Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 26 Jul 2016, 5:52 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:If the Berndog walks out on that stage and gives his support to the criminal he will have lost his soul. And no argument anyone can muster about needing to save planet earth from the evil snares of Trump can justify selling out.


You haven't followed Bernie's career. He works to get what he wants, gets as much as he can get, and then he takes it. He doesn't leave wins on the table because it isn't exactly what he wanted. He pushed the platform so far to the left, and he sees that Clinton is facing a neo-fascist authoritarian. It's completely consistent with his political career to take that small victory.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 26 Jul 2016, 7:32 am

All beside the point.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 26 Jul 2016, 8:09 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:All beside the point.



How so?

On the contrary, it seems to me to be very much TO the point.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jul 2016, 9:15 am

It would be completely irresponsible for Sanders to try to bring down Clinton. Sanders has nudged the Democratic Party to the left. Our country's political system is not really set up for big swings in policy. Before Sanders it would have been thought crazy that a candidate self-identifying as a socialist could have been a candidate for the Democratic Party. But with a middle-class being squeezed with most of the wealth going to the top, wages for most remaining flat, no pensions for most workers, and college tuition becoming an increasing burden people are ready for different answers. What are the numbers...something like the Dow growing 5,300% from 1979-2014 and wages rising about 250%. And of course taxes going down on investments and overall top rates during that time. We see the results of those policies that have redistributed wealth towards the top and it ain't pretty. But you take your small victories, try to make things a little fairer, a little better for the working poor and middle-class. You don't--in a fit of pique and ego--make things worse.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 26 Jul 2016, 10:13 am

Sanders will have chosen to enter that race knowing full well that the dice were loaded against him. He obviously calculated that it was worthwhile even though victory was almost impossible, and he was probably right. He massively exceeded expectations and ensured that his wing of the party will now be in the ascendant. Those gains could be put at risk if he fights some kind of anti-Clinton guerrilla campaign that results in a Trump presidency. Remember how Ralph Nader came to be reviled on the left of American politics ?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 26 Jul 2016, 10:24 am

I didn't say anything about the bdog taking Clinton down or working against her.

The system is rigged and now there is proof. He should not have showed up to the convention. He owed that much to his supporters. At what point do we fix the system? At what point does someone stand up and say that's enough. I don't care about Trump. The bdog is a man of principal. He has been the bright spot throughout this ridiculous primaries. By showing up and endorsing her he compromised and became part of the broken system. He did the opposite of everything that he has stood for up to this point. I don't accept the arguments put forth about propelling his agenda for the party. I don't buy that at all. This is the Clintons we are talking about folks. They do what they want, when they want with no reprisals and no consequences. My guess is both Bill and Hilary are having a laugh over Bernie's endorsement.

I wonder what the next batch of leaked emails will reveal come Labor Day when they are expected to be released by Wiki leaks?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jul 2016, 11:07 am

Well, if Bernie did not show up for the convention and endorse Hillary then he is making a lot more likely that Trump will win, so whether you want to call it taking her down or not it has the same effect. And that it makes more likely that Trump wins. And he would do this out of principle just like Nader did in 2000. Nader said the Democrats were just as bad as the Republicans...and we got the disaster that was G.W. Bush. Utilitarian calculations are not everything--sometimes deonotological principles are more important--but I don't see that here. You have to gain power if you want to change the system and how is Bernie not supporting Hillary going to help do that?

Bill Clinton moved to the center in the 1990s in an effort to gain power. And conservatives hated him for outwitting them. Railing against the system and not having any power to change it...that does not get you far. Southern conservatives just did not see Lyndon Johnson coming--they thought he was with them on Civil Rights--and look what he was able to do. You got to get power before you can do anything and if you are going to make major changes the Establishment can't see you coming and you have to have the right circumstances to allow for it. Sander's political career is about over anyway, but hopefully he has cleared the way for more liberal candidates. But liberal candidates have to find a way to win in a country that has generally not been kind to liberal candidates in presidential races. And that means winning the ideological fight in the country. Otherwise, they will just get crushed like Mondale or Dukakis.

And by the way if there are only 3 or 4 emails showing a bias from several months worth of emails...that doesn't show a huge bias. The far bigger problem was the super delegate system and how the media framed things. I would be a lot more bothered if the DNC was shown to have worked with CNN and MSNBC to keep saying that Bernie could not win. That direct link has not been shown yet.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 26 Jul 2016, 12:38 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:By showing up and endorsing her he compromised and became part of the broken system. He did the opposite of everything that he has stood for up to this point.


Nearly everything Bernie has ever accomplished politically was through compromise. That's what he does, he brings people together to get the best results he can for issues he believes in. You may think that compromise is heretical, but Bernie Sanders is not, and has never been a person who would agree with you.

And Dag, compromise is part of being an American, being in a party, a congress, a country with people who you really don't even like. People work together and compromise, it's how stuff gets done, and no one understand that better than Bernie Sanders. You need a different political messiah.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 26 Jul 2016, 9:32 pm

I agree with most of what you said Geo but you're forgetting that Bernie never had a chance. It was rigged. The DNC cheated. It was wrong. It was unfair. The deck was stacked.

All this hype about bdog's contributions to the party agenda is bullshit. It's a patronizing smokescreen to cover up a failed process.

And Freeman, 3 or 4 emails? Are you serious? Did you not read any of the leaked emails? There are tons. It's as if you didn't read any of them.

http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-media-dnc-hillary/

http://sandrarose.com/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-prove-clinton-cnn-dnc-conspired-to-sabotage-sanders/

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/25/wikileaks-hack-exposes-democrat-media-bias/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 5:38 am

If a year ago anyone had said Bernie had a chance against Clinton, they would have been called mad.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 3:15 pm

danivon wrote:If a year ago anyone had said Bernie had a chance against Clinton, they would have been called mad.


And, now that we know that the party was colluding against him, it was mad.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 3:40 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:If a year ago anyone had said Bernie had a chance against Clinton, they would have been called mad.


And, now that we know that the party was colluding against him, it was mad.
Parties tend to try to avoid being hijacked by outsiders.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 3:45 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:If a year ago anyone had said Bernie had a chance against Clinton, they would have been called mad.


And, now that we know that the party was colluding against him, it was mad.
Parties tend to try to avoid being hijacked by outsiders.


Clearly some are better at that than others.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jul 2016, 6:30 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:If a year ago anyone had said Bernie had a chance against Clinton, they would have been called mad.


And, now that we know that the party was colluding against him, it was mad.
Parties tend to try to avoid being hijacked by outsiders.


Therefore, they should collude with an "insider."

They should also go after his religion, mock him, and set up the debates to minimize his exposure to the electorate.