[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Deleted]

All this "Bernie is getting no media attention and Clinton controls the media" can be fully put to rest: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...illary-clinton

Hillary Clinton has always had a bad rep with the media, they mostly hate her. She didn't even talk to them at the start of her campaign, they still don't like her.

So, journalists think that the media has been harsh to Hilary. If they were biased in her favour they would say that, they are hardly going to say "yes we gave her an easy ride". This proves nothing at all.

The raw data on media coverage is massively biased in Hilary's favour and you'd have to be born yesterday to believe that the Clinton-friendly owners of these corporations aren't exerting an influence.

[Skroe]

Or more likely, the Shillaries don't have anything relevant to talk about regarding their own candidate. (Only things they don't want to talk about, like E-mails and election fraud)

It's hard to be enthusiastic about a wet paper bag. But you're winning!!!

You misunderstand.

First Bernie. Next Trump.

2016 is the year extremists on the right and left get their once-every-half-century beat down.

- - - Updated - - -

Then I guess we should all hate Bernie for trying to change the system from the inside. What an asshole.

And how dare he accept donations from normal citizens instead of huge corporations, and SPEND it in an attempt to get elected? Like, who the hell does he think he is?

No. Not something so dramatic.

You simply should have demanded Bernie not employ literally the same old frauds and failures.

By the way, Obama didn't. And he beat Hillary.

[Daerio]

No. Not something so dramatic.

You simply should have demanded Bernie not employ literally the same old frauds and failures.

By the way, Obama didn't. And he beat Hillary.

Obama won without spending money?

Cut the bullshit. Hillary's campaign this cycle has been a carbon copy of Obama's. She's doubling down on the deceptive election-stealing techniques. The problem is, unlike her supporters last cycle, Bernie's aren't willing to jump ship for the de facto cheater. Because there was no real difference between her and Obama. There is a significant difference between her and Bernie. And since she isn't willing or able to close that gap, she's losing a ton of votes.

[Mavick]

Not too familiar with how the Supreme Court works are you? Congress cannot just pass a law, it was ruled on constitutional grounds. That means it would take an amendment or a conflicting Supreme Court ruling to get rid of Citizen's United. Other things a conservative Supreme Court could roll back? Civil rights, abortion rights, gay marriage rights, voting rights, discrimination laws, privacy rights, pretty much anything you've seen as a progressive achievement in generations. To think it is ONLY about Citizen's United is incredibly dense.

Ok, they pass an amendment, my bad on the wording, jesus christ.

And most of the other stuff can be covered by laws or amendments as well. Yes they're harder to pass, but they also have the backing of the majority of the country as well, so not out of the realm of possibility. Try nitpicking more.

[Theodarzna]

Bill Clinton appointed 2 of the more liberal justices to SCOTUS including Ginsberg. Are you really trying to say that Hillary Clinton, a democrat, will appoint more conservative justices to SCOTUS than a GOP president? You are letting your hatred for Clinton get in the way of logic.

- - - Updated - - -



Ok, I will ask the same question to you. Do you really think that Clinton will not appoint more liberal justices than a GOP president?

I am letting my knowledge of the Clintons evaluate their likelihood of doing so. Ruth Bader Ginsburg assumed office in August 10, 1993, and Bryer May 13, 1994. What do they have in common? They both came before November 8, 1994. Whats so special about that? Its when the Republicans got the congress.

Clinton will not have the more liberal congress of her husband when he appointed those two. She will have a staunchly republican congress. So, no, she won't be appointing liberal judges she will try to be conciliatory and give them conservatives. After all isn't that the point of the Clinton's? Their doing stuff Republicans would want is why allegedly all these republicans are going to turn out in droves to vote for her?

[Gray_Matter]

Sanders is a socialist, not a liberal.

Sanders supporters want a fair wage for a day's work. Gay rights, abortion, gun control, all that stuff is of secondary importance to being able to survive.

According to Bernie, he is a social democrat, not a socialist. There is a difference, BTW.

- - - Updated - - -

Clinton will not have the more liberal congress of her husband when he appointed those two. She will have a staunchly republican congress. So, no, she won't be appointing liberal judges she will try to be conciliatory and give them conservatives. After all isn't that the point of the Clinton's? Their doing stuff Republicans would want is why allegedly all these republicans are going to turn out in droves to vote for her?

Ok, so by your own words, a GOP president will have a conservative congress. What sort of justices could they appoint then? They will make Scalia look liberal. Also, what difference would Bernie make under those circumstances? He would have the same problem as Clinton.

[Theodarzna]

According to Bernie, he is a social democrat, not a socialist. There is a difference, BTW.

- - - Updated - - -



Ok, so by your own words, a GOP president will have a conservative congress. What sort of justices could they appoint then? They will make Scalia look liberal. Also, what difference would Bernie make under those circumstances? He would have the same problem as Clinton.

Bernie would appoint liberal judges and be blocked,

Hillary will appoint conservative judges and have a kabuki theater of them being stalled,

Trump will appoint conservative? Honestly who knows what he will do, judges and be stalled?

1 situation I can predict, one I can reasonable predict it going bad and the last is a wildcard.

[BuckSparkles]

Bernie would appoint liberal judges and be blocked,

Hillary will appoint conservative judges and have a kabuki theater of them being stalled,

Trump will appoint conservative? Honestly who knows what he will do, judges and be stalled?

1 situation I can predict, one I can reasonable predict it going bad and the last is a wildcard.

Trump I imagine would bring realistically a slightly-right of center judge. He isn't bound by religious convictions, so he has no need to go full Scalia.

[Matchles]

Ok, they pass an amendment, my bad on the wording, jesus christ.

And most of the other stuff can be covered by laws or amendments as well. Yes they're harder to pass, but they also have the backing of the majority of the country as well, so not out of the realm of possibility. Try nitpicking more.

It isn't nitpicking. Passing an amendment is much more difficult than passing a law. You will need 2/3 of both the House and Senate to even send it to the states for ratification and then you need 3/4 of the states to get the amendment through. The quickest an amendment has ever been ratified (so after the 2/3 majority vote in both houses) took more than 3 months. The longest took more than 200 years. Anything can be covered by an amendment, it just takes an extremely long time. Using that as an excuse for why the left doesn't need the supreme court is just ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

A message directed at the Bernie or Bust group.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/15092...utm_campaign=1

Let me state for the record that I'm not currently committed to either candidate. I like many of Sanders' progressive plans, and I respect Clinton's willingness to reexamine her views and admit her past mistakes. There's also plenty that I disagree with her on, particularly in matters of foreign policy and some fiscal points. However, I will also respect the result of the primary process, and I will support whichever candidate goes on to the general election. It's very disheartening to see the selfish, privileged, hardline Bernie or Bust stances.

The point is that if you're happy to let a GOP candidate win the presidency because Sanders isn't the Democratic candidate, you're not nearly as progressive as you think you are, and you probably should examine your own social privilege. Progressive values are about equality and security for those who are struggling the most. Marginalized people in the U.S. simply cannot afford to live under a radical Republican president for next four to eight years. The LGBTQ community, people of color, undocumented workers, Muslims, people in poverty, and women would all suffer greatly under the administration of any of the GOP hopefuls. Bernie or Bust means we're being thrown under the bus in the name of the white-male-dominated Sanders "revolution," and we're expected to be thankful for it.

To claim that Clinton is somehow "just as bad" as Trump or Ted Cruz is the height of political hyperbole. Trump has advocated building a $40 billion wall across the Mexican border, confining people to internment camps, keeping all Muslims in the U.S. under surveillance, and deporting all non-citizen Muslims. All of the Republican candidates have pushed back on marriage equality, advocated for "religious freedom" laws to allow discrimination against LGBTQ people, and made incredibly bigoted remarks against the LGBTQ community. In fact, the Republican Party has an official plank encouraging bills that trample the rights of transgender people. All the GOP candidates have pledged to further erode reproductive freedoms, and to shred access to healthcare provided by the Affordable Care Act. If you see Hillary Clinton as "just as bad," then you're failing entirely to see the situation from the eyes of people who have the most to lose.

Some have advocated that Democrats would be better served in focusing their energy on retaking Congress by pushing incumbent Republicans out of their seats in House and Senate elections that will also be occurring in November. The notion is that even with Trump or Cruz in the White House, they'll be hamstrung by Congress. Unfortunately, the GOP's significant efforts at gerrymandering over the last few years have made it extraordinarily difficult for the Democrats to seriously threaten the Republican control of the House. There's a moderately higher chance of Senate changing hands, but that's still far from certain in a post-Citizens-United era. Even if the Dems did have those majorities, President Obama has done an excellent job of showing exactly how much the chief executive can accomplish with a recalcitrant, obstructionist legislature. It's hard to imagine a world where a Republican president wouldn't follow that example and find creative ways to implement their regressive agenda.

Perhaps the most terrifying outcome of a GOP win in 2016 is the potential major shift in the balance of the Supreme Court. With Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer all over the age of 75, it seems very likely that the next president will be appointing several new members to the Court. If the Republicans uphold their pledge to keep the late Antonin Scalia's seat open, that's an opportunity to change nearly half of the voices in the nation's highest court, and the effects of those appointments will be felt for decades to come. There are also the dozens of lifetime appointments of federal judges that the president will inevitably be making. With the recent intransigence of Congress, the courts have become one of the only ways that the rights of marginalized people have been carved out. A shift to the more conservative end could endanger abortion access, marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights, the strength of unions, and criminal justice reform for decades. And all indications are that that's exactly what the GOP is planning.

Perhaps one of the harder to quantify — but still just as important — factors to consider is the degree to which the president has the opportunity to set the tone for the national discourse. Already, we've seen the way Trump's xenophobic, racist tone has empowered bigots to be more public, more aggressive, and more violent in their racist views. The homophobia and transphobia of people like Ted Cruz has fueled the backlash against gay and trans rights in the post-marriage-equality era. The eight years of the Bush administration proved exactly how powerful the bully pulpit can be in influencing the views of the American people to dangerous extremes of nationalism. In our current political climate, that power could (and I believe likely would) be used by the Republicans to whip up fervor against marginalized people of all sorts for the benefit of their war chest and power bases. Those of us most vulnerable to that kind of rhetoric can ill afford four or eight years of hate-mongering and fear from a Trump or a Cruz in the Oval Office.

What this seems to come down to is that Bernie or Bust people have become so enamored of their self-congratulatory "revolution" that they've entirely lost sight of the bigger picture. They care more for the movement than for the people. In essence, they expect marginalized people to be the sacrificial lambs for their cause. They claim it's about looking to the future, but looking 10 years down the line is a luxury that trans people like myself, Muslims, undocumented immigrants, disabled people, and those living in poverty simply do not have. Many of us simply would not survive Trump or Cruz winning a general election. The Bernie or Bust stance is the ideological equivalent of building your futures on our graves.

I'm not asking you to show Clinton the same exuberant support you've shown Sanders. I'm not even really asking you to be happy about voting for her in November, should that be the way things fall. I'm just asking you to look past your signs, your ideals, your clever slogans and your movement, and realize that you're standing on our necks.

[Daerio]

I respect Clinton's willingness to reexamine her views and admit her past mistakes.

2016, the year being a flip-flopper became respectable. (apparently)

[Pterodactylus]

2016, the year being a flip-flopper became respectable. (apparently)

My favorite was Trump's flip-flop-flip-flop-flip on Abortion.

[Grapemask]

Passing an amendment is much more difficult than passing a law.

I really can't picture another amendment being passed any time in the near future. Political climate has changed dramatically since the last amendment was successfully suggested, submitted, and ratified. We've reached levels of Congressional disfunction since the 1960s that would appear on a graph as if we're approaching an asymptote. I think it would take something on 9/11 scales of horrible to push an amendment as far as the state level.

[Gray_Matter]

Bernie would appoint liberal judges and be blocked,

Hillary will appoint conservative judges and have a kabuki theater of them being stalled,

Trump will appoint conservative? Honestly who knows what he will do, judges and be stalled?

1 situation I can predict, one I can reasonable predict it going bad and the last is a wildcard.

So you are letting bias get in the way of logic. You are saying that one of the most liberal presidential candidates ever is going to appoint a conservative judge.

I actually give up. I am neither a Clinton supporter or a Bernie supporter. I would like the dems to win, especially if you look at the likely candidates on the GOP side. I wasn't really too concerned which one of the two won the primary. I have tried to inject some sanity here. When people say something, I say, show me the proof. Most Bernie supporters here call Clinton "shillary". They make a leap based on the insinuations that Bernie has made without any proof. You don't see most Clinton supporters calling Bernie a "commie".

If the dems lose this election it will be because of one person, Bernie. The damage he would have done to the movement he is so passionate about would be immeasurable. It's ironic, in a way. Even now, he persists with his attacks trying to build himself a bigger platform despite all evidence that it's counter productive.

Well, this will be my last visit to this thread. It sounds like the supporters here prefer to have an echo chamber with other people validating them instead of a constructive debate.

[Skroe]

2016, the year being a flip-flopper became respectable. (apparently)

We in the reality based community consider changing your mind on certain subjects due to the reality of the situation a virtue.

"Flip flopping" shouldn't even be a term. We should want _ALL_ our politicians to be politically flexible. Otherwise there is no difference between the most hardened ideological leftist and the most hardened ideological rightward twat, other than the specifics of their political philosophies. They're both extremists forcing an extremist world view on a moderate center-right/center-left supermajority.

It's actually appallingly anti-democratic.

[Pterodactylus]

"Flip flopping" shouldn't even be a term.

Well, Trump Flip-flop-flip-flop-flipped about abortion all in the same day. So, I think flip-flopping has it's place. But saying that its bad for a politician to change their views over decades is pretty short-sighted and foolish.

[infinitemeridian]

2016, the year being a flip-flopper became respectable. (apparently)

2016, the year that changing your opinion on things became unheard of.

[Skroe]

Well, Trump Flip-flop-flip-flop-flipped about abortion all in the same day. So, I think flip-flopping has it's place. But saying that its bad for a politician to change their views over decades is pretty short-sighted and foolish.

The think about Trump is, I don't even think he flip flops. I think he just bullshits.

You have to have an at least somewhat informed position in the first place to" flip-flop".

Trump on the other hand? He's so out of his depth has to not be able to form that opinion in the first place. That's why he contradicts himself, sometime within adjacent sentences. He doesn't have a fricken clue.

[Grapemask]

2016, the year that changing your opinion on things became unheard of.

I don't think most people care if someone changes their opinion on something. If anything, I respect someone more if they're willing to come around to another way of thinking.

In Clinton's case, I think people have less respect for someone who will "flip-flop" to whatever is polling better, and in the span of days at that. That's a trait expected of Congressional candidates, because their job is and was originally envisioned as representing the most current "passions of the people." Presidents, on the other hand, are expected to be leaders and executives, not weather vanes.

[Theodarzna]

So you are letting bias get in the way of logic. You are saying that one of the most liberal presidential candidates ever is going to appoint a conservative judge.

I actually give up. I am neither a Clinton supporter or a Bernie supporter. I would like the dems to win, especially if you look at the likely candidates on the GOP side. I wasn't really too concerned which one of the two won the primary. I have tried to inject some sanity here. When people say something, I say, show me the proof. Most Bernie supporters here call Clinton "shillary". They make a leap based on the insinuations that Bernie has made without any proof. You don't see most Clinton supporters calling Bernie a "commie".

If the dems lose this election it will be because of one person, Bernie. The damage he would have done to the movement he is so passionate about would be immeasurable. It's ironic, in a way. Even now, he persists with his attacks trying to build himself a bigger platform despite all evidence that it's counter productive.

Well, this will be my last visit to this thread. It sounds like the supporters here prefer to have an echo chamber with other people validating them instead of a constructive debate.

Bias? I have pointed out that in all likelihood her HUSBANDS. not hers, appointments were done with a receptive congress that would want those sorts of things. I've also never called her "Shillary," either by the way.

I have said essentially they are right wing when they are surrounded by right wing people. Which they will be.

[Pterodactylus]

The think about Trump is, I don't even think he flip flops. I think he just bullshits.

You have to have an at least somewhat informed position in the first place to" flip-flop".

Trump on the other hand? He's so out of his depth has to not be able to form that opinion in the first place. That's why he contradicts himself, sometime within adjacent sentences. He doesn't have a fricken clue.

Fair enough.