[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Deleted]

I love Bernie, but he wasn't a mover and shaker before this and won't be after this.

Right uhhuh yeah he's only moved and shaken 46% of the voter base, gotten 20000-30000 people to show up at his rallies, and all that... But yeah, nah. Belittling him is the way to go.

Hillary is the real mover and shaker. Right? She's moved and shaken so many things.

[Wells]

Why wasn't O'Malley viable? Probably because he doesn't have the DNC and entire media working for him. Look how he was treated during the debates. Clinton has played a huge role in the DNC for years that's true, and that's why she has immediate support and advantages that nobody else has. So, everyone was against him, and sanders, and the other candidates from the beginning. Like was already said. To deny this is to basically say you haven't watched any news coverage of this campaign or watched any debates or followed it whatsoever, but clinton is a big name in the party so that's why she has a lot of support. Come to think of it, that's basically why she has so many votes.

So basically your complaint is that everyone knew and liked Clinton prior to the campaign? Its also more than a little stupid to act like the entire media "works for Clinton" when they breathlessly report on every faux scandal.

[Deleted]

I assume you're quoting someone?

The Poll King says polls don't matter. You know, whatshisface over at that three triple six five eight seven website. Danny something? I forget.

[Crissi]

Right uhhuh yeah he's only moved and shaken 46% of the voter base, gotten 20000-30000 people to show up at his rallies, and all that... But yeah, nah. Belittling him is the way to go.

Hillary is the real mover and shaker. Right? She's moved and shaken so many things.

Being a mover and a shaker during a political nomination is different form being one in the Senate. Its 2 very different skill sets.

[Theodarzna]

Well sure, they'll need to work with him. But how much influence will he still carry, really? Will he get the cold shoulder ala Ted Cruz? I HATE to make that comparison because Bernie is more likeable and less insane, but both strike me as stubborn "outsiders" who ultimately get very little done due to ideology.

Although its true, the DNC will need to learn to harness the passion he inspired this election cycle. I think letting that passion rot is a bad idea. Quite a bit of what he proposes is ok, but one obviously does not take on the ENTIRE platform of someone who lost.

Im fine with this pushing the Dems back to the left. Im a centrist, and as such prefer Clinton, but I dislike the rightward trajectory we've taken. Pushing the Dems back to the left will also, hopefuly, force the Repubs to get away from "So far right we've gone crazy". My family has traditionaly been Republican ala Eisenhower. It kinda sucks right now lol.

Any act of petty revenge will easily make a Martyr out of him. I mean he wasn't super influential over the party before except when the party needed to shore up Liberal support.

Letting that passion rot is a super bad idea. It will create a lot of disaffected voters. Bernie killed it with the youth vote, and the DNC has been holding onto hope for dear life that the Youth vote as we age will be lock stock Democrats. This election seriously jeopardizes that, by creating disaffected voters, the DNC could loose access to that demographic it wants desperately to be its stalwarts as the Baby Boomers die off.

My family is fairly well off, and educated but my mother voted Labour back home in the UK, and my dad is mostly a-political. But then again do I count as Lefty? I've been called everything on these boards from Nazi to Communist depending on the thread.

The comparison between Bernie and Trump isn't too far off. Both tap into something, mainly the disaffected voters who feel cheated by the process. The young who see their futures being sacrificed and the working class in the rust belt whom both parties abandoned long ago for riches elsewhere.

In general I think the country is more or less a dangerously unmanaged forest, waiting for a single spark to light the decades of debris and kindling ablaze. Sorry I'm from California and basically planes flying fire retardant is our Summer State Bird. XD

[Pangean]

Right uhhuh yeah he's only moved and shaken 46% of the voter base, gotten 20000-30000 people to show up at his rallies, and all that... But yeah, nah. Belittling him is the way to go.

Hillary is the real mover and shaker. Right? She's moved and shaken so many things.

In the Senate sweety. I get your upset and all but be upset about what I actually am talking about. Thanks.

[Wells]

I'm not sure there's ever been an election cycle where young liberals didn't think "THIS IS THE ONE, WE'RE ALL FUCKED IF WE DON'T GET THIS RIGHT". God knows I did in 2004. Until they actually manage to be a reliable source of votes come election day though no one is going to bother.

[Theodarzna]

I don't support TPP, as I've had to apparently explain to you several times now, and I dislike Clinton's foreign policy in many ways, as I've been saying for many months. However, democracy doesn't work based on only getting what you want, and constantly purging for ideological purity ends up getting you nothing. A lesson you should have learned from the GOP after the last 2 presidential elections.

Next time you want to criticize my positions though you should do yourself a favor and make sure you actually know what they are.

You didn't explain it last time other than to say "NO I DON'T" even though you didn't say that previously.

And you apparently don't dislike it enough to criticize it. Your silence is consent to it.

[Uoyredrum]

So basically your complaint is that everyone knew and liked Clinton prior to the campaign? Its also more than a little stupid to act like the entire media "works for Clinton" when they breathlessly report on every faux scandal.

My complaints are that the DNC picked sides, that super delegates exist, and that the media isn't doing its job (lack of journalism + favoritism). Simple as that.

- - - Updated - - -

And you apparently don't dislike it enough to criticize it. Your silence is consent to it.

lol what

/10char

[Pangean]

You didn't explain it last time other than to say "NO I DON'T" even though you didn't say that previously.

And you apparently don't dislike it enough to criticize it. Your silence is consent to it.

You really making that argument? Really?

[Theodarzna]

I'm not sure there's ever been an election cycle where young liberals didn't think "THIS IS THE ONE, WE'RE ALL FUCKED IF WE DON'T GET THIS RIGHT". God knows I did in 2004. Until they actually manage to be a reliable source of votes come election day though no one is going to bother.

If your a reliable source of a vote, your a waste of a vote.

Someone who says "My party, right or wrong!" Is a complete blithering idiot and shouldn't have the right to vote.

If that were true then all republicans best vote Trump.

[Wells]

You didn't explain it last time other than to say "NO I DON'T" even though you didn't say that previously.

And you apparently don't dislike it enough to criticize it.

You don't get to tell other people what they think based on what you remember reading or not reading despite what they're actually telling you. Nor is an absence of written disagreement the same as agreement in the first place. I rarely discuss foreign policy, military practices, or trade on this board because this board is largely trolling, shit posting, and trash, and those topics are particularly vulnerable to it.

So if you can find me actually saying I support TPP link it, otherwise kindly stop lying about my positions yes?

- - - Updated - - -

If your a reliable source of a vote, your a waste of a vote.

Someone who says "My party, right or wrong!" Is a complete blithering idiot and shouldn't have the right to vote.

If that were true then all republicans best vote Trump.

"reliable voting block" as in you actually show up to vote. Why would parties spend any time trying to appeal to groups that have a low chance of turning out in the first place?

But really, pick ideological purity over party unity if you like. Look how well it went for the GOP.

[Theodarzna]

You really making that argument? Really?

If you say nothing against that policy, how is anyone to know your against it?

Crissi explicitly spelled out her criticism of Clinton, while still accepting she will vote for her. I accept her judgement because she recognizes the flaws and will talk about them. Not close ranks like some trained party loyalist goon dedicated to stopping "that other guy!"

She spelled out what she doesn't like about it, but she is for Clinton for other reasons.

Wells was asked about it, by me, and he simply chastised protectionism and championed the righteousness of Globalization without a second thought or breath. He raised no criticism or conditions, just sang its praises. But, just like Hillary he flips and he flops were the wind goes.

[Wells]

And you apparently don't dislike it enough to criticize it. Your silence is consent to it.

Also I know I already responded to this post, but this reasoning deserves its own post for how stupid it is.

If you say nothing against that policy, how is anyone to know your against it?

They could ask

[Theodarzna]

"reliable voting block" as in you actually show up to vote. Why would parties spend any time trying to appeal to groups that have a low chance of turning out in the first place?

But really, pick ideological purity over party unity if you like. Look how well it went for the GOP.

Black voters are a reliable voting block, and they get thrown in prison thanks to Clinton's crime bill. That is what being a loyal voter gets you.

[Wells]

Black voters are a reliable voting block, and they get thrown in prison thanks to Clinton's crime bill. That is what being a loyal voter gets you.

Wait what?

How does this statement even make sense?

You think the 90s criminal reform passed because black voters vote reliable democrat?

[Theodarzna]

Also I know I already responded to this post, but this reasoning deserves its own post for how stupid it is.



They could ask

I did and you voiced no objection the first time.

[Budong]

I'm enough of a pragmatist to know that you won't get anything you want without party unity, even if that means sometimes compromising on what you do get.

Holy crap, someone finally gets it. Once the primary is over you have to go all in for your party or you in effect elect the guy you absolutely do not want. It's better to support the person you agree with some of the way than the guy you disagree with all of the way.

[Wells]

I did and you voiced no objection the first time.

I honestly have no idea what grudge you're on about, but as I've already told you several times I don't support either TPP or protectionism you're looking rather ridiculous by insisting I do.

[Budong]

But really, pick ideological purity over party unity if you like. Look how well it went for the GOP.

Also this, a thousand times this.