• 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 supporters have a point

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.

:lamo

Bernie supporters merely want a voice commensurate with their constituency in the party,

Some of them are respectful, yes. But not all of them. Others want to dominate the discussion with their needs and their views, regardless of what anyone else has to say. This radical subset has become their own worst enemy. They will not listen to anyone but themselves and their leader.

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.

You should not throw stones in a glass house.
 
Most democrats seem to think she better represents their views than Sanders. And calling her a "neoliberal" is retarded. She is nothing at all like a neoliberal.

What she is... Is a corrupt to the core anti-American Socialist.

And The Socialists of America Party (SAPs) aren't quite sure if she's the one they've been waiting for.

It's fun to watch Crazy Bernie and Crooked Hillary... And Crazy Bernie didn't bring up her criminalistics over at State... Until recently!
 
Or maybe he has changed his opinion on Trump huh. Perhaps he would rather that he got elected now.
Why is this different than other races for the nomination? I don't remember any losing candidate forcing conditions for their endorsement before.
Romney got 47% of the popular vote what did his supporters get in return for their support? Should Obama have adopted some of his policies?
It seems some of you are fuzzy on how a democratic system works. There are losers and winners. The losers go on to fight another day, the winners win.

Why is it you insist everyone who doesn't blindly support her is a Trump lover?

Romney didn't run against Obama in a primary, the general election is a touch different. You seem a little fuzzy yourself.

All this talk of winners winning, Are you a Trump lover now?
 
What she is... Is a corrupt to the core anti-American Socialist.

And The Socialists of America Party (SAPs) aren't quite sure if she's the one they've been waiting for.

It's fun to watch Crazy Bernie and Crooked Hillary... And Crazy Bernie didn't bring up her criminalistics over at State... Until recently!

Great. I'm glad it is fun.

You're gonna be watching Hillary for a long while...as president.

I gotta say this: I don't think it is fun now...and I am sure it will not be fun then.
 
I can't believe you talk about the dangers of Facism while helping Trump to win. That is what is happening and you are good with it. Hillary is no fascist and you know it. She is not that different from Obama policywise

63951991.jpg


How Bernie Sanders is hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump - Washington Times

No, I WILL vote for Hillary if she is the nominee but what some others here seem to discount is, the importance of Sanders acting as a counterbalance to establishment Democratic Party positions.

Hillary IS NO fascist but she deludes herself thinking that she isn't doing them favors. Not Trump the Fascist, the entire Wall Street establishment fascists.

And I expect The Washington Times (formerly owned by Sun Myung Moon) to sound alarms about Bernie supposedly hurting Hillary and helping Trump. I expect intelligent people like yourself to consider who is writing this stuff and what THEIR agenda really is.
HINT: They're a lot more in favor of Trump than Hillary or Bernie. The people behind the Washington Times do not love ANY kind of Democrat.
 
American Libertarians certainly wish to change the size and scope of government far toward anarchy.

They tend to want to restrict government to its proper and controlled levels. While in some cases, that means a reduction in the size and scope of government, it in no way implies or means no government.

So no, it's not towards anarchy.
 
What she is... Is a corrupt to the core anti-American Socialist.

And The Socialists of America Party (SAPs) aren't quite sure if she's the one they've been waiting for.

It's fun to watch Crazy Bernie and Crooked Hillary... And Crazy Bernie didn't bring up her criminalistics over at State... Until recently!

She's not a socialist, she's a corporatist.
 
They tend to want to restrict government to its proper and controlled levels. While in some cases, that means a reduction in the size and scope of government, it in no way implies or means no government.

So no, it's not towards anarchy.

Everyone wants government to be at proper levels. We just have different definitions for proper.

It absolutely seeks to move society dramatically toward no government. I don't know why libertarians reject the relationship to anarchy. It doesn't make sense. Do libertarians define the "proper" size of government to be less government ? Yes. So do anarchists.
 
So the question is how many middle of the road voters must Hillary alienate in order to get the votes of the far left? What makes you think his supporters will settle for anything less than all of those comprehensive demands? Once Hillary "negotiates" she is admitting that they are in control. I also makes Sanders a huge liar when he told reporters that his main concern was stopping Trump from winning and he would "do everything in his power" to achieve that.

Why is everything zero sum game with you people?
This is politics, this is how it works!
Once Hillary negotiates she's admitting they are in control????
What is this, a hostage situation?

OMG get real.
The party, like ALL parties, is an amalgam of people with a fairly broad variety of positions.
If "middle of the road" voters are that easily alienated by making some accommodation for progressives, then they aren't middle of the road. It would mean that they are actually strict CONSERVATIVES.
"Middle of the road" actually MEANS something, it means you accept a broader consensus than a strict partisan would.
 
Last edited:
Everyone wants government to be at proper levels. We just have different definitions for proper.

It absolutely seeks to move society dramatically toward no government. I don't know why libertarians reject the relationship to anarchy. It doesn't make sense. Do libertarians define the "proper" size of government to be less government ? Yes. So do anarchists.

They are in denial.

AnarchyforRichPeeps.webp
 
Everyone wants government to be at proper levels. We just have different definitions for proper.

It absolutely seeks to move society dramatically toward no government. I don't know why libertarians reject the relationship to anarchy. It doesn't make sense. Do libertarians define the "proper" size of government to be less government ? Yes. So do anarchists.

Any Libertarian who does not acknowledge that libertarianism IS A MOVE TOWARD ANARCHY...is lying to the people to whom he/she is speaking...and to him/herself.

Libertarianism definitely is movement toward anarchy. Anarchy is the only place where libertarians finally get what they want.
 
What she is... Is a corrupt to the core anti-American Socialist.

And The Socialists of America Party (SAPs) aren't quite sure if she's the one they've been waiting for.

It's fun to watch Crazy Bernie and Crooked Hillary... And Crazy Bernie didn't bring up her criminalistics over at State... Until recently!

KOmrade, kut and paste krying is so silly. Kan't you kome up with something original for once?
 
Everyone wants government to be at proper levels. We just have different definitions for proper.

It absolutely seeks to move society dramatically toward no government. I don't know why libertarians reject the relationship to anarchy. It doesn't make sense. Do libertarians define the "proper" size of government to be less government ? Yes. So do anarchists.

They don't define it to be zero, which is what anarchists define it as. Smaller doesn't mean none. That's obvious.

We reject the relationship to anarchy because it is not true. Certain branches of libertarian philosophy may endorse anarchy, but it isn't true of the philosophy in general. Those who claim that libertarianism=anarchy are lying to the people to whom they are speaking...and to themselves.
 
well, at-least people realize business as usual isnt working. the fact that, on the democrat side, these people just want more free stuff, is disturbing.
 
They don't define it to be zero, which is what anarchists define it as. Smaller doesn't mean none. That's obvious.

We reject the relationship to anarchy because it is not true. Certain branches of libertarian philosophy may endorse anarchy, but it isn't true of the philosophy in general. Those who claim that libertarianism=anarchy are lying to the people to whom they are speaking...and to themselves.

Perhaps you are correct that people "who claim that libertarianism=anarchy are lying", Ikari...but respectfully as possible...in the larger context, the people who claim that libertarianism leads to anarchy...or who claim that libertarianism is movement toward anarchy...are NOT lying.

In fact, they are pointing out the obvious.
 
They don't define it to be zero, which is what anarchists define it as. Smaller doesn't mean none. That's obvious.

We reject the relationship to anarchy because it is not true. Certain branches of libertarian philosophy may endorse anarchy, but it isn't true of the philosophy in general. Those who claim that libertarianism=anarchy are lying to the people to whom they are speaking...and to themselves.

I'm not arguing that libertarians are equal to anarchists, but it seems obvious that they are closer relatives than socialism and anarchy.
 
Why is everything zero sum game with you people?
This is politics, this is how it works!
Once Hillary negotiates she's admitting they are in control????
What is this, a hostage situation?

OMG get real.
The party, like ALL parties, is an amalgam of people with a fairly broad variety of positions.
If "middle of the road" voters are that easily alienated by making some accommodation for progressives, then they aren't middle of the road. It would mean that they are actually strict CONSERVATIVES.
"Middle of the road" actually MEANS something, it means you accept a broader consensus than a strict partisan would.

Actually the last poll I read said that only 37% of Americans are in favor of UHC and I am sure even less want to pay an additional 9% of their paychecks to get it. Most Americans get their healthcare through their employers and feel that they are already getting it for free or nearly so. Hillary will never embrace Bernies tax plan that raises taxes on the middle class.. It would be suicide. But why do I feel that the supporters will not be satisfied no matter what Hillary does short of putting him on the ticket which would also be suicidal? Blackmailers are not easily negotiated with, it is best to let them pound sand. So Sanders lost.There is always next time and I'de like to see some progress against the GOP majorities in Congress before I would worry about litmus tests for Hillary. Making Hillary take the blame for not being progressive enough with the current state of Washington is not only stupid but it falls right into Trumps hands.
 
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that libertarians are equal to anarchists, but it seems obvious that they are closer relatives than socialism and anarchy.

There are theories of libertarian philosophy that are closer to socialism than anarchy (heck, socialism and anarchy are not always at opposite ends of the spectrum themselves). In the end, the branch of libertarian philosophy that is anarchist is very small. The vast majority deals with, promotes, non-zero government. Left leaning libertarianism even promotes social programs and safe guards as a way to increase the overall liberty of the People.
 
But why do I feel that the supporters will not be satisfied no matter what Hillary does short of putting him on the ticket which would also be suicidal? Blackmailers are not easily negotiated with, it is best to let them pound sand.

So now I understand your anger and frustration. You seem to think Sanders supporters are dreaming of a VP slot as a consolation prize.
Kiss of Death is more like it. Putting Sanders in the Veep slot is the biggest waste of his energy imaginable, and I guarantee you most Bernie people agree that it's a TERRIBLE idea, so that's all in your head, or in the minds of other people who view him as a threat instead of as an asset.

As the loser of the nomination, Sanders is best as a returning member of the Senate, where he will be spending some well earned political capital.
Congress is wallowing in single digit approval ratings while Bernie has earned the respect of TENS OF MILLIONS.
And NO member of Congress ever crowdsourced a campaign of any kind, so that also speaks to Bernie's credibility which, compared to THEIRS, is light years ahead.

I assure you, almost NO ONE wants a "Vice President Bernie Sanders', even if a Hillary impeachment were to succeed, because an accidental Sanders presidency is NOT a SANDERS presidency, it's damage control.

I need to get back to reality. We're both liberals fer Chrissakes, so ask me some questions, okay?
I think you'd be surprised to find out that I am not some understudy for Che Guevara.
I'm just a new deal liberal and so is Sanders. Most of what he wants, we once had in this country in one form or another.
It is not uncharted territory, and most of it worked rather well. I know, because I grew up benefiting from it.
 
Sanders will be back in the Senate so he can introduce any legislation he wants. I really doubt that Hillary will not sign it if it comes to her desk.

I very much doubt Hillary will support all or even most of Sanders' endeavours with respect to campaign finance and Wall Street regulation and reform for starters, at least without making a serious, on the record commitment to do so; that's just not what she is being paid and funded to do.

Or maybe he has changed his opinion on Trump huh. Perhaps he would rather that he got elected now.
Why is this different than other races for the nomination? I don't remember any losing candidate forcing conditions for their endorsement before.
Romney got 47% of the popular vote what did his supporters get in return for their support? Should Obama have adopted some of his policies?
It seems some of you are fuzzy on how a democratic system works. There are losers and winners. The losers go on to fight another day, the winners win.

First, Hillary vs Bernie is not comparable to Romney vs Obama: party cohesion is required to fulfill the goals of the Democratic Party; bipartisan cohesion is not (and this is true for the Republican party as well), and you cannot have cohesion without partial adoption of Bernie's policies. Second in this political climate, party cohesion is possible through compromise; bipartisan cohesion is not (the Republican idea of compromise is literally having everything unlike the perspective of Bernie's camp); the divide between Republicans and Democrats is utterly intractable and the two are anathema; the divide between Hillary and Bernie not so much, so this makes representation of the minority a thing that is possible.


EDIT: Also Bernie doesn't want the VP slot, and seeing as it would rob him of real power in the Senate, his supporters largely don't want it either.



I assume it's funny because it's true?

Some of them are respectful, yes. But not all of them. Others want to dominate the discussion with their needs and their views, regardless of what anyone else has to say. This radical subset has become their own worst enemy. They will not listen to anyone but themselves and their leader.

Make that most, and the only reason Bernie supporters will not listen by and large is because they are not being respected and not being given a voice commensurate to their numbers.

You should not throw stones in a glass house.

The petulance of a minority of Bernie supporters != the petulance of the likely Dem nominee who has far more power and therefore far more responsibility than them to diffuse this situation.
 
Last edited:
So now I understand your anger and frustration. You seem to think Sanders supporters are dreaming of a VP slot as a consolation prize.
Kiss of Death is more like it. Putting Sanders in the Veep slot is the biggest waste of his energy imaginable, and I guarantee you most Bernie people agree that it's a TERRIBLE idea, so that's all in your head, or in the minds of other people who view him as a threat instead of as an asset.

As the loser of the nomination, Sanders is best as a returning member of the Senate, where he will be spending some well earned political capital.
Congress is wallowing in single digit approval ratings while Bernie has earned the respect of TENS OF MILLIONS.
And NO member of Congress ever crowdsourced a campaign of any kind, so that also speaks to Bernie's credibility which, compared to THEIRS, is light years ahead.

I assure you, almost NO ONE wants a "Vice President Bernie Sanders', even if a Hillary impeachment were to succeed, because an accidental Sanders presidency is NOT a SANDERS presidency, it's damage control.

I need to get back to reality. We're both liberals fer Chrissakes, so ask me some questions, okay?
I think you'd be surprised to find out that I am not some understudy for Che Guevara.
I'm just a new deal liberal and so is Sanders. Most of what he wants, we once had in this country in one form or another.
It is not uncharted territory, and most of it worked rather well. I know, because I grew up benefiting from it.

You are preaching to the choir with me on the New Deal but this I know, ideology is worthless if it is just talk and not made into law. I also see that Berniiites have no idea that they could be jeopardizing all we have gained by painting Hillary into a corner. The people have spoken and they have given a 3 million vote plurality to Hillary. There is a greater danger than a 1000 Hillary's out there and it is the Dems losing the election. The last thing we want now is another Democrat giving Trump more attack lines. Why can't they just stop and regroup... using their energy to get back Democratic majorities in Congress would be far more likely to encourage progressive change than wasting their energies helping the opposition. I am confused what that stand to gain from this, and I sincerely hope it ends after Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
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.

You need to stop being so childish and wake the **** up and realize political alignments and candidates aren't as important as stopping a dictator from seizing power. Do you want to continue to encourage Sanders supporters and Hillary supporters holding this country hostage with the possibility of a Trump presidency? If so, continue with your indigence and arrogant contempt of the opposing bloc. Actions have consequences, and there is no excuse when it is a tactic that has been shown to have an historical legitimacy (LBJ and JFK is the most renown), and own up to the fact that continuing down this path will have its equivalent consequence, cause and effect.

At this point, the only thing that can stop Trump and starve his demagoguery is peace. You need to realize that BOTH SIDES (both, ****'s sake, BOTH) are being ridiculous and selfish and overall asshats and are elevating their agenda of discrediting their opponents' candidate over stopping Donald Trump from becoming President.
 
You are preaching to the choir with me on the New Deal but this I know, ideology is worthless if it is just talk and not made into law. I also see that Berniiites have no idea that they could be jeopardizing all we have gained by painting Hillary into a corner. The people have spoken and they have given a 3 million vote plurality to Hillary. There is a greater danger than a 1000 Hillary's out there and it is the Dems losing the election. The last thing we want now is another Democrat giving Trump more attack lines. Why can't they just stop and regroup... using their energy to get back Democratic majorities in Congress that would be far more likely to encourage progressive change than wasting their energies helping the opposition. I am confused what that stand to gain from this, and I sincerely hope it ends after Tuesday.

Because you won't give us the representation we deserve, and that representation is what we stand to gain by forcing Hillary to do what she should have been willing to from the outset if she was ever serious about unifying the party: compromise.
 
Make that most, and the only reason Bernie supporters will not listen by and large is because they are not being respected and not being given a voice commensurate to their numbers.

They are being shown respect...by Hillary and her supporters. Yeah...some take unnecessary shots at him...but that if the nature of the political beast.

And as for "being given a voice commensurate to their numbers"...they are. But some...like you, for instance, have a very inflated notion of what "their numbers" are...and just how much has to be "given."

I agree that accommodation must be made...and compromise must occur...

...but as I see it, the stumbling block is not coming from the Hillary (winning) side, but from the Sanders (losing) side.

I understand how lousy losing feels...I've felt it myself many times. But there is now a winner...and a loser. And everyone has to acknowledge that.
 
There are theories of libertarian philosophy that are closer to socialism than anarchy (heck, socialism and anarchy are not always at opposite ends of the spectrum themselves). In the end, the branch of libertarian philosophy that is anarchist is very small. The vast majority deals with, promotes, non-zero government. Left leaning libertarianism even promotes social programs and safe guards as a way to increase the overall liberty of the People.

I'm well aware of that, but we're not talking about Libertarian Socialism when we're discussing American Libertarianism. American Libertarians follow simple rules on policy proposals and those rules generally line up with what an anarchist would suggest- less government. This is because they mistakenly believe that government is diametrically opposed to liberty, while others acknowledge that the government is uniquely capable of securing liberty.
 
Back
Top Bottom