Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[TragicMonkey]

Jill Stein has literally no chance whatsoever of becoming President.

It's highly improbable, but still possible. For instance, a plague or a meteor strike could kill every single human being except Jill Stein. In that situation, she would be legally able to elect herself President and rewrite the Constitution however she likes.

The same doesn't apply to Ralph Nader, of course, even in that situation he'd still screw it up somehow.

 

[Trakar]

Yeah, and it is a fact that Republican SuperPACs attacked Hillary from the left (they openly admitted it). Did they do it because they agreed with those attacks? No they did it an extremely dishonest attempt to convince fanatical morons on the left that Hillary is practically a Republican.

Impossible,... all the fanatical morons on the left are convinced that Hillary is their savior and the only chance our nation has to survive the great Satan that is Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

Impossible,... all the fanatical morons on the left are convinced that Hillary is their savior and the only chance our nation has to survive the great Satan that is Trump.

We're lefties. We don't believe in a savior. And if we were to have a savior it wouldn't be Hillary.

But we'll take just about anyone over the narcissistic orange con man.

 

[Trakar]

We're lefties. We don't believe in a savior. And if we were to have a savior it wouldn't be Hillary.

But we'll take just about anyone over the narcissistic orange con man.

Which is the expected and typical result of such binary, "lessor evil," flawed world-views and coping mechanisms.

 

[wareyin]

Impossible,... all the fanatical morons on the left are convinced that Hillary is their savior and the only chance our nation has to survive the great Satan that is Trump.

Wait, I thought the refrain on here was that Clinton should kowtow to the Bernie or Bust crowd or she would definitely lose. Now you are saying they are all supporting her even though she didn't?

 

[acbytesla]

Which is the expected and typical result of such binary, "lessor evil," flawed world-views and coping mechanisms.

Nothing binary about it. It's about who is running with a reasonable possibility of winning that most closely represents our values and goals for the country. I'll give you a hint, it not the orange colored clown.

Yes, there are other candidates running than just those 2. However, it's more than reasonable to believe that the next Presicent will be a Democrat or a Republican since every President since Millard Fillmore has been.

You'll excuse me if I don't waste my vote on a delusion

My name isn't Sancho Panza

 

[Trakar]

Nothing binary about it. It's about who is running with a reasonable possibility of winning that most closely represents our values and goals for the country. I'll give you a hint, it not the orange colored clown.

Yes, there are other candidates running than just those 2. However, it's more than reasonable to believe that the next Presicent will be a Democrat or a Republican since every President since Millard Fillmore has been.

You'll excuse me if I don't waste my vote on a delusion

My name isn't Sancho Panza

I don't think there are many of any political persuasion who believe that anyone other than Hillary or Donald will be elected President this November. The question is which can actually do the greatest harm to the issues we individually care the most about, and which one will set back efforts to address those problems the least.

I see Donald as potentially problematic on several fronts, but as he has very little power or support within his own party establishment, is disliked by a majority of the population and is unlikely to present much in the way of down-ticket coattails, I don't see him or the potential of his administration as a major or lasting influence upon the issues which matter the most to me.

Hillary however, is not so hamstrung, she still has the full support of the Democratic party to enforce and rubber stamp her rightward corporatist (declawed, neutered regulatory agencies) moves and militaristic international (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) and domestic authoritarian (Patriot Act, NSA directives, Three Strikes, mandatory minimum, etc.) policies. The potential long-lasting damages to leftward policies, not to mention the rights and lives of peoples of all political persuasions under a Hillary administration is a scary proposition.

Loose cannons, that all recognize as such are not scary.
Untrustworthy "reformed" neocons being installed as leader of the left, that is scary.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think there are many of any political persuasion who believe that anyone other than Hillary or Donald will be elected President this November. The question is which can actually do the greatest harm to the issues we individually care the most about, and which one will set back efforts to address those problems the least.

I see Donald as potentially problematic on several fronts, but as he has very little power or support within his own party establishment, is disliked by a majority of the population and is unlikely to present much in the way of down-ticket coattails, I don't see him or the potential of his administration as a major or lasting influence upon the issues which matter the most to me.

Hillary however, is not so hamstrung, she still has the full support of the Democratic party to enforce and rubber stamp her rightward corporatist (declawed, neutered regulatory agencies) moves and militaristic international (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) and domestic authoritarian (Patriot Act, NSA directives, Three Strikes, mandatory minimum, etc.) policies. The potential long-lasting damages to leftward policies, not to mention the rights and lives of peoples of all political persuasions under a Hillary administration is a scary proposition.

Loose cannons, that all recognize as such are not scary.
Untrustworthy "reformed" neocons being installed as leader of the left, that is scary.

You'll excuse me if I conclude that your logic is incredibly flawed. Last I checked the Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress. They are likely to go along with at least some of his ideas. Also, Trump is 70 years old and his running mate is a social reactionary. Pence would only be a heartbeat from the Presidency.

Donald sets a tone that is racist and misogynist. Certainly not one that would unite the country and heal racial divisions. From a policy perspective I have no confidence in any of his positions so God only knows what he really wants to do.

From a domestic perspective I see Donald as a disaster. I can't imagine him ever being on the side of the working class. He now is against a woman's right to choose. And RBG isn't getting any younger. It wouldn't surprise me that 3 Justices could be appointed this next term. The impact on SCOTUS alone could be devastating to liberal causes.

But I find it interesting that you think that Hillary would be more militaristic than Donald since he can't help sabre rattling at every opportunity.

Frankly, I don't believe that you are a liberal. I think you are a poser.

I also know enough about Hillary to know that she is a liberal not a corporatist. Most of all she's pragmatic. She makes compromises that infuriate the purist left. But she does it to advance the overall good. She knows you have to give to get.

Sadly, far too many liberals are ignorant of this fact in governing.

 

[Travis]

In a way I almost want Trump to win so that when we are in the middle of the upcoming economic disaster and wars he starts (not to mention all the LGBT rights that get rolled back when he lets the right wing pick his SCOTUS candidates) I can go to the #NeverHillary crowd and ask them how their votes for Jill Stein are looking.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In a way I almost want Trump to win so that when we are in the middle of the upcoming economic disaster and wars he starts (not to mention all the LGBT rights that get rolled back when he lets the right wing pick his SCOTUS candidates) I can go to the #NeverHillary crowd and ask them how their votes for Jill Stein are looking.

That's weird.

 

[Tony Stark]

In a way I almost want Trump to win so that when we are in the middle of the upcoming economic disaster and wars he starts (not to mention all the LGBT rights that get rolled back when he lets the right wing pick his SCOTUS candidates) I can go to the #NeverHillary crowd and ask them how their votes for Jill Stein are looking.

Some of these morons want Trump to win because they think his disasterous Presidency would result in True Progressives finally being voted in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On another forum I post on, I was the only Clinton supporter that posted regularly in the politics threads. They are still still posting like ignorant HDS sufferers. Now they hate Sanders because he is a sell out. They were Sanders worshipers not that long ago.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Some of these morons want Trump to win because they think his disasterous Presidency would result in True Progressives finally being voted in.

Sounds like the whacko evangelical Christians who are hoping for Israel to be destroyed so it can trigger Armageddon and bring about the end of the world, which they will then be raptured away from.

 

[acbytesla]

Some of these morons want Trump to win because they think his disasterous Presidency would result in True Progressives finally being voted in.

As a true progressive I think these people's minds are clouded.

For example. The whine that Hillary takes too much money from big money donors so she can't be a true progressive. But of course this is ignoring the biggest Catch 22 in politics is that money is mother's milk in politics. Few people get elected without it. So if you want to change working conditions in Hell you're going to have to make a deal with the devil. I don't care how good you are.

I never took a purity vow when I went to college and I'm not about to start now.

The naivete of these people drive me crazy. I'm all in favor of lofty goals but I'm not going to say no to "better" because it's not perfect.

Some of these people are my best friends, but I'm sorry, this kind of stance is just stupid.

 

[Trakar]

You'll excuse me if I conclude that your logic is incredibly flawed.

Logic is only as good as the premises from which it is derived.

Last I checked the Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress. They are likely to go along with at least some of his ideas.

That control is tenuous at best, and highly divided, especially with regard to most things Trump. Would there be some shifts to more conservative economics, undoubtedly. We will see some of that regardless of whether Donald or Hillary is sitting in the White House, it's who they both are.

Also, Trump is 70 years old and his running mate is a social reactionary. Pence would only be a heartbeat from the Presidency.

And Hillary is a couple of months shy of 69, though I expect that short of an act of God, they would both make it through a single term. Neither Pence or Hillary offer anything desirous or good, but I can see how you would prefer Hillary over Pence. But the slight chance that Trump might die in the next year or two, however, isn't a good enough reason for me to offer Hillary or the Democratic party under her leadership any measure of support in November.

Donald sets a tone that is racist and misogynist.

Perhaps, I see it as more an issue of ignorance than malice, but either way, his tone is nothing I'd support or agree with, but I don't perceive any ability on his part to do any lasting or long-term national harm with regard to racism or sexism any more than I perceive any ability of Hillary to do any lasting or long-term national good with regard to either issue.

Certainly not one that would unite the country and heal racial divisions. From a policy perspective I have no confidence in any of his positions so God only knows what he really wants to do.

I don't disagree with you, though I do feel that this is mainly an ego-stroking opportunity for the man. More than this, however, I feel largely the same way about Hillary, in my opinion she exasperates differences and problems in this nation more than she heals or soothes those problems.

From a domestic perspective I see Donald as a disaster. I can't imagine him ever being on the side of the working class. [/quotes]

If he isn't, he will quickly lose the support of the only constituency that has consistently supported him.

He now is against a woman's right to choose
And RBG isn't getting any younger. It wouldn't surprise me that 3 Justices could be appointed this next term. The impact on SCOTUS alone could be devastating to liberal causes.

That would only happen if we had a Democratic President and Senate. I don't see any of the current Supreme court justices stepping down if Donald takes the White House, and if the Dems manage to take the Senate, I don't see Donald being able to successfully nominate any SC Justices to the bench.

But I find it interesting that you think that Hillary would be more militaristic than Donald since he can't help sabre rattling at every opportunity.[/Quote}

The Donald blusters like any cowardly bully trying to sound manly. You must not have paid any attention to Hillary's actions and statements over the last decade and a half.

Frankly, I don't believe that you are a liberal. I think you are a poser.

I'm not a liberal (or "conservative-lite" in my normal parlance), I am Progressive in the original American sense of the word.

I also know enough about Hillary to know that she is a liberal not a corporatist. Most of all she's pragmatic. She makes compromises that infuriate the purist left. But she does it to advance the overall good. She knows you have to give to get.

That sounds naively ignorant of her actual actions and most of her stated objectives over the course of her professional and political careers.

I have no problem with hard fought compromises, I just don't want to start the negotiations half way to the opposition's perfect solution.

Sadly, far too many liberals are ignorant of this fact in governing.

If you say so, I guess it's a good thing you are more enlightened. I'm sure that fits well into your belief system.

 

[acbytesla]

If the rationale for nominating Hillary is that "Bernie can't get anything past the GOP", it doesn't hold water. It would be hard to find somebody who the GOP hates more than Hillary. Yet, somehow, she's not going to have a problem with a Republican-controlled congress? Anything you could say about Bernie in that regard goes double for Hillary.

I'm helping to put Jill Stein in the White House. It's not my responsibility how other people vote. I can't stop people from voting for Trump, just like I can't stop you from voting for Hillary. At the end of the day, I'm only responsible for one vote: mine. It would be irresponsible for me to vote for somebody who I thought would be a bad president. Unfortunately, I think that both Hillary and Trump would make terrible presidents.

Now, clearly, you think that Hillary is the best pick for president. You're welcome to try changing my mind. But if all you can do is complain about Trump and call the GOP "scum" and "garbage", that's not a very convincing argument.

So, if my candidate doesn't win, I don't get to complain about the president? Can I hold you to that? If Hillary loses, and Trump wins, you can't complain about Trump?

Jill Stein has never been elected to any government office, not even dog catcher. She's never served a single other person than herself. She's a FIVE TIME LOSER and in November will be a SIX TIME LOSER.

You're not helping Jill Stein get elected. No, you are Sancha Panza helping Don Quixote fight windmills.

Good for you.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Contrary to Slings and Arrows post, I would argue that contrary to being a sellout, Bernie's endorsement while at the same time pushing for liberal causes demonstrates both his principles and his character.

His run wasn't about him, it was about everyday working people. What good would it do those every day people if Sanders split the vote leading to a Trump presidency?
Now that would be selfish.
That would have been unprincipled.
That would be truly selling out.

Minimum wage workers won't see their lives improve with a Republican agenda that not only opposes raises for these people but wants to eliminate a minimum wage altogether.

The poor and middle class need healthcare insurance, they don't need it taken away as the Republicans promise to do.

The young need skills and a higher education, they don't need to be saddled with a lifetime of bills that they can't pay off.

Endorsing Hillary at this time is a step in that direction. This is an example of a politician putting the country first.

I admire Bernie. He's not staging a vanity act. He's not stroking his ego.

Trump should pay attention. Bernie Sanders is a great human being and a great American.

Thank you Bernie for a lifetime of service.

I fully agree. Bernie made a great effort for what he believed in. In the end he didn't receive the majority opinion so he did what a good politician in a minority position does. He compromised and pushed forward with the better offer that was possible. Pushing Hillary and the Democratic Party further left is a major win in my opinion. If the down ticket vote turns out very positive in the Democratic Party's favor, that gives a wonderful time period to continue to push a more progressive agenda from the senate. Bernie's profile has been raised, his influence increased by his run. That gives him a stronger position to push the progressive agenda he represents.

Yes, a segment of his supporters are upset he hasn't fought for ideal perfection until he reached bitter irrelevancy. I do not discount them, but I also do not agree with them. As center-right the nation has been the past thirty six years, seeing the swing back towards the center-left picking up momentum is a wonderful change. I would rater remain positive on the possibilities of changes.

 

[Maya22]

I fully agree. Bernie made a great effort for what he believed in. In the end he didn't receive the majority opinion so he did what a good politician in a minority position does. He compromised and pushed forward with the better offer that was possible. Pushing Hillary and the Democratic Party further left is a major win in my opinion. If the down ticket vote turns out very positive in the Democratic Party's favor, that gives a wonderful time period to continue to push a more progressive agenda from the senate. Bernie's profile has been raised, his influence increased by his run. That gives him a stronger position to push the progressive agenda he represents.

I agree with this. Bernie Sanders has also inspired many people to consider running for office.

 

[Tony Stark]

I fully agree. Bernie made a great effort for what he believed in. In the end he didn't receive the majority opinion so he did what a good politician in a minority position does. He compromised and pushed forward with the better offer that was possible. Pushing Hillary and the Democratic Party further left is a major win in my opinion. If the down ticket vote turns out very positive in the Democratic Party's favor, that gives a wonderful time period to continue to push a more progressive agenda from the senate. Bernie's profile has been raised, his influence increased by his run. That gives him a stronger position to push the progressive agenda he represents.

Yes, a segment of his supporters are upset he hasn't fought for ideal perfection until he reached bitter irrelevancy. I do not discount them, but I also do not agree with them. As center-right the nation has been the past thirty six years, seeing the swing back towards the center-left picking up momentum is a wonderful change. I would rater remain positive on the possibilities of changes.

Well put.

 

[Trakar]

Clinton Inflames Progressive Base with Choice of Tim Kaine as Vice President
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...gressive-base-choice-tim-kaine-vice-president

...Reporting in recent days increasingly signaled that Kaine was Clinton's top choice, but the official announcement confirmed the worst fears of progressives who warned such a pick would be taken as "a pronounced middle finger" to the millions who voted for Sanders during the primary season. At stake, many critics of the choice indicate, are pressing issues—including reproductive rights, climate change, financial regulation, and corporate-friendly trade agreements—where Kaine holds positions far to the right of where they think the party, and the country, should be headed.

Instead of courting the energized progressive base activated and inspired by Sanders, Clinton's choice was interpreted as a calculated affront to those potential voters...

"Hillary Clinton could have sent a strong signal to the millions of people who voted for moving beyond decades of neo-liberal policies that have produced massive inequality in wealth, employment, health care, and education, as well as racial and gender disparities and an escalating climate crisis," Burger told Common Dreams in a statement. "Selecting Tim Kaine sends the opposite message, continue to accept the status quo and lower your expectations for real change or a future we can believe in."

According to Ruth Conniff, editor-in-chief of The Progressive magazine speaking to MSNBC's Chris Hayes when the news broke on Friday, the choice of Kaine will do nothing to excite people who voted for Bernie Sanders.

"It's just a sign that Hillary does not feel like she has to do anything for the progressive wing of the party," lamented Conniff. "And that's unfortunate."

In the last week alone, Kaine is on the record as pushing for new rounds of Wall Street deregulation and voicing active support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement—both in direct contradiction to what grassroots progressives have been demanding...

As Jodi Jacobson, writing for the reproductive rights blog Re-Wire, warned ahead of the official announcement, "The selection of Tim Kaine as vice president would be the first signal that Hillary Clinton intends to seek progressive votes but ignore progressive values and goals." The decision, she warned, would be "likely at her peril, and ours."

"First signal that Hillary Clinton intends to seek progressive votes but ignore progressive values and goals." —Jodi Jacobson, ReWireThat argument was echoed by Stephanie Taylor, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who told the New York Times that a pick like Kaine will be seen by many progressive and independent voters "as a proxy for how she will govern — boldly, or cautiously?" Referring to the historic number of small-dollar donors who fueled Sanders’ campaign, Taylor warned the choice "could deflate energy among potential donors and volunteers, hurting Democratic efforts to win the White House."...

But it should make the next week more entertaining.