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

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Then why don't you just call me a crusty, close minded fool and be done with me?

Because you know that Bernie IS the right candidate.

All the above are reasons why the power structure has led our country to the brink of idiocracy, but we don't need to follow them off the cliff.

There isn't a lot more room to the right left.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
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 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.
This is a good example of the kind of reply that progresses the conversation in a positive direction. @londonfog & @ChesusRice , pay attention please

Overall, I agree with all of your major points. I plan on sitting out this election since CA is safe. Like I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I would vote for Clinton (as much as I'd hate it). The worst democratic candidate is better than the best republican candidate either way you slice it, but Clinton certainly cuts it close..

I think I can speak for most progressives when I say that we're simply sick of this shit. I'm tired of having to choose between worse and worst when we have a candidate running who embodies the actual change that Americans crave. Clinton will win, then what? Some other corporatist democrat will run next cycle and this same argument will be just as valid then because the republican opponent will be dogshit just like Trump. The lower & middle-class will get fucked again and again. The only way it will end is if we, collectively, make it end. What other option do true progressives have under a two-party system that both represent corporate interests? I gave it a shot with Obama, man, I truly did and he turned out to be another corporate whore just like the rest. So what the fuck about us? I'm done handing them the mantle for them to fuck me later and claim it was republicans fault. Obama had the entire goddamn government for 2 years and all he could accomplish was the individual mandate? I could accomplish more with my left nut than that bullshit, he bent to republican demands because he has the same corporate handlers.

So what exactly, are we to just keep giving the corporatist democrat our vote even though they fuck us over slightly less than the republicans would? When some real progressive comes along we shun him and act like he's not really serious and all his ideas are bullshit because they go against the establishment? What is our end game? How do we, as average progressive citizens, benefit from this perpetual cycle of bullshit that caters to corporate masters? Because from where I've been sitting, the fist just gets bigger and bigger and goes deeper and deeper every single election. Eventually my diaphragm is gonna bust, man, I can't take much more, so what the fuck?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
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.
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
I included the three posts that pertain to my answer to Paddy. My point wasn't that everybody is right and we should all agree to disagree. That would be an absolutely idiotic way to make peace. Not that I'm above making idiotic statements. But agreeing to disagree is just a weasel's way of avoiding conflict without learning from each other.

My point to Ty was that it's not simple to come to consensus. People see the same things and draw different conclusions. It takes time and effort to discuss and come together regarding what to do. This is why a self organized write in campaign for Bernie can't possibly put Bernie into the WH.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Then why don't you just call me a crusty, close minded fool and be done with me?
Crusty? check;
Close minded? about some things, maybe, so, half check;
fool? nope.

But of one thing I'm pretty certain. Hillary isn't going to get much of a chance to convince you of anything. And if you don't understand my position from my most recent windbaggery, I'm kind of baffled about what I can say.
 

mynameisnobody

Well-Known Member
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.
Didn't I tell you to go to bed?
 

mynameisnobody

Well-Known Member
Crusty? check;
Close minded? about some things, maybe, so, half check;
fool? nope.

But of one thing I'm pretty certain. Hillary isn't going to get much of a chance to convince you of anything. And if you don't understand my position from my most recent windbaggery, I'm kind of baffled about what I can say.
I like the windbaggery thing. LOL
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
It takes time and effort to discuss and come together regarding what to do. This is why a self organized write in campaign for Bernie can't possibly put Bernie into the WH.
Yet, it's the only option that doesn't just hand the system over to the corporatists.

And it is not impossible; the biggest barrier to its implementation is the BELIEF that it's impossible.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
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

-or-

You could vote for the stronger candidate.

It has nothing to do with 'teaching a lesson'..it's about being heard on the type of platform Sanders extols.

Question: Do you know why Sanders polls higher nationally against Trump?

This is not a trick question and it has a very real answer for a thinking man.

Do you dare to answer?
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
-or-

You could vote for the stronger candidate.

It has nothing to do with 'teaching a lesson'..it's about being heard on the type of platform Sanders extols.

Question: Do you know why Sanders polls higher nationally against Trump?

This is not a trick question and it has a very real answer for a thinking man.

Do you dare to answer?
Let me summarize what I think you are suggesting to make sure I understand. You say that everybody should just vote for Bernie because he is the best and he is polling the highest right now. Also that we should commit right now to doing that. Is that correct?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
-or-

You could vote for the stronger candidate.

It has nothing to do with 'teaching a lesson'..it's about being heard on the type of platform Sanders extols.

Question: Do you know why Sanders polls higher nationally against Trump?

This is not a trick question and it has a very real answer for a thinking man.

Do you dare to answer?

Trumps turd salad doesn't come with a complimentary dessert ?

Bernie's shit sandwich comes with extra fries?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Yet, it's the only option that doesn't just hand the system over to the corporatists.

And it is not impossible; the biggest barrier to its implementation is the BELIEF that it's impossible.
Do you want to try to convince me that this is possible? Because right now, I don't see how this happens.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Let me summarize what I think you are suggesting to make sure I understand. You say that everybody should just vote for Bernie because he is the best and he is polling the highest right now. Also that we should commit right now to doing that. Is that correct?
No.

Q: Why does Sanders polls higher nationally?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
If the Dems wanted my vote they'd run someone out there that isn't a corrupt lying POS...Bush-Cheyney lite.
They don't just want your vote. They want to win the election. Hillary is Bush-Cheyney? I'm not defending Hillary, I just question comparing her to two people who don't travel much because they don't want to end up in the Hague.
 

Corso312

Well-Known Member
They don't just want your vote. They want to win the election. Hillary is Bush-Cheyney? I'm not defending Hillary, I just question comparing her to two people who don't travel much because they don't want to end up in the Hague.




Obama called Bush-Cheyney lite 8 years ago..he was right then and is still right now.



images (7).jpg
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
@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
Not here to hold your hand. You suppose to be a grown ass person. Put you big adult panties on and deal with the blunt hard truths.
I'm not about to sugar coat shit. Nothing I say is any different than what Fogdog says. I just don't sweeten it.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
This is a good example of the kind of reply that progresses the conversation in a positive direction. @londonfog & @ChesusRice , pay attention please

Overall, I agree with all of your major points. I plan on sitting out this election since CA is safe. Like I've said before, if I were in a swing state, I would vote for Clinton (as much as I'd hate it). The worst democratic candidate is better than the best republican candidate either way you slice it, but Clinton certainly cuts it close..

I think I can speak for most progressives when I say that we're simply sick of this shit. I'm tired of having to choose between worse and worst when we have a candidate running who embodies the actual change that Americans crave. Clinton will win, then what? Some other corporatist democrat will run next cycle and this same argument will be just as valid then because the republican opponent will be dogshit just like Trump. The lower & middle-class will get fucked again and again. The only way it will end is if we, collectively, make it end. What other option do true progressives have under a two-party system that both represent corporate interests? I gave it a shot with Obama, man, I truly did and he turned out to be another corporate whore just like the rest. So what the fuck about us? I'm done handing them the mantle for them to fuck me later and claim it was republicans fault. Obama had the entire goddamn government for 2 years and all he could accomplish was the individual mandate? I could accomplish more with my left nut than that bullshit, he bent to republican demands because he has the same corporate handlers.

So what exactly, are we to just keep giving the corporatist democrat our vote even though they fuck us over slightly less than the republicans would? When some real progressive comes along we shun him and act like he's not really serious and all his ideas are bullshit because they go against the establishment? What is our end game? How do we, as average progressive citizens, benefit from this perpetual cycle of bullshit that caters to corporate masters? Because from where I've been sitting, the fist just gets bigger and bigger and goes deeper and deeper every single election. Eventually my diaphragm is gonna bust, man, I can't take much more, so what the fuck?
TLDR
 

bluntmassa1

Well-Known Member
No.

Q: Why does Sanders polls higher nationally?
Because anyone with a brain would not vote for Hillary.

Unless you love war Hollywood does they love to milk our wars. Also Trump might actually try to talk to Putin and Kim instead of pushing propaganda. Hillary will have us in Syria and Iran before you can say "fucking bitch". Lol

And she won't do anything with the country like Obama because he has better things to do like drone strikes on civilians.:bigjoint:
 
Top