bernie was out for himself not the Democratic party

[Русский агент]

Hillary spotted sending a text:

Spoiler

 

[christiefan915]

Our President is elected based on the electoral college. Not the popular vote.

I voted for Johnson, because unlike you... I couldn't vote for either of the completely unethical, incompetent twits the two parties put forth. You on the other hand are 100% partisan hack. You will do and say whatever your Dem masters tell you to.

You voted for Mr. "What is a leppo?"

You have no business criticizing any liberal for their votes.

 

[Amadeus]

I disagree.

Sanders was and remains a flawed candidate with lots of ideas and few accomplishments .. and he comes with messy dirt of his own.

Sanders isn't a democrat and should have never been allowed to run in the democratic primary in the first place.

That being said, unless democrats get it together and stop sniping at each other like children, they will not be able to take advantage of this massive opening that Trump has created for them.

Well, I agree that Sanders is and was a flawed candidate, which is why my support for him has never been full. That said, he's significantly better than Hillary, who believes that the 1990s Clinton presidency was close to perfection, who didn't possess any leadership characteristics, wasn't inspirational, and who simply would have been a backward step from Obama. Bernie's policies were BETTER. Clinton knew that she couldn't compete on policy, which is why Bernie moved her towards him, and not the other way around. And it's not about promising the Moon and the stars, it's about having a forward-looking agenda. Clinton was made palatable ONLY by Bernie's platform input.

 

[Amadeus]

Stuff like this is why Hillary was a hard pill to swallow, and why Bernie provided a semblance of moral clarity.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/

 

[blackascoal]

I think you are posting distortions, and wrong-headed about Bernie, who I strongly support. He absolutely should have been allowed to run for the Democratic nomination - leave it up to the voters to decide.

But I also agree with you about the need for unity. Once Bernie lost the nomination to Hillary, I supported her and told other Bernie supporters to do the same - as Bernie did. There wasn't a chance he'd run third party and split the vote hurting Democrats.

In that spirit of unity I won't revisit all that I find wrong with Sanders .. other than to say that they are not distortions.

I'm not sure how or why a non-democrat should be the head of the Democratic Party, but I'm hoping that he does not try this again, or move to further divide the party.

One of the major problems with the party is that it's led by really old people fighting old people battles within the party. Many of them are approaching 80 years old.

Where is the party system of involving younger people?

 

[Craig234]

In that spirit of unity I won't revisit all that I find wrong with Sanders .. other than to say that they are not distortions.

I'm not sure how or why a non-democrat should be the head of the Democratic Party, but I'm hoping that he does not try this again, or move to further divide the party.

One of the major problems with the party is that it's led by really old people fighting old people battles within the party. Many of them are approaching 80 years old.

Where is the party system of involving younger people?

Well, you don't get any credit for claiming flaws but not justifying the claim. I understand the concern about his being an independent, but the bottom line is the point you didn't respond to - not only do I think he's the best Democrat whatever his registration, but he's the most popular leader with Democratic voters, and so ya, he can head the party. He only gets to if the voters pick him.

But remember this as well - you want to win elections, right? His independent status can help him appeal to independents, who are a bigger group than either of the two parties.

I wouldn't support that argument if it was in favor of a centrist, but Bernie is to the left of mainstream Democrats so I am comfortable doing so. I also understand your point about younger Democrats.

I think that change is coming there - but I want them to be good Democrats, not just younger ones. Same with people of color.

 

[blackascoal]

Well, I agree that Sanders is and was a flawed candidate, which is why my support for him has never been full. That said, he's significantly better than Hillary, who believes that the 1990s Clinton presidency was close to perfection, who didn't possess any leadership characteristics, wasn't inspirational, and who simply would have been a backward step from Obama. Bernie's policies were BETTER. Clinton knew that she couldn't compete on policy, which is why Bernie moved her towards him, and not the other way around. And it's not about promising the Moon and the stars, it's about having a forward-looking agenda. Clinton was made palatable ONLY by Bernie's platform input.

I don't disagree that some of Sanders's policies were better than Hillary's .. but how many of them could actually get passed?

How willing would the democratic establishment be to go along with his world view, particularly when it comes to Israel and war?

His not being a democrat would indeed be a problem outside of his supporters.

It would be best for the party if Sanders and Clinton stepped away from the mic.

 

[blackascoal]

Well, you don't get any credit for claiming flaws but not justifying the claim. I understand the concern about his being an independent, but the bottom line is the point you didn't respond to - not only do I think he's the best Democrat whatever his registration, but he's the most popular leader with Democratic voters, and so ya, he can head the party. He only gets to if the voters pick him.

But remember this as well - you want to win elections, right? His independent status can help him appeal to independents, who are a bigger group than either of the two parties.

I wouldn't support that argument if it was in favor of a centrist, but Bernie is to the left of mainstream Democrats so I am comfortable doing so. I also understand your point about younger Democrats.

I think that change is coming there - but I want them to be good Democrats, not just younger ones. Same with people of color.

I didn't state the flaws because I was trying to move on from them, but if you insist you can start with his legislative record .. full of big ideas, lacking in actual legislative accomplishments.

It's fun to criticize Hillary for supporting her husbands 1994 draconian mass incarceration crime bill .. but she was the First Lady, thus couldn't vote for it .. but Bernie Sanders could and did.

Sanders has been a fierce supporter of nearly every boondoggle clusterfuck the military industrial complex could come up with for years .. all while pretending to be some kind of peacenik.

Whether you agree or not, I can respect your opinion, but one thing that is not debatable is that Sanders will be almost 80 years old in 2020 .. which would make him the oldest US president in history by almost 10 years.

Isn't it time that democrats moved on from Clinton / Sanders and address the reality at hand?

 

[Craig234]

I didn't state the flaws because I was trying to move on from them, but if you insist you can start with his legislative record .. full of big ideas, lacking in actual legislative accomplishments.

That's not a bad thing about him. It's called leadership and he's the most effective leader in the country in decades at the country moving to his positions. I could list several, but $15 minimum wages and Medicare for All have never been nearly this accepted.

It's fun to criticize Hillary for supporting her husbands 1994 draconian mass incarceration crime bill .. but she was the First Lady, thus couldn't vote for it .. but Bernie Sanders could and did.

Bills often have mixes of good and bad in them. Bernie voted for that bill for its ban on assault weapons and protections for women - see his statement here.

https://berniesanders.com/press-rel...eapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/

Sanders has been a fierce supporter of nearly every boondoggle clusterfuck the military industrial complex could come up with for years .. all while pretending to be some kind of peacenik.

Uh, that's not evidence. The most prominent question is that unlike a majority of Democratic Senators, he votes against the authorization for force in Iraq for Bush.

The other one that gets thrown at him is for building a fighter in Vermont, where he explains, it was going to be built no matter how he voted, the only question was where, and he does represent Vermont.

Whether you agree or not, I can respect your opinion, but one thing that is not debatable is that Sanders will be almost 80 years old in 2020 .. which would make him the oldest US president in history by almost 10 years.

That's factually correct - and he just kicked Ted Cruz's rear debating him on the GOP budget, doing more than any Democrat did against it. He's in fine shape now for the presidency IMO.

Isn't it time that democrats moved on from Clinton / Sanders and address the reality at hand?

The differences between the Hillary wing and the Bernie wing IS the reality at hand that needs to be resolved in the party. There is a war which will rule the party and we need to deal with that, not ignore it until it divides the party again.

Hillary and Bernie are just leaders of each faction.

We need to build more unity.

 

[blackascoal]

That's not a bad thing about him. It's called leadership and he's the most effective leader in the country in decades at the country moving to his positions. I could list several, but $15 minimum wages and Medicare for All have never been nearly this accepted.

It's fun to criticize Hillary for supporting her husbands 1994 draconian mass incarceration crime bill .. but she was the First Lady, thus couldn't vote for it .. but Bernie Sanders could and did.

Bills often have mixes of good and bad in them. Bernie voted for that bill for its ban on assault weapons and protections for women - see his statement here.

https://berniesanders.com/press-rel...eapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/



Uh, that's not evidence. The most prominent question is that unlike a majority of Democratic Senators, he votes against the authorization for force in Iraq for Bush.

The other one that gets thrown at him is for building a fighter in Vermont, where he explains, it was going to be built no matter how he voted, the only question was where, and he does represent Vermont.

Whether you agree or not, I can respect your opinion, but one thing that is not debatable is that Sanders will be almost 80 years old in 2020 .. which would make him the oldest US president in history by almost 10 years.

That's factually correct - and he just kicked Ted Cruz's rear debating him on the GOP budget, doing more than any Democrat did against it. He's in fine shape now for the presidency IMO.



The differences between the Hillary wing and the Bernie wing IS the reality at hand that needs to be resolved in the party. There is a war which will rule the party and we need to deal with that, not ignore it until it divides the party again.

Hillary and Bernie are just leaders of each faction.

We need to build more unity.

Hopefully you aren't one of the many Sanders supporters who voted for Trump out of spite.

I agree that the party needs more unity, but I fail to see how regurgitating the rift between Sanders and Clinton supporters .. which will never get resolved .. is going to help the future of the party.

If memory serves, I don't remember Sanders winning the black vote in a single state. That was not just happenstance, nor was it because of overwhelming black support for Hillary. Rather, it was due to Sanders having no real connection to the black community nor its issues. Democrats don't win the White House without energized black support. Sanders did not have it.

It's a long read, but you might consider another point of view ..

How Bernie Sanders lost black voters
https://splinternews.com/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters-1793860129

Sanders supporters helped to put Donald Trump into the White House. Good luck trying to solve that.

 

[Bill]

Well, I agree that Sanders is and was a flawed candidate, which is why my support for him has never been full. That said, he's significantly better than Hillary, who believes that the 1990s Clinton presidency was close to perfection, who didn't possess any leadership characteristics, wasn't inspirational, and who simply would have been a backward step from Obama. Bernie's policies were BETTER. Clinton knew that she couldn't compete on policy, which is why Bernie moved her towards him, and not the other way around. And it's not about promising the Moon and the stars, it's about having a forward-looking agenda. Clinton was made palatable ONLY by Bernie's platform input.

Personally I am not pleased w/ the direction the dem party is staying on........ They are not interested in moving in a more progressive direction~pelosi & shumar are the 90's & are merely waiting for trumpf to implode......

Their new deal was a flop & they haven't even bothered to come up w/ a new~better gimmick to drive interest/support........

 

[anatta]

Personally I am not pleased w/ the direction the dem party is staying on........ They are not interested in moving in a more progressive direction~pelosi & shumar are the 90's & are merely waiting for trumpf to implode......

Their new deal was a flop & they haven't even bothered to come up w/ a new~better gimmick to drive interest/support........

I'm thinking the Progressive wing is getting more powerful.
but they haven't exactly had a message either except for "da resistance"-common enough for the out party.
Everyone has been focused on Mueller -but that is not an electoral strategy.

The can't go into the midterms with just that though, unless Trump's economy suddenly stalls

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I'm thinking the Progressive wing is getting more powerful.
but they haven't exactly had a message either except for "da resistance"-common enough for the out party.
Everyone has been focused on Mueller -but that is not an electoral strategy.

The can't go into the midterms with just that though, unless Trump's economy suddenly stalls

People always say that about message, but if you look at the local races - like the one in VA now - you'll hear it.

Of course it's not nationally, because the Dems don't have a national voice right now. They have zero power, and barely have any influence on the legislative agenda in DC.

 

[anatta]

People always say that about message, but if you look at the local races - like the one in VA now - you'll hear it.

Of course it's not nationally, because the Dems don't have a national voice right now. They have zero power, and barely have any influence on the legislative agenda in DC.

yes "all politics are local"-but people do have generalized ideas about the partys.

If I asked you
"what is the Democratic party's platform now that Trump is in Office?' could you answer?
I couldn't except for da resistance.

absent voting for or against a particular candidates ideas, the national party message is considered

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

yes "all politics are local"-but people do have generalized ideas about the partys.

If I asked you
"what is the Democratic party's platform now that Trump is in Office?' could you answer?
I couldn't except for da resistance.

absent voting for or against a particular candidates ideas, the national party message is considered

That's the way it always is. All of the MAGA stuff you're all gaga over wasn't really the GOP's national message until Trump came down an escalator in all of his buffoonish glory.

That's how it goes. In '18, people will vote based on what they hear from their local candidates (and as backlash to Trump).

 

[anatta]

That's the way it always is. All of the MAGA stuff you're all gaga over wasn't really the GOP's national message until Trump came down an escalator in all of his buffoonish glory.

That's how it goes. In '18, people will vote based on what they hear from their local candidates (and as backlash to Trump).

that was a presidential election, and there are Republicans who will run this cycle on that message
(not MAGA - but that platform).

so you are relying on the anti-Trump vote for locals, but not a Democratic message for locals?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

that was a presidential election, and there are Republicans who will run this cycle on that message
(not MAGA - but that platform).

so you are relying on the anti-Trump vote for locals, but not a Democratic message for locals?

Um...anatta? I said backlash to Trump, AND what they hear from their local candidates.

The latter one? That will very much be the Democratic message.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

And don't underestimate "backlash to Trump."

Trump has the base, but that is all. No candidate has inspired so much negative emotion in voters - not even Hillary.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Oh, please. If you want total freedom, you can exit America immediately and buy a plot of land in in the mountains of Afghanistan. Otherwise, you accept and BENEFIT from the limits to freedom of a civilized society. The free market alone cannot govern or sustain a civilized society. The economy requires regulations, and society requires laws. I don't trust your word that you'd not violate my freedoms without those protections.

Give it up. Your ideal society is more akin to the old Soviet Russia. Total government control.

 

[TTQ64]

yes "all politics are local"-but people do have generalized ideas about the partys.

If I asked you
"what is the Democratic party's platform now that Trump is in Office?' could you answer?
I couldn't except for da resistance.

absent voting for or against a particular candidates ideas, the national party message is considered

If the dems do what you want them to do, they might as well vote racist republican.

We don't get our agenda from the likes of you or your ilk.

You are the biggest fraud on this board. You don't want the dems to win anything. You are a true racist and cheer for the republican agenda in all it's racist form.