-Right conservatives. And we are seeing it play out this primary cycle.

Thankfully, Bernie's run ends next Tuesday night.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Thanks for the candor. The fact that you didn't even vote for Obama exposes your politics as either right wing or far out of the mainstream on the left and therefore your opinions on Hillary matter little to me. It is not unusual for movements to turn on themselves or litmus test themselves out of existence. The Sander's people seam bent on that outcome. My hope is that progressive change will come gradually in our society so as to minimize the downsides and allowing citizens to experience an improving quality of life without any more "lost decades". The older you get the more you understand that time your biggest enemy.

"If you don't blindly vote for the democratic candidate every election like I do, you're either a right-wing extremist or so far out on the fringe I can ignore you."

 

[Wiggen]

---The REASON he never was a Democrat before is BECAUSE the Democratic Party had already started losing its way and moving to the right.
This is a process which has been affecting that party for FORTY YEARS.
If the party had maintained it's center left positions, Sanders may well have joined a long time, as it is clear that he has mellowed significantly on his so called "socialist" policies and views in the last four decades and would make a FINE LIBERAL Democrat, in the mold of FDR.

So win or lose, Sanders will MAKE it take a left fork, and Clinton and Clinton and those like her would do well to recognize the will of the people, certainly the wil of half her damn party, INSTEAD OF "fighting the whole way."

How about the 55% of the party that doesn't want a left turn? You're a minority and you will remain one.

Sanders as FDR?:lamo FDR created the strongest military force the world has ever seen. Sanders would have us disarmed.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Silenced? You are watching too much Game of Thrones. This is America, there is no silencing anyone....except by low ratings of course. That will get you cancelled in no time.

Because it can't happen here...

...and you're totally absolutely 100% sure of that.

 

[Surrealistik]

Hand-waving. 600/100,000 X 100% = 0.6% of all Florida Nader voters. That is a fact. Had they voted for Gore instead, Florida and thus the presidency would have gone to Gore. That is a fact.

The denial of Far-Left liberals has approached the same level as that of Far-Right conservatives. And we are seeing it play out this primary cycle.

Thankfully, Bernie's run ends next Tuesday night.

The fact is that even if I were to assume Nader has primary culpability (and he doesn't; there are several parties to blame for 2000, including Gore himself) this isn't comparable for all the other reasons mentioned which you've ignored.

Further, whether or not Bernie's run ends, his legacy does not, and it is Clinton's responsibility to make peace with 44% of her party that supports him; an obligation which you have likewise ignored: Clinton is far more culpable than any die hard Bernie supporter for a Dem loss come November given her unmatched power to avert such an outcome.

How about the 55% of the party that doesn't want a left turn? You're a minority and you will remain one.

Sanders as FDR?:lamo FDR created the strongest military force the world has ever seen. Sanders would have us disarmed.

Yes, Sanders' domestic policy is on par with FDR, and FDR was in the midst of a world war, so kind of an extenuating circumstance.

And for what must be close to the fifth time, compromise with the 44% doesn't mean dictation by the 44%. Clinton doesn't want to even want to cut a deal with Bernie's supporters which is something that will doom her to failure, and it will be largely her fault.

 

[iguanaman]

"If you don't blindly vote for the democratic candidate every election like I do, you're either a right-wing extremist or so far out on the fringe I can ignore you."

Let's face it you only vote for losers so why should I care what you say? Give me one reason that your vote has any meaning except as a "spoiler" that makes your political enemies stronger?

 

[iguanaman]

The fact is that even if I were to assume Nader has primary culpability (and he doesn't; there are several parties to blame for 2000, including Gore himself) this isn't comparable for all the other reasons mentioned which you've ignored.

Further, whether or not Bernie's run ends, his legacy does not, and it is Clinton's responsibility to make peace with 44% of her party that supports him; an obligation which you have likewise ignored: Clinton is far more culpable than any die hard Bernie supporter for a Dem loss come November given her unmatched power to avert such an outcome.




Yes, Sanders' domestic policy is on par with FDR, and FDR was in the midst of a world war, so kind of an extenuating circumstance.

And for what must be close to the fifth time, compromise with the 44% doesn't mean dictation by the 44%. Clinton doesn't want to even want to cut a deal with Bernie's supporters which is something that will doom her to failure, and it will be largely her fault.

She has already "cut a deal" with Sanders himself, they each have pledged to support the nominated candidate of the party. Why does she need another "deal"? If you want to form a party and run someone yourselves go for it, but Sanders will not be your flag bearer. He will be on the road with Hillary.

 

[Phys251]

The fact is that even if I were to assume Nader has primary culpability (and he doesn't; there are several parties to blame for 2000, including Gore himself) this isn't comparable for all the other reasons mentioned which you've ignored.

Further, whether or not Bernie's run ends, his legacy does not, and it is Clinton's responsibility to make peace with 44% of her party that supports him; an obligation which you have likewise ignored: Clinton is far more culpable than any die hard Bernie supporter for a Dem loss come November given her unmatched power to avert such an outcome.

The way Bernie has been acting as of late suggests that his "movement" will be relegated to the dustbin of history. A shame, really, because he's been bringing up points that needed to be talked about. But the Democratic party is the party of adults, not children.

Yes, Sanders' domestic policy is on par with FDR, and FDR was in the midst of a world war, so kind of an extenuating circumstance.

And for what must be close to the fifth time, compromise with the 44% doesn't mean dictation by the 44%. Clinton doesn't want to even want to cut a deal with Bernie's supporters which is something that will doom her to failure, and it will be largely her fault.

There you go again with the Bernie math. If the Berners are so adamant about their-way-or-the-highway, well, with the minority of support he has received, the highway is looking more and more likely. And it doesn't have to be this way. They can play a strong role in the Democratic party. But their behavior will determine how much influence they deserve.

 

[iguanaman]

Because it can't happen here...

...and you're totally absolutely 100% sure of that.

According to you, that outcome will be the result of Sanders supporters. You reap what you sow.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He's a Socialist. I don't care whether or not you think Socialism is great or whether you think it sucks. He's a Socialist. He's never made any secret of the fact that he's a socialist. And the loony far left and punk college kids that think they're going to get a free ride if Bernie gets elected do not belong in the Democratic Party. They don't care about beating Trump. They only care about Bernie. To hell with them.

Like I said, I guess you missed this.
On many levels.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

According to you, that outcome will be the result of Sanders supporters. You reap what you sow.

Wrong.

What we need is a best case scenario for the opposition to Donald Trump, where all who oppose him feel like they can depend on one another and amicably cooperate without animosity.

 

[Surrealistik]

She has already "cut a deal" with Sanders himself, they each have pledged to support the nominated candidate of the party. Why does she need another "deal"?

Sanders has said adamantly that he will not support her unless she adopts certain elements of his platform. He has furthermore said that his supporters should not vote for the lesser of two evils. So, tell me again what deal he's cut, and, whether or not such a deal exists, how that gives representation to the 44% of the Dem party such that they will actually vote Clinton regardless of his endorsement?

The way Bernie has been acting as of late suggests that his "movement" will be relegated to the dustbin of history. A shame, really, because he's been bringing up points that needed to be talked about. But the Democratic party is the party of adults, not children.

Could have fooled me given how childish Clinton is behaving and her willingness to discard an electoral victory for the sake of her wealthy benefactors and neoliberal policies.

There you go again with the Bernie math. If the Berners are so adamant about their-way-or-the-highway, well, with the minority of support he has received, the highway is looking more and more likely. And it doesn't have to be this way. They can play a strong role in the Democratic party. But their behavior will determine how much influence they deserve.

Bernie supporters merely want a voice commensurate with their constituency in the party, and 44% should translate to a damn loud voice, even if it's a minority one. Again, there is a substantive difference between getting some of the things you want from Bernie's platform, and nothing, and thus far, Clinton seems to insist on the latter come hell or highwater; that is the very definition of puerile stubbornness, particularly coming from someone who claims to be a unifier and leader of the Democratic party, and this is the reason for entirely justified outrage among his supporters. Again, you Hillarites continue to falsely frame this as an attempt to usurp power or control in disproportion to Bernie's support because that is politically expedient for you, when in fact the real fight is about having a voice and influence commensurate to the movement's vote; Clinton seems to think that it should be all or nothing, and we disagree completely.

 

[iguanaman]

Wrong.

Oh I forgot, we have to worry about hurting the sensitive feelings of the dysfunctional wing of Sanders supporters because they are the only ones that matter now. Hillary needs to get a Sanders tatoo on her ass and then maybe... just maybe they won't vote for Trump. If this election wasn't so important that would be hilarious.

 

[iguanaman]

Sanders has said adamantly that he will not support her unless she adopts certain elements of his platform. He has furthermore said that his supporters should not vote for the lesser of two evils. So, tell me again what deal he's cut, and, whether or not such a deal exists, how that gives representation to the 44% of the Dem party such that they will actually vote Clinton regardless of his endorsement?



Could have fooled me given how childish Clinton is behaving and her willingness to discard an electoral victory for the sake of her wealthy benefactors and neoliberal policies.



Bernie supporters merely want a voice commensurate with their constituency in the party, and 44% should translate to a damn loud voice, even if it's a minority one. Again, there is a substantive difference between getting some of the things you want from Bernie's platform, and nothing, and thus far, Clinton seems to insist on the latter come hell or highwater; that is the very definition of puerile stubbornness, particularly coming from someone who claims to be a unifier and leader of the Democratic party, and this is the reason for entirely justified outrage among his supporters. Again, you Hillarites continue to falsely frame this as an attempt to usurp power or control in disproportion to Bernie's support because that is politically expedient for you, when in fact the real fight is about having a voice and influence commensurate to the movement's vote; Clinton seems to think that it should be all or nothing, and we disagree completely.

Link please to Sanders saying he won't support Hillary. That would be huge news. I think you are dreaming.

 

[shagg]

"If you don't blindly vote for the democratic candidate every election like I do, you're either a right-wing extremist or so far out on the fringe I can ignore you."

This is basically the current mantra of what is apparently a very nervous Shillary camp. This thread is chock full of examples.

 

[Wiggen]

Like I said, I guess you missed this.
On many levels.

Missed what? That Sanders and his supporters have spent the last two months trashing the likely Democratic nominee and every opportunity? No, I haven't missed that. That Sanders and his supporters have an ongoing whine about how unfair the system is while they are being beaten in the pledged delegate count and in the popular vote by about 3 million? Nope, haven't missed that. Didn't miss the death threats to those who don't bend to their will and Sanders lukewarm condemnation of violence and threats of violence 'yes, violence is bad but.....'. Haven't missed any of that. You folks on the Far Left of the political spectrum are really not a hell of a lot different from those on the Far Right.

 

[Wiggen]

This is basically the current mantra of what is apparently a very nervous Shillary camp. This thread is chock full of examples.

Unlike you right wing extremists who are still convinced Obama is a Kenyan/Terrorist/Marxist determined to destroy the Republic. Independent? Laughable.

 

[Wiggen]

Hand-waving. 600/100,000 X 100% = 0.6% of all Florida Nader voters. That is a fact. Had they voted for Gore instead, Florida and thus the presidency would have gone to Gore. That is a fact.

The denial of Far-Left liberals has approached the same level as that of Far-Right conservatives. And we are seeing it play out this primary cycle.

Thankfully, Bernie's run ends next Tuesday night.

There really isn't a hell of a lot of difference between Far Right and Far Left extremists. They both have the same goal in mind - the destruction of the status quo.

 

[Wiggen]

Link please to Sanders saying he won't support Hillary. That would be huge news. I think you are dreaming.

Actions speak far louder than words.

 

[shagg]

Unlike you right wing extremists who are still convinced Obama is a Kenyan/Terrorist/Marxist determined to destroy the Republic. Independent? Laughable.

Wow, so far off the mark you're in a different galaxy. You should never follow an assumption with an insult based on that assumption, otherwise you run the risk of embarrassing yourself. Perhaps in that sense you have little left to lose? Apparently you Shillary supporters are running on adrenaline and denial at this point.

 

[Surrealistik]

Link please to Sanders saying he won't support Hillary. That would be huge news. I think you are dreaming.

Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton

His support is very much conditional, as it should be.

 

[iguanaman]

Actions speak far louder than words.

Sanders made a pledge to support Hillary if she wins the nomination when he started his run. Hillary did the same. I expect him to make good on that pledge or lose all respect for him. I think he has been hijacked by a bunch of operatives who want him to help Trump win. At least I would hope that are not really progressives.

 

[Absentglare]

I don't need to sell you that point. It's true. Libertarianism is not innately anarchist in nature. There are plenty of libertarians who desire some form of government.

American Libertarians certainly wish to change the size and scope of government far toward anarchy.

 

[Wiggen]

The fact is that even if I were to assume Nader has primary culpability (and he doesn't; there are several parties to blame for 2000, including Gore himself) this isn't comparable for all the other reasons mentioned which you've ignored.

Further, whether or not Bernie's run ends, his legacy does not, and it is Clinton's responsibility to make peace with 44% of her party that supports him; an obligation which you have likewise ignored: Clinton is far more culpable than any die hard Bernie supporter for a Dem loss come November given her unmatched power to avert such an outcome.




Yes, Sanders' domestic policy is on par with FDR, and FDR was in the midst of a world war, so kind of an extenuating circumstance.

And for what must be close to the fifth time, compromise with the 44% doesn't mean dictation by the 44%. Clinton doesn't want to even want to cut a deal with Bernie's supporters which is something that will doom her to failure, and it will be largely her fault.

So all she has to do is surrender the party to the Far Left wing and the Sanders people might consent to support her? No thanks.