EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

[londonfog]

Well she probably doesn't know how to vote anyways

She will probably show up at the wrong voting precinct / polling location. Decked out in her Bernie gear

 

[ttystikk]

Bernie Sanders has my vote. It's not a popularity contest, it's not fucking fantasy football; the point is NOT to vote for the 'inevitable' candidate, but the BEST CANDIDATE.

But Chump! Isn't a reason. It's hysteria, and worse, it's a snow job; a LIE.

As citizens, we have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote for the candidate of our choice.

A vote for Mickey Mouse would be throwing it away. We need not vote for the anointed candidate vetted by either corrupt excuse for a political party. I'm voting for the best one for the job, and I incite you to join me!

 

[ChesusRice]

Bernie Sanders has my vote. It's not a popularity contest, it's not fucking fantasy football; the point is NOT to vote for the 'inevitable' candidate, but the BEST CANDIDATE.

But Chump! Isn't a reason. It's hysteria, and worse, it's a snow job; a LIE.

As citizens, we have the CANDIDATE right to vote for the candidate of our choice.

A vote for Mickey Mouse would be throwing it away. We need not vote for the anointed candidate vetted by either corrupt excuse for a political party. I'm voting for the best one for the job, and I incite you to join me!

Then why don't you vote for JESUS?
He wont be on the ballot either

 

[mynameisnobody]

I'm allergic to sock puppets, so we have no conversation

I haven't had a puppet in over 8 years. I did use socks to great effect for a short while but I even then don't remember using one more than 6 posts. I just play with what is in front of me and have never used a link, cut and paste or single pic. I'm here to see who is saying what and why, I do this so I can better understand things and the things said here can funny at times. I also think its fun to pester people who being dicks to others.

Don't be such a puss answer my post. Geese I can't tell which are the socks sometimes. But what does it mater.

ANSWER MY POST!!!!

 

[mynameisnobody]

Bernie Sanders has my vote. It's not a popularity contest, it's not fucking fantasy football; the point is NOT to vote for the 'inevitable' candidate, but the BEST CANDIDATE.

But Chump! Isn't a reason. It's hysteria, and worse, it's a snow job; a LIE.

As citizens, we have the CANDIDATE right to vote for the candidate of our choice.

A vote for Mickey Mouse would be throwing it away. We need not vote for the anointed candidate vetted by either corrupt excuse for a political party. I'm voting for the best one for the job, and I incite you to join me!

Reading between the lines it sounds as if you were getting close to making up your mind who you might vote for.

 

[Fogdog]

Bernie Sanders has my vote. It's not a popularity contest, it's not fucking fantasy football; the point is NOT to vote for the 'inevitable' candidate, but the BEST CANDIDATE.

But Chump! Isn't a reason. It's hysteria, and worse, it's a snow job; a LIE.

As citizens, we have the CANDIDATE right to vote for the candidate of our choice.

A vote for Mickey Mouse would be throwing it away. We need not vote for the anointed candidate vetted by either corrupt excuse for a political party. I'm voting for the best one for the job, and I incite you to join me!

I think you are mis-casting the decision to narrow the selection down to one of the two candidates that are going to win next fall. Bernie has no shot as a write-in and at this time not much of one as an independent in the unlikely scenario that he goes that route.

Barring the lottery ticket type of improbable event that puts Bernie in the driver's seat in November, we will have the choice of two candidates. This is not a popularity contest, otherwise I'd choose Bernie. It doesn't matter which candidate I like. It only matters which is the one I think would do the better job for the next four years. Given Trump's history, inability and behavior, Hillary would have to go full out Nazi to drive my vote into the Trump column.

A vote for Bernie would not be throwing your vote away, nor would it be a vote for Trump. It would be a futile gesture.

 

[ttystikk]

Reading between the lines it sounds as if you were getting close to making up your mind who you might vote for.

I've been considering the arguments made by others here carefully. If I seemed indecisive, it's because most of these arguments have at least a kernel of merit, yes, even 'but Chump!'

That said, I think that I've made a choice. My candidate may not win. Yet, he's the one who most needs to.

 

[ChesusRice]

I think you are mis-casting the decision to narrow the selection down to one of the two candidates that are going to win next fall. Bernie has no shot as a write-in and at this time not much of one as an independent in the unlikely scenario that he goes that route.

Barring the lottery ticket type of improbable event that puts Bernie in the driver's seat in November, we will have the choice of two candidates. This is not a popularity contest, otherwise I'd choose Bernie. It doesn't matter which candidate I like. It only matters which is the one I think would do the better job for the next four years. Given Trump's history, inability and behavior, Hillary would have to go full out Nazi to drive my vote into the Trump column.

A vote for Bernie would not be throwing your vote away, nor would it be a vote for Trump. It would be a futile gesture.

It would be a vote for trump

 

[mynameisnobody]

"ChesusRice

I think you are mis-casting the decision to narrow the selection down to one of the two candidates that are going to win next fall. Bernie has no shot as a write-in and at this time not much of one as an independent in the unlikely scenario that he goes that route.

Barring the lottery ticket type of improbable event that puts Bernie in the driver's seat in November, we will have the choice of two candidates. This is not a popularity contest, otherwise I'd choose Bernie. It doesn't matter which candidate I like. It only matters which is the one I think would do the better job for the next four years. Given Trump's history, inability and behavior, Hillary would have to go full out Nazi to drive my vote into the Trump column.

A vote for Bernie would not be throwing your vote away, nor would it be a vote for Trump. It would be a futile gesture.

You the other fog and rice have been telling ttystikk, schuylaar and pada to change the way they MAY vote over and over for how long? This to you would be a FUTILE GESTURE. Do you not see this as a FUTILE GESTURE? Do you not know that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? So you see that you shouldn't be preaching to someone about FUTILE GESTURES. So wash your face, ears, brush your teeth and go to bed.

 

[Fogdog]

It would be a vote for trump

I get what you are saying. If enough people write in Bernie to swing the election to Trump, then they helped Trump and all his horrible policies move into the most powerful office in the world. I still maintain that it's up to Hillary to win those voters over and the choice of who to vote for is personal.

Here is what one person who voted for Nader said. I'll excerpt a couple of paragraphs and provide a link if interested in the whole thing:

This section talks about how Gore made a strategic miscalculation about the strength of opposition to him from the left:

It cannot be stressed enough that had Gore instead embraced an even slightly more progressive agenda, he would not have lost so many Democratic voters to Nader. Rather than modify his positions more in line with the party's more liberal base, however, Gore initially worked to keep Nader off the ballot in a number of states to prevent voters from even having the choice. And, while Gore was willing to debate Bush, the opponent on his right, he refused to debate his opponent on his left, apparently fearing how voters might react if they were able to compare his positions with those of the well-respected consumer advocate. In the final week of the campaign, recognizing that he was losing liberal voters to his Green Party challenger, Gore did shift the tone of his campaign somewhat to the left, spouting more populist themes. In those final days, polls showed he gained three percentage points, finally pulling slightly ahead of Bush, while Nader dropped from 6% to 3%.

But it was too little too late. So many of us were so disgusted with eight years of center-right governance of the Clinton Administration and the prospects of more under Al Gore, we just could not stomach voting Democratic, even though it was apparent that the election was very close. After eight years of bitter disappointment with Clinton and Gore in power in Washington, it felt cynical and self-defeating to once again vote for a lesser evil, which seemingly would only contribute to the downward spiral which was taking the Democratic Party further and further away from its progressive heyday with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. In many ways, then, Nader was a symptom, not a cause, of the large-scale alienation with Gore.

The author talks quite a bit about how the decision that eventually ended up with Florida being close enough of a race to be stolen by the Republicans and put Bush in the WH actually caused the Democratic party to move to the right instead of being "taught a lesson"

Unfortunately, following the debacle of the national election of 2000, rather than learn their lesson and move to the left, the Democrats moved still further to the right, with the majority of Democratic senators voting with their Republican counterparts in October 2002 to authorize the fraudulently elected president with the unprecedented authority to invade an oil-rich country on the far side of the world that was no threat to the United states. On the House side, most Democrats voted against authorizing the war, but the most important Democratic leaders sided with Bush as well. Though the party not controlling the White House normally picks up seats in mid-term Congressional elections, as a result of this betrayal of the vast majority of Democratic voters who opposed the invasion of Iraq, millions stayed home, resulting in the Republicans regaining control of the Senate and increasing their majority in the House.

One can also make the case that voting is a sacred right that should not be exercised for strategic reasons, but on moral principles alone. The suffragettes and civil rights advocates who risked their lives for the right to vote were not doing so simply to be able to cast their ballot for a lesser evil. There is a related argument that it is morally and psychologically damaging to compromise one's principles by voting for someone whose policies you don't agree with against someone whose policies you do believe in; that it is important to vote your hopes rather than your fears.

However, the idea that one can "teach the Democrats a lesson" by voting for a progressive third party or not voting at all and thereby allowing Republicans to win just doesn't seem to work.

There is more but this message is already tldr. If interested, the link to the whole article can be found here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/11/01/my-support-ralph-nader-ten-years-later-lessons-learned

 

[Fogdog]

"ChesusRice


You the other fog and rice have been telling ttystikk, schuylaar and pada to change the way they MAY vote over and over for how long? This to you would be a FUTILE GESTURE. Do you not see this as a FUTILE GESTURE? Do you not know that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? So you see that you shouldn't be preaching to someone about FUTILE GESTURES. So wash your face, ears, brush your teeth and go to bed.

I'm sorry for you that your mother told you that you were special. It's given you a false impression of your faculty.

 

[mynameisnobody]

I'm sorry for you that your mother told you that you were special. It's given you a false impression of your faculty.

Great come back.

 

[ttystikk]

I get what you are saying. If enough people write in Bernie to swing the election to Trump, then they helped Trump and all his horrible policies move into the most powerful office in the world. I still maintain that it's up to Hillary to win those voters over and the choice of who to vote for is personal.

Here is what one person who voted for Nader said. I'll excerpt a couple of paragraphs and provide a link if interested in the whole thing:

This section talks about how Gore made a strategic miscalculation about the strength of opposition to him from the left:

It cannot be stressed enough that had Gore instead embraced an even slightly more progressive agenda, he would not have lost so many Democratic voters to Nader. Rather than modify his positions more in line with the party's more liberal base, however, Gore initially worked to keep Nader off the ballot in a number of states to prevent voters from even having the choice. And, while Gore was willing to debate Bush, the opponent on his right, he refused to debate his opponent on his left, apparently fearing how voters might react if they were able to compare his positions with those of the well-respected consumer advocate. In the final week of the campaign, recognizing that he was losing liberal voters to his Green Party challenger, Gore did shift the tone of his campaign somewhat to the left, spouting more populist themes. In those final days, polls showed he gained three percentage points, finally pulling slightly ahead of Bush, while Nader dropped from 6% to 3%.

But it was too little too late. So many of us were so disgusted with eight years of center-right governance of the Clinton Administration and the prospects of more under Al Gore, we just could not stomach voting Democratic, even though it was apparent that the election was very close. After eight years of bitter disappointment with Clinton and Gore in power in Washington, it felt cynical and self-defeating to once again vote for a lesser evil, which seemingly would only contribute to the downward spiral which was taking the Democratic Party further and further away from its progressive heyday with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. In many ways, then, Nader was a symptom, not a cause, of the large-scale alienation with Gore.

The author talks quite a bit about how the decision that eventually ended up with Florida being close enough of a race to be stolen by the Republicans and put Bush in the WH actually caused the Democratic party to move to the right instead of being "taught a lesson"

Unfortunately, following the debacle of the national election of 2000, rather than learn their lesson and move to the left, the Democrats moved still further to the right, with the majority of Democratic senators voting with their Republican counterparts in October 2002 to authorize the fraudulently elected president with the unprecedented authority to invade an oil-rich country on the far side of the world that was no threat to the United states. On the House side, most Democrats voted against authorizing the war, but the most important Democratic leaders sided with Bush as well. Though the party not controlling the White House normally picks up seats in mid-term Congressional elections, as a result of this betrayal of the vast majority of Democratic voters who opposed the invasion of Iraq, millions stayed home, resulting in the Republicans regaining control of the Senate and increasing their majority in the House.

One can also make the case that voting is a sacred right that should not be exercised for strategic reasons, but on moral principles alone. The suffragettes and civil rights advocates who risked their lives for the right to vote were not doing so simply to be able to cast their ballot for a lesser evil. There is a related argument that it is morally and psychologically damaging to compromise one's principles by voting for someone whose policies you don't agree with against someone whose policies you do believe in; that it is important to vote your hopes rather than your fears.

However, the idea that one can "teach the Democrats a lesson" by voting for a progressive third party or not voting at all and thereby allowing Republicans to win just doesn't seem to work.

There is more but this message is already tldr. If interested, the link to the whole article can be found here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/11/01/my-support-ralph-nader-ten-years-later-lessons-learned

This is how my lifetime of politics has turned. Right, more right and even when voting left, yet more right.

I'm not voting right. I'm used to being ahead of my time and I may be again now. Yet, it would be shockingly simple to get the candidate we really want; just vote for them!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yet, it would be shockingly simple to get the candidate we really want; just vote for them!

Reminded me of that scene in Braveheart where Wallace tells Robert the Bruce:

"Now tell me, what does that mean to be noble? Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I"

 

[ttystikk]

Reminded me of that scene in Braveheart where Wallace tells Robert the Bruce:

"Now tell me, what does that mean to be noble? Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I"

There's leadership and then there's having the collective guts to actually follow through.

We're a nation of shortcuts. We prefer going to Walmart over a bakery, farmers market, butcher shop, sporting goods, apparel and home appliances. Sure we save time, but at the cost of getting good value for our money AND keeping those dollars in OUR country, supporting other American taxpaying citizens.

This is America's Intelligence Test, and I know who the A is. We'll see what grade we get in November.

 

[Fogdog]

This is how my lifetime of politics has turned. Right, more right and even when voting left, yet more right.

I'm not voting right. I'm used to being ahead of my time and I may be again now. Yet, it would be shockingly simple to get the candidate we really want; just vote for them!

Other people given the same facts are drawing a different conclusion. You have great confidence that you are the one who is correct. That's healthy but try to understand that other people's decisions are as valid to them as yours are to you. And you cling to your convictions with a death grip. Why shouldn't others? So, it's not really that simple.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Other people given the same facts are drawing a different conclusion. You have great confidence that you are the one who is correct. That's healthy but try to understand that other people's decisions are as valid to them as yours are to you. And you cling to your convictions with a death grip. Why shouldn't others? So, it's not really that simple.

Because others are wrong, they know they're wrong and they're sticking with the wrong candidate because the system is rigged in a way that ensures she will win. Even worse, they're demeaning Sanders supporters as much, and in many cases in this very thread worse than conservatives on the boards have been doing for years. We're supposed to be progressives, Clinton does not represent progressives and claiming that she does isn't good enough when her record shows otherwise. She represents the corporate establishment, the single biggest reason Sanders supporters support him. How can Clinton or her supporters possibly expect Sanders supporters to get in line behind her and help get her elected?

The threat of a Trump administration or the guarantee of a 'business as usual' administration that's slightly better on social issues doesn't appeal to me very much personally

If my arm is going to be broken either way and someone comes along and says "Hey listen, I'm going to break your arm, but that other guy.. he's going to do it a loooooot worse!", it still doesn't make me feel any better about it

 

[ttystikk]

Other people given the same facts are drawing a different conclusion. You have great confidence that you are the one who is correct. That's healthy but try to understand that other people's decisions are as valid to them as yours are to you. And you cling to your convictions with a death grip. Why shouldn't others? So, it's not really that simple.

Yes, I'm used to the strength of my convictions, and yet I do still have an open mind; bring me a stronger argument and I'll change my position. I just haven't seen it yet!

If I didn't respect people's right to make up their own mind and chose who they think is the best candidate, then I would not bother wasting my time sharing my thoughts here.

So consider it a sign of respect to you and your views that I do so forcefully debate in support of my positions and my choice of candidate.

 

[Padawanbater2]

@Fogdog I would like to add that there's a stark difference between the way you're approaching this and the way @londonfog & @ChesusRice have approached it

Yours is much more palatable, theirs is no different from conservatives

 

[Fogdog]

@Fogdog I would like to add that there's a stark difference between the way you're approaching this and the way @londonfog & @ChesusRice have approached it

Yours is much more palatable, theirs is no different from conservatives

Yes, I'm used to the strength of my convictions, and yet I do still have an open mind; bring me a stronger argument and I'll change my position. I just haven't seen it yet!

If I didn't respect people's right to make up their own mind and chose who they think is the best candidate, then I would not bother wasting my time sharing my thoughts here.

So consider it a sign of respect to you and your views that I do so forcefully debate in support of my positions and my choice of candidate.

I don't think you have that open of a mind, ty, not that it matters very much to me. We agree on just about all the points I find important, but disagree only on what to do with them. Same with you Paddy. I'm not the person who needs to convince you. Hillary and Bernie are. Can you have an open mind to what Hillary says? I don't think so. But I'll play along for a bit and give some background behind what I'm thinking of doing. I haven't decided what I'm going to do yet. I'm going to wait and see for now.

I saw what happened when enough voters decided they could not vote for Gore. Some in my family felt that way. They could not vote for Gore, so they voted for Nader. It was a futile gesture in that it actually accomplished the opposite of their intent. The Democratic party's already weak progressive movement was snuffed out and we ended up with the worst president in modern history. GW set this country back to the point that we will never recover what was lost in our lifetimes. Nobody knows what Gore would have done if given the same chance but I don't think we would have invaded Iraq. I think 9-11 would not have happened because that disaster was due to fumbling the defense of this country by the Bush administration at the time. I don't think there would have been the decision in 2006 to let banks self regulate the credit default swap security market either. Without that power in the hands of banks, the Great Recession wouldn't have happened and Paddy wouldn't be faced with coming of age into a stagnant economy.

I'm not in any way saying that a vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump. It's not. It's a vote for Bernie. Bernie can't win without the backing of the Democratic party and he's not going to get it. Its your choice, you have reasons for it but in the end it will be a futile gesture. You won't affect anything by doing so and quite probably end up with a negative effect on the progressive movement from that action regardless of who wins the WH.

Very recent history has shown the tactic of the protest vote backfiring. Rather than sending a message, what happened in 2000 dis-empowered the progressives in Washington. Due to Democratic leadership's absolutely obtuse decision to vote in favor of the war in Iraq, Democratic control of congress was lost in 2004. Could that decision have stemmed from their weakened position? I think so. We are still living with the consequences of that turnover in Washington. It may seem backward but, if recent history is any guide, voting for Bernie as a protest vote actually dis-empowers him in Washington in the same way that voting for Nader dis-empowered progressives in Washington in 2000.

I see a lot of opportunity for improvement going forward but only if Bernie holds a strong position in Washington. Jon Stewart said recently that Hillary is "a very bright woman without the courage of her convictions." From her turnabout on access to healthcare we can see how easily Hillary can be swayed when she is faced with the loss of her political career. At one time she was the very face of universal healthcare coverage and now says that will never happen. The movement that supports Bernie gives him a pretty big stick to threaten Hillary with and her history shows she goes where the voters lead her. Would Trump ever do that? (snicker) Over the next couple of months, I'm looking forward to seeing what Bernie cooks up with the Democratic Party leadership before deciding what to do.

That said, Trump and the control of congress by the venal party that the GOP is becoming is an awful possibility that will affect my decision as well.