Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Beelzebuddy]

There's so much straw in there I'd worry about spontaneous combustion.

No, that's hyperbole, meant to call attention to an inherent contradiction in insulting the people whose cooperation you need to win. A straw man would be written with the implication that someone was actually advocating that position, which I certainly hope isn't the case.

What would you say to Hillary supporters if she lost the primary resoundingly yet they were trying to force Bernie to adopt her entire platform with the threat of staying home and letting Trump win?

I would be telling the Berniecrats to suck it up and compromise, same as I'm telling the Hillary folks now.

Like it or not, modern American politics has been set up so that a blowhard joke of a candidate can be despised by the public, discarded by the big funding sources, disowned by his own party, and still have a pretty decent shot at winning, all because there's an (R) or (D) next to his name. Like it or not, Bernie captured a large enough slice of the Democrat support base that you need them all back on board. Need.

So look over the last few dozen pages of insults you've left in this thread, and consider how much crow you're going to have to eat to make up for it and keep the country out of Trump's tiny orange hands.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No, that's hyperbole, meant to call attention to an inherent contradiction in insulting the people whose cooperation you need to win. A straw man would be written with the implication that someone was actually advocating that position, which I certainly hope isn't the case.

Then my apologies. I sometimes produce strings of hyperbole, myself, to make a point.

I would be telling the Berniecrats to suck it up and compromise, same as I'm telling the Hillary folks now.

Like it or not, modern American politics has been set up so that a blowhard joke of a candidate can be despised by the public, discarded by the big funding sources, disowned by his own party, and still have a pretty decent shot at winning, all because there's an (R) or (D) next to his name. Like it or not, Bernie captured a large enough slice of the Democrat support base that you need them all back on board. Need.

So look over the last few dozen pages of insults you've left in this thread, and consider how much crow you're going to have to eat to make up for it and keep the country out of Trump's tiny orange hands.

I beg to differ on who won't compromise. I see a lot more intransigence, even if it's posturing, from the Bernie side.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
So look over the last few dozen pages of insults you've left in this thread, and consider how much crow you're going to have to eat to make up for it and keep the country out of Trump's tiny orange hands.

Are you insinuating tony stark will have to eat crow ?

All the Clinton supporters in the thread ?

the DNC ?

HRC ?

Most of the "insulting" in this thread I have seen has been reserved for:
a) ridiculous arguments that Bernie was somehow "winning"
b) conspiracy theory type arguments regarding the DNC and voter suppression

Clinton herself has been more than gracious enough and compromising to Bernie, who, frankly, is acting like a little bitch by not conceding and endorsing her at this point.

 

[wareyin]

So look over the last few dozen pages of insults you've left in this thread, and consider how much crow you're going to have to eat to make up for it and keep the country out of Trump's tiny orange hands.

You do realize, I hope, that Tony Stark was a Sanders supporter, who voted for Sanders, correct? And now that he, like most Sanders supporters, has seen that Sanders has failed and that the choice is Trump or Clinton, Tony Stark has picked Clinton. So you are asking a Sanders supporter to eat crow over living in reality rather than the "Bernie bubble"?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I beg to differ on who won't compromise. I see a lot more intransigence, even if it's posturing, from the Bernie side.

Intransigence met by indifference. The rhetoric seems to be "you might as well give up and support the lesser evil," which some understandably reject.

You do realize, I hope, that Tony Stark was a Sanders supporter, who voted for Sanders, correct? And now that he, like most Sanders supporters, has seen that Sanders has failed and that the choice is Trump or Clinton, Tony Stark has picked Clinton. So you are asking a Sanders supporter to eat crow over living in reality rather than the "Bernie bubble"?

I was mostly responding to

Bernie Bro dumbasses

Seems to me, if you really need those dumbasses on your side, to the point where the dumbasses can throw the whole game just by not playing ball, maybe their asses ain't so dumb as all that.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Intransigence met by indifference. The rhetoric seems to be "you might as well give up and support the lesser evil," which some understandably reject.

Actually it's "stop living in a fantasy world and accept reality", which some people understandably reject because they are deluded.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Intransigence met by indifference. The rhetoric seems to be "you might as well give up and support the lesser evil," which some understandably reject.


I was mostly responding to


Seems to me, if you really need those dumbasses on your side, to the point where the dumbasses can throw the whole game just by not playing ball, maybe their asses ain't so dumb as all that.

We're not the ones in charge of converting the intransigent Bernie supporters. That's Hillary's job and she's done a pretty diplomatic job of it. As I said earlier on, he got a minority of the electoral votes, the popular votes and the states won. Further, if you analyze it, he got his major wins in caucus states and his voume of wins, for the most part, in states the Dems aren't going to carry nor even contest.

The rhetoric out of the Bernie delegation is that they're not happy with any compromised variations, they want Bernie's policies adapted. Period. They could walk away with huge partial victories and really build on the foundation of a progressive wing. Instead, they're running the risk of voters not voting. As we saw in the poll in the Dallas News, forty per cent of Bernie's supporters in that state are still saying that they won't vote for Hillary. The longer he holds out, the worse that recalcitrance will get.

He should have packed it in after NY. Unless he's terminally ill and planning to die this year, he could've been working on getting something done instead of making gestures. The platform is a gesture.

 

[wareyin]

Intransigence met by indifference. The rhetoric seems to be "you might as well give up and support the lesser evil," which some understandably reject.


I was mostly responding to


Seems to me, if you really need those dumbasses on your side, to the point where the dumbasses can throw the whole game just by not playing ball, maybe their asses ain't so dumb as all that.

I think you are over-estimating the amount of dumbasses who will not play ball. It is common for backers of the losing candidate to claim they won't support the winning candidate. In 2008, half of Clinton's supporters claimed they would not support Obama, yet iirc over 80% did vote for Obama.

 

[wareyin]

As we saw in the poll in the Dallas News, forty per cent of Bernie's supporters in that state are still saying that they won't vote for Hillary. The longer he holds out, the worse that recalcitrance will get.

How accurate is extrapolating 40% of Sanders supporters in Texas, a state that isn't going to vote Dem anytime soon, to Sanders supporters across the country?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The rhetoric out of the Bernie delegation is that they're not happy with any compromised variations,

The one proposed compromise I'm familiar with barely qualified as not insulting. I don't think it would take much - this was the idealism faction. Give 'em some empty promises and legislation that congress would never pass in a million years, and they'd be happy. Why is that so difficult? It's what politicians do.

I think you are over-estimating the amount of dumbasses who will not play ball.

Maybe, but if so there's no need to win them over. "Vote for Hillary, or not, whatever."

 

[wareyin]

Maybe, but if so there's no need to win them over. "Vote for Hillary, or not, whatever."

I still find it baffling that someone who would think Clinton would be bad for the Presidency would accept Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sanders is on MSNBC right now saying his "job" is to keep doing what's he's done the whole campaign. He's still running his same campaign. He's going on and on about Clinton needs to shift to Sanders' positions on everything. That's what he's fighting for, yadda yadda.

He's simply refusing to admit he lost. And refusing to admit, Clinton already holds positions very close to his.

 

[Tony Stark]

The one proposed compromise I'm familiar with barely qualified as not insulting. I don't think it would take much - this was the idealism faction. Give 'em some empty promises and legislation that congress would never pass in a million years, and they'd be happy. Why is that so difficult? It's what politicians do.


Maybe, but if so there's no need to win them over. "Vote for Hillary, or not, whatever."

Then they will just be all pissed off and delusioned when say single payer healthcare doesn't come to fruition and blame it on Hillary because they don't know how things work.

This whole loser staying in a race he already lost in an attempt to force the winner to accept his platform is crazy to me. It also suggests to me that he is very incompetent at politics. He probably could have got more concessions if he agreed to drop out months ago and endorse Hillary. Now his leverage is decreasing given that Trump is imploding in slow motion to such a degree that there is serious talk of overthrowing him at the convention.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The one proposed compromise I'm familiar with barely qualified as not insulting. I don't think it would take much - this was the idealism faction. Give 'em some empty promises and legislation that congress would never pass in a million years, and they'd be happy. Why is that so difficult? It's what politicians do.


Maybe, but if so there's no need to win them over. "Vote for Hillary, or not, whatever."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clinton/?postshare=4351467137643234&tid=ss_tw

That's a stunning answer from Sanders. What he's saying -- if you read between the lines -- is that the ball is in Clinton's court when it comes to winning his endorsement. Not only does he think she needs to come to him, but he also believes she still has to prove that she is "prepared to stand with them [the American people], as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford healthcare, as their kids can't afford to go to college."

Now seems like a good time to revisit the fact that Clinton has already effectively won the Democratic nomination over Sanders, not the other way around. It's good to remind yourself of that fact because from reading Sanders's quote above, you would assume he won.

That was far from the only condescending/deeply unrealistic thing Sanders had to say about Clinton in his interview with Mitchell.

 

[SOdhner]

Can there be a simple discussion in this thread without condescension?

I was aiming more for incredulity.

No, overall, California won't change anything. <snip> I just made the point that Bernie was catching up in California, as they're still counting votes.

But it's completely irrelevant if the specific percentage in California shifts a little, so it is equally irrelevant that they are still counting.

I've never said that Bernie was going to win. I just said that Hillary won't until the convention. That's all.

This is something I've seen from several Bernie supporters lately. "Technically I will admit he can't win... but also he's catching up and they're still counting votes and I hear there's a lawsuit and anything could happen at the convention Clinton hasn't won yet!"

There are 717 superdelegates. She needs 163. That's less than a quarter of the superdelegates, for someone that got the popular vote and the regular delegates and is polling extremely well against trump. You really think that more than 554 superdelegates are going to vote for Sanders instead?

How about we just say she won? Because she won.

 

[Fudbucker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clinton/?postshare=4351467137643234&tid=ss_tw

That's a stunning answer from Sanders. What he's saying -- if you read between the lines -- is that the ball is in Clinton's court when it comes to winning his endorsement. Not only does he think she needs to come to him, but he also believes she still has to prove that she is "prepared to stand with them [the American people], as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford healthcare, as their kids can't afford to go to college."

Now seems like a good time to revisit the fact that Clinton has already effectively won the Democratic nomination over Sanders, not the other way around. It's good to remind yourself of that fact because from reading Sanders's quote above, you would assume he won.

That was far from the only condescending/deeply unrealistic thing Sanders had to say about Clinton in his interview with Mitchell.

"Again, the belief undergirding Sanders's comments is that he alone -- and, therefore, not Clinton -- is the person who can bring transformational change to end the "decline of the American middle class." That Clinton is either insufficiently committed to doing so or simply incapable of bringing that sort of change about. That she sees politics as "a baseball game of winners and losers" while he sees it as "protect[ing] the needs of millions of people in this country who are hurting."

It's almost as if Bernie is saying someone who would give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs (and be all secretive about what she said) isn't serious about transformational change and ending the decline of the middle class.

Where does Bernie get these ideas???

This is entirely Clinton's mess. By 2013, Bill had made over $100 million in speeches. Hillary, for whatever bizarre reason, decided she needed more money and gave speeches to a company that has paid billions in fines, was at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis, and is universally despised by liberals. And now she has the audacity to wonder why someone might question her commitment to the middle class? Please.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"Again, the belief undergirding Sanders's comments is that he alone -- and, therefore, not Clinton -- is the person who can bring transformational change to end the "decline of the American middle class." That Clinton is either insufficiently committed to doing so or simply incapable of bringing that sort of change about. That she sees politics as "a baseball game of winners and losers" while he sees it as "protect[ing] the needs of millions of people in this country who are hurting."

It's almost as if Bernie is saying someone who would give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs (and be all secretive about what she said) isn't serious about transformational change and ending the decline of the middle class.

Where does Bernie get these ideas???

This is entirely Clinton's mess. By 2013, Bill had made over $100 million in speeches. Hillary, for whatever bizarre reason, decided she needed more money and gave speeches to a company that has paid billions in fines, was at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis, and is universally despised by liberals. And now she has the audacity to wonder why someone might question her commitment to the middle class? Please.

"Again, the belief undergirding Sanders's comments is that he alone -- and, therefore, not Clinton -- is the person who can bring transformational change to end the "decline of the American middle class."

Where does Bernie get these ideas???

 

[Tony Stark]

"Again, the belief undergirding Sanders's comments is that he alone -- and, therefore, not Clinton -- is the person who can bring transformational change to end the "decline of the American middle class." That Clinton is either insufficiently committed to doing so or simply incapable of bringing that sort of change about. That she sees politics as "a baseball game of winners and losers" while he sees it as "protect[ing] the needs of millions of people in this country who are hurting."

It's almost as if Bernie is saying someone who would give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs (and be all secretive about what she said) isn't serious about transformational change and ending the decline of the middle class.

Where does Bernie get these ideas???

This is entirely Clinton's mess. By 2013, Bill had made over $100 million in speeches. Hillary, for whatever bizarre reason, decided she needed more money and gave speeches to a company that has paid billions in fines, was at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis, and is universally despised by liberals. And now she has the audacity to wonder why someone might question her commitment to the middle class? Please.

I would take their money too. Why not. You would be stupid not to. Such easy money for so little work. I guess I must be a secret Republican who wants to let Wall Street rape America.

Also, despite what you believe, the fact that they were already rich works against your "argument". She isn't going to be beholden to Wall Street just because they, amoung many others, paid her to perform a service.

This whole speech nonsense is a big nothing. The only people that pretend it is some huge deal are the ones who didn't like Hillary in the first place.

 

[Fudbucker]

I would take their money too. Why not. You would be stupid not to. Such easy money for so little work. I guess I must be a secret Republican who wants to let Wall Street rape America.

Also, despite what you believe, the fact that they were already rich works against your "argument". She isn't going to be beholden to Wall Street just because they, amoung many others, paid her to perform a service.

This whole speech nonsense is a big nothing. The only people that pretend it is some huge deal are the ones who didn't like Hillary in the first place.

No, if my spouse had already made over a hundred million I would not give speeches to Goldman Sachs.

But where do you draw the line, Tony Stark? You hate guns, right? What if the NRA offered you a couple hundred grand? Would you take their money and give the troops a pep talk? What if the KKK offered you a million to lead a white pride parade? Is there ANY group you wouldn't whore yourself out to?

 

[Tony Stark]

No, if my spouse had already made over a hundred million I would not give speeches to Goldman Sachs.

But where do you draw the line, Tony Stark? You hate guns, right? What if the NRA offered you a couple hundred grand? Would you take their money and give the troops a pep talk? What if the KKK offered you a million to lead a white pride parade? Is there ANY group you wouldn't whore yourself out to?

Yeah I would take the NRA's money if they were stupid enough to give it to me for so little work though they might not like what I would have to say. Better me have the money than them.