Page 16 of 42 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 420

Thread: Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

  1. Top | #151
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,708
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,152
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    Jesus walking on the water. Dems have been "calling" for UHC for forty fucking years. As well as a rise in the minimum wage. Neither of these are Sanders' policies nor are they necessarily all that "progressive." They have been central policy planks since Kennedy at the very least.
    Except not so much. They have had power a few times and failed to make it happen when they could have. They WERE one of the early things Hillary championed for back when she was a liberal pushing liberal and progressive policies, until she buckled hard to wall street. I wonder when the big money got to her. Obama didn't even TRY for universal single payer. He instead pushed through Obama Care, which keeps money going into the pockets of for profit insurance companies. Yes, you can say the Republicans would have stopped him, but he didn't even try. He didn't even make a play for it as somewhere to bargain down from. He instead started with his "public option" and then bargained that away. He could have gotten much more than he did. He was and remains a great speaker, but wasn't much of a fighter. Bernie is.

    Plus, a real fighter knows when to throw in the towel. Sanders knew he couldn't possibly beat Clinton in March of 2016, yet instead of getting out then and becoming an asset to beating Trump, he stayed for no other reason than ego (and probably a hefty dose of spite). Had he left then, we more than likely would never have had Trump in the first place.
    Bullshit. Stop blaming others for your poor choice of candidate. You chose your boat and it sank. The bitterness and denail of the Hillarybots is epic.

    And he'll attract Trump voters
    A cranky, "eastern Jew" is going to attract Trump voters?
    Yes. Obama won many of them. Bernie would win many of them. Hillary was the anomoly here.

    He doesn't have either Hillary Clinton to bash or the Russians to back him.
    He doesn't need either. He only needs his policies, the bulk which most Americans already support when it gets separated out from politics buzzwords and they understand it.

    Once again (and hopefully for the last time) the "common man" didn't vote for Trump; they voted for Clinton overwhelmingly.
    Many of them didn't vote at all. Others voted for Clinton because they saw Trump as a disaster candidate. She was no Obama. She was a prime case of a "hold your nose" candidate.

    Obama ran on hope and change rhetoric. He beat the Republicans. Bernie ran/runs on hope and change policies. He'd beat the Republicans. Hillary ran on a lack of both, plus empty platitudes, identity politics and fear. Yes, she ran to a large extent on fear of Trump. She lost. Lesson to be learned? Democrats win by selling hope and change and progressive ideas. Republicans win based on fear. Trump will win again if the Democrats don't learn that lesson. "Who can beat Trump" isn't enough. You need a positive vision and progressive policies.

  2. Top | #152
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,346
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,053
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    He doesn't have either Hillary Clinton to bash or the Russians to back him.
    That's going to stop him from bashing Hillary or getting the Russians to help him? I think not.
    This map was on TRMS last night - I think it was leaked by the uber-geniuses of Das Trumpf Kampayne to stimulate the complacency for which Democrats are so famous.
    (Tan states are where Trump won and is now underwater by the numbers shown)


  3. Top | #153
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,477
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    That doesn't refute my case.
    It does precisely that.

    Sanders brought these issues to the forefront
    No, he didn't. Hillary did decades ago and Obama finally was able to get it into motion in Congress. It has never left the forefront. Don't mistake your ignorance or lack of attention for something significant.
    He did and he gave them momentum while Clinton was willing to throw in the towel:
    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen
    By Stephanie Condon, January 29, 2016 / CBS News

    Just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton stressed to voters in Des Moines just how unfeasible she considers her opponent Bernie Sanders' plan to pursue a single-payer health care system.
    ...
    She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
    He didn't come to the Democratic party so much as the Democratic party came to him.
    What? That's utter nonsense. The DNC not only did not "come to him," they--and we, the Democratic voters--massively rejected him. He couldn't even muster more than 5-6% turnout among all Democrats in spite of the fact that he was spearheading a "revolution" remember?
    You left out the fact that only 14% of the Democratic voters showed up, which was up from 6% in 2012. Something caused that increase and the consensus is that Sanders inspired the youth vote to come out. It was Sanders 43% to Clinton 55%. Not bad for a relative unknown.

    What do you mean they're not "progressive"?
    I meant they're not radical left policies. They're Democratic policies. Always have been. They have literally been on every single Democratic platform since Kennedy at least in one form or another. Sanders has done nothing except taken Democratic policies and bid a dollar more on them. Hillary was pushing for a $12 minimum, Sanders said $15.

    It's the exact same proposal--to significantly raise the minimum wage--the only difference was in the amount.

    So, if I were to enter the race and say, "I promise to raise the minimum wage to $20" does that mean I am the most progressive and the one bringing this issue to the forefront?

    No, it does not. It means I'm just randomly one-upping the policies of my opponent to make myself look better by comparison and saying bullshit nonsense like, "I'm just getting the conversation going!"
    They've been proposed in some form by Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy and I would think they'd approve of Sanders' zeal to finally get them done. The ACA was always a compromise just to get the ball rolling. Not the final goal.

    Only extremely weak-minded people or those starved for a messiah would fall for such bullshit. Unfortunately, Democrats have such people on their side too.
    Personal insult noted. Topic closed.

    Both the left and the right want a fighter and Bernie's just that.
    Um, no, he clearly is not. He's known as the "Amendment King" in Congress, not the "fighter." He does precisely the opposite of fighting. He would basically trade his vote/support for a bill in exchange for taking on his own pet projects.
    Hogwash.
    Won't change the fact that it's a still a pig.

    Passing amendment to bills, especially when the opposing party is the majority, is an excellent strategy.
    Strategy, yes, but it's not what a fighter does. It's a compromise. It's avoiding the fight. A fighter stands their ground and fights, not says, "Fine, you can have my vote, but I want the F-35s!"
    Most of the country wants a politician who drives a hard bargain but is willing to compromise.

    Plus, a real fighter knows when to throw in the towel. Sanders knew he couldn't possibly beat Clinton in March of 2016, yet instead of getting out then and becoming an asset to beating Trump, he stayed for no other reason than ego (and probably a hefty dose of spite). Had he left then, we more than likely would never have had Trump in the first place.
    And the Clinton campaign bears no blame for this?
    How would the Clinton campaign be to blame for him not leaving the stage when the audience said, "Get off the stage!"
    You mean the BLM demonstration at a rally he spoke at? Yeah both he and BLM were asked to leave the stage. He did the diplomatic thing under difficult circumstances. He didn't cower or insult anyone. He went out into the crowd and talked with attendees.

    He got shafted.
    Ah, that old chestnut.
    Indifference noted.

    You confuse cranky with genuine intensity.
    You confuse your own opinion and ignored how he'll be eviscerated by the right if he were to be alone against Trump.

    And the polls said he could have won against Trump in 2016.
    Based on? Did he ever once face Trump head-on? No, he did not. Instead he was used by the GOP, the Trump campaign AND Russia to torpedo Clinton. That alone should tell you who they wanted to run against and who they did not.
    So your reaction to Russian interference would be to abandon the democratic process. I get it. I think your slip is showing.

    You seem to be the one who has trouble with him being what he is even though he never emphasizes his heritage or his religious beliefs. And anyone who tries to make it an issue in the campaign will be exposed as a bigot.
    Heavens forfend! Trump supporters being exposed as bigots!!!??? How will the country ever recover?

    because he's all that and stands on principles shared by the common man.
    Once again (and hopefully for the last time) the "common man" didn't vote for Trump; they voted for Clinton overwhelmingly.
    By common man I didn't mean those with a 4 year college degree. I mean the one's who are struggling to get by earning half what those make and who blame the corporations who control congress.
    Yeah, you didn't read that article carefully enough. It wasn't the people who were "struggling to get by" that voted for Trump either. Unless you consider earning $70,000 to $100,000 in the midwest and rust belt "struggling."
    That's just cherry picking. The averages show higher education voters went for Clinton and lower went for Trump, although higher education doesn't always equal higher income. But on average it is the case.

    But in 2020 it's certainty they'll also turn out for Sanders if the alternative is Trump.
    Religious delusions run deep.
    What's up with all the religious insinuations? Trying to win over the local crowd with a strawman allusion?

  4. Top | #154
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,477
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    He did and he gave them momentum
    It's funny you mention "momentum" and then quote Clinton in the CBS News article that you clearly did not read all the way through, because if you had, you would have also noted how the piece ended:

    Clinton has, of course, been pushing for health care reform for decades. Her point of view on a single-payer system has changed dramatically over the years.

    In 1994, when advocating for comprehensive health care reform as first lady, Clinton told reporters that if Congress didn't pass a reform bill that year, the nation would eventually embrace a single-payer plan.

    "If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be."
    Again, that was in 1994, when then First Lady Clinton made health care reform her priority. She has literally been fighting this fight for twenty five years. SHE started the conversation in the modern age and the "momentum," not Bernie Sanders.

    It's like you came into the movie late and are now wondering why the guys on the boat are trying so hard to kill that poor shark.

    And the reason that's important to note is because in trying to win a fight, you need to go back through all of the previous times the fight has been fought NOT just pretend it's never been fought before and so you do the exact same mistakes made previously.

    Nor do you say and do completely vacuous things to get a "conversation" started that began already decades ago.

    You left out the fact that only 14% of the Democratic voters showed up
    That's not a plus. Hillary Clinton was already a very popular candidate--at one point she was beating Obama in 2008, remember (no, of course not)--and was the overwhelming favorite and expected frontrunner starting as early as 2014. So it was not in any way a referendum on her; she already had her vetting years prior and passed with flying colors.

    Sanders, otoh, as you point out, was a "new comer" and had a huge noise machine behind him--fueled, as we discovered, by not only the GOP and the Trump campaign, but also by the Russians--and in spite of all the hype and the "revolution" could not manage to get more than 6%.

    Iow, it was a referendum on him and he failed miserably. That's what a vote determines. That's its sole purpose.

    At no point was Sanders ahead of Clinton. Her votes were essentially a fait accompli based upon her already proven track record and massive popularity among Democrats.

    The numbers don't lie. Pundits do. Propagandists do. In the end, however, it's the votes. He couldn't get them. She already had them from 2008 onward.

    It's not about something being "rigged;" it's about someone being vetted and preferred. She went through her crucible and was neck and neck with Obama--and surpassed him in fact depending on how you deal with caucuses--in one of the closest fought primaries the DNC has ever seen, with a much higher turnout as a result. And in a tragically prophetic twist of irony, Wiki actually has Clinton once again winning the popular vote tally (by about the same percentage point Trump took the Oval with).

    Something caused that increase and the consensus is that Sanders inspired the youth vote to come out.
    Because they were ignorant and naive. Iow, young and bought all the magical ponies bullshit he was slinging. But again, you're looking at it, of course, as a glass 6% full when in fact it's a massive failure on his part as the new comer.

    As the new comer, it was a referendum on him and him alone and no one was buying what he was selling.

    They've been proposed in some form by Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy
    Confirming that they are standard Democratic policies and nothing new or full of "momentum."

    and I would think they'd approve of Sanders' zeal to finally get them done.
    "Zeal" and an actual, pragmatic plan on HOW to get them done are two entirely different matters. Zeal is wonderful, but it doesn't mean jackshit if you don't have a plan. And speaking of throwing in the towel, Sanders actually submitted his Medicare For All bill knowing full well--INTENDING in fact--that it would be rejected, because he wanted to "start a conversation." A conversation that you (and I) pointed out was "started" decades ago.

    The ACA was always a compromise just to get the ball rolling. Not the final goal.
    Hey, what do you know? Pretty much exactly what Hillary Clinton said in 1994.

    Only extremely weak-minded people or those starved for a messiah would fall for such bullshit. Unfortunately, Democrats have such people on their side too.
    Personal insult noted.
    That was not a personal insult. That is just a demonstrable fact.

    Most of the country wants a politician who drives a hard bargain but is willing to compromise.
    So, like every single candidate. Or, say, someone who tells the truth about how power works and will only promise things that she knows she has a good possibility of being able to implement precisely because she knows how to get things passed by Republicans?

    How would the Clinton campaign be to blame for him not leaving the stage when the audience said, "Get off the stage!"
    You mean the BLM demonstration at a rally he spoke at?
    No, I mean in regard to his entire Primary campaign and how it was over by the end of March, but he refused to leave the stage (as a metaphor).

    He got shafted.
    Ah, that old chestnut.
    Indifference noted.
    I can't be indifferent to something that never happened.

    Did he ever once face Trump head-on? No, he did not. Instead he was used by the GOP, the Trump campaign AND Russia to torpedo Clinton. That alone should tell you who they wanted to run against and who they did not.
    So your reaction to Russian interference would be to abandon the democratic process. I get it. I think your slip is showing.
    What does that mean? The reason why they backed Sanders is because they knew they stood a better chance of beating him and wanted to go against him.

    You need to look up the word "demonstrable."

    Yeah, you didn't read that article carefully enough. It wasn't the people who were "struggling to get by" that voted for Trump either. Unless you consider earning $70,000 to $100,000 in the midwest and rust belt "struggling."
    That's just cherry picking.
    No, that's what both the data and the article shows.

    The averages show higher education voters went for Clinton and lower went for Trump, although higher education doesn't always equal higher income. But on average it is the case.
    You want to read that one more time? The article makes clear that the people that voted for Trump on average were middle class, not the working poor. They may not on average have completed their college degrees, but they are nevertheless making upwards of $100K per year. That is not the "common man."

    Ironically, you're missing the very point about how student loan debt skyrocketed under Obama--who, again, was the FIRST administration to entertain and promote the notion of "free" public college. Iow, the "common man" in America is the working poor who leveraged debt in order to go to college in order to raise themselves out of the working poor and into the middle class, where the average Trump voter exists.

    Religious delusions run deep.
    What's up with all the religious insinuations?
    Those who worship Sanders behave as blindly toward him as any cult member does their cult leaders. He says to your faces that he can't get any of his policies implemented and you all cheer him as if a prophet speaking truth for the very first time. You say things like he's started a "revolution" when in fact he couldn't manage to actually get anyone to vote for him. You claim he's the one who started the "momentum" on policies that were in fact started long before him and far more aggressively.

    In spite of the fact that he has done nothing but harm, you all insist he has done nothing but good for a party he doesn't belong to. He steals other people's thunder for his own and young, naive, weak-minded ignorati--who are just now waking up to their surroundings and evidently know nothing of what has come before--are all falsely attributing policies that have been in the forefront of the Democratic party--literally in every single election for the past half a century at least--to him.

    He has done nothing but move from the left to the right his entire career and yet his devotees all insist that it is he that is moving the party to the left, on policies that were ALREADY DEMOCRATIC POLICIES.

    He's Jesus selling rehashed Judaism and the Golden Rule to a bunch of ignorant folk--and a lot of kids--who just never paid attention to what was going on around them before and don't really know what Judaism is all about, but, hey eternal paradise sounds GREAT!

    I mean, who wouldn't want to live forever in a magical kingdom of love and lollipops and unicorns? Just don't ever ask HOW any such things get achieved.

    Sanders' answer--LITERALLY--is that, it can't be achieved unless and until 80% of the entire American population--Republicans included--is behind him AFTER he is elected President.

    Well, gee, is that all? If that's all it took, why hasn't anyone else done that?

    Trying to win over the local crowd with a strawman allusion?
    You need to also look up "strawman."
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 08-15-2019 at 05:36 PM.

  5. Top | #155
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,708
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,152
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    He did and he gave them momentum while Clinton was willing to throw in the towel:
    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen
    By Stephanie Condon, January 29, 2016 / CBS News

    Just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton stressed to voters in Des Moines just how unfeasible she considers her opponent Bernie Sanders' plan to pursue a single-payer health care system.
    ...
    She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
    I still believe she sold out, long ago. She was once pushing hard for universal single payer. That stopped, and it stopped well before this campaign, and even before hers against Obama. She was an actual progressive liberal once. Then she sold out.

    You left out the fact that only 14% of the Democratic voters showed up, which was up from 6% in 2012. Something caused that increase and the consensus is that Sanders inspired the youth vote to come out. It was Sanders 43% to Clinton 55%. Not bad for a relative unknown.
    It was absolutely shocking. Nobody expected it. The media were going on about Hillary's "coronation" when the campaigns started. Bernie came out of nowhere, inspired new voters and whipped up a lot of positive energy for change. Hillary stood against that, even picking another bought politician as her running mate, when she could have publicly asked Warren or even Bernie. She didn't feel she needed to court the progressives, and took them for granted. She partly lost for that reason. Her stark contrast to Bernie (actual populist) and then even to Trump (false populism) exposed her as the bought non-progressive politician she is and she suffered her historic loss of the presidency as a result.

    They've been proposed in some form by Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy and I would think they'd approve of Sanders' zeal to finally get them done. The ACA was always a compromise just to get the ball rolling. Not the final goal.
    Indeed. But I still say Obama could have at least TRIED for universal single payer, and maybe bargained down from there as needed in practicality. Instead he started with his "public option".

    Most of the country wants a politician who drives a hard bargain but is willing to compromise.
    Most of the country wants a leader who is not bought and who has the good of the people in mind. Bernie is both. Hillary fails on the first, Trump fails on the second and possibly on the first.

    Currently, I believe Yang, Warren, and Williamson (in her own odd way) are genuinely in it for the people and not for themselves, along with Bernie. Tulsi maybe as well. I'm not convinced with the others.

  6. Top | #156
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,708
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,152
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    "Zeal" and an actual, pragmatic plan on HOW to get them done are two entirely different matters. Zeal is wonderful
    It is. Isn't it? It is what gets people elected. Trump didn't exactly have a plan, now did he? What he had was a lot of words directed at former Obama voters who had had enough of washington insider politics and bought politicians. He pretended to listen to the commoners and to have their backs and to push for their interests. He was all hot air. He got elected.

    , but it doesn't mean jackshit if you don't have a plan.
    Its so cute that you dismiss Sanders actually talking nonstop about policy but think Hillary Empty Platitudes and Identity Politics Clinton had a workable plan. Her plan was to continue to sell you out.

    So, like every single candidate. Or, say, someone who tells the truth about how power works

    Yeah, that's what changed about her between 1994 and 2016. She learned how power works politicians. Its why she kept hearing Bernie say he wanted to get money out of politics, and she always immediately chimed in Dark Money, and wouldn't disclose what she was being paid for overpaid "speeches" to investment bankers and other power elite.

    I can't be indifferent to something that never happened.
    She bought the DNC. It happened. Donna Brazile wrote a book about it.

    https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/56197...th-dnc-in-2015

    Quote Originally Posted by NPR
    Brazile took over the DNC as interim chair following Debbie Wasserman Schultz's sudden resignation during the Democratic National Convention. Once she was at the party's helm, Brazile wrote that she discovered an agreement that "specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff." The DNC and former Clinton staffers pushed back on Brazile's claim but never outright denied it.
    In Hillary's defence

    That document was signed on Aug. 26, 2015 — before, among other things, Vice President Joe Biden ruled out a run for president.

    The DNC has not denied this characterization or timeline.

    A Democratic official who has reviewed the document pointed out that in addition to the Clinton signoffs Brazile characterized, it included language stating that "nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process" and that "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary."

    The agreement also noted that the DNC "may enter into similar agreements with other candidates." (Read the full memo below.)
    That makes it all better, ya? People would never be influenced by money and then deny it..... Ya.... Forget the wikileaks emails showing many in the DNC wanting a Hillary win. Hillary learned how power works indeed.

    What's up with all the religious insinuations?
    Those who worship Sanders behave as blindly toward him as any cult member does their cult leaders. He says to your faces that he can't get any of his policies implemented and you all cheer him as if a prophet speaking truth for the very first time. You say things like he's started a "revolution" when in fact he couldn't manage to actually get anyone to vote for him. You claim he's the one who started the "momentum" on policies that were in fact started long before him and far more aggressively.

    In spite of the fact that he has done nothing but harm, you all insist he has done nothing but good for a party he doesn't belong to. He steals other people's thunder for his own and young, naive, weak-minded ignorati--who are just now waking up to their surroundings and evidently know nothing of what has come before--are all falsely attributing policies that have been in the forefront of the Democratic party--literally in every single election for the past half a century at least--to him.
    Nobody worshiped Sanders. It wasn't about Sanders. It still isn't about Sanders. It is about the policies he pushed for. The policies Hillary stood against and said "no magical ponies" to. It was about universal single payer health care, and not just more Obama care. It was about free college. These were policies Sanders was pushing for going way way back. Both he and Hillary were pushing for them decades ago. Difference between him and Hillary is he didn't sell them out. Do you really think an old man with bad hair appealed to the youth due to his charisma? The man was and is no Obama or Kennedy. Its the policies people got energized for. No, he didn't invent them. But he cut through the politics and usual and got people energized about them. That's a big win for America.

    He's Jesus selling rehashed Judaism and the Golden Rule to a bunch of ignorant folk
    Perhaps so, but that was refreshing and energizing in contrast to Hillary and so many other politicians who spoke against it and said it couldn't happen.

    I mean, who wouldn't want to live forever in a magical kingdom of love and lollipops and unicorns? Just don't ever ask HOW any such things get achieved.
    We have universal single payer up here in Canada. Not Obamacare pushing money into the pockets of insurance companies. Actual universal single payer health care. They have it in Europe too. Scandinavia has it. Australia has it. The lollipops taste pretty good and the unicorns are cute.

  7. Top | #157
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,477
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    ...
    I still believe she sold out, long ago. She was once pushing hard for universal single payer. That stopped, and it stopped well before this campaign, and even before hers against Obama. She was an actual progressive liberal once. Then she sold out.
    I think that might be the case. They caved under the onslaught of lobbying and the Republican steamroller. And in 2016 she just wasn't able to express that vision for some reason. She just came across as disingenuous.

    You left out the fact that only 14% of the Democratic voters showed up, which was up from 6% in 2012. Something caused that increase and the consensus is that Sanders inspired the youth vote to come out. It was Sanders 43% to Clinton 55%. Not bad for a relative unknown.
    It was absolutely shocking. Nobody expected it. The media were going on about Hillary's "coronation" when the campaigns started. Bernie came out of nowhere, inspired new voters and whipped up a lot of positive energy for change. Hillary stood against that, even picking another bought politician as her running mate, when she could have publicly asked Warren or even Bernie. She didn't feel she needed to court the progressives, and took them for granted. She partly lost for that reason. Her stark contrast to Bernie (actual populist) and then even to Trump (false populism) exposed her as the bought non-progressive politician she is and she suffered her historic loss of the presidency as a result.
    I would have supported her much more enthusiastically if she'd chosen Warren as VP instead of a lapdog. It would have been a strong signal to the Bernie fans that she'd brought one of them on board. What did Tim Kaine get her?

  8. Top | #158
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,708
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,152
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I would have supported her much more enthusiastically if she'd chosen Warren as VP instead of a lapdog. It would have been a strong signal to the Bernie fans that she'd brought one of them on board. What did Tim Kaine get her?
    It got her a signal to her donors that she won't turn on them, at the expense of her appearing tone deaf, and so confident she would win that she didn't need the progressive wing.

    Had she been a better politician she would have publically offered the VP spot to Warren, knowing she wasn't interested at that time (she had said so in interviews).

  9. Top | #159
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    BACK ON TOPIC.

    Brian Williams, in his segment about the #MyBernieStory hashtag trending on Twitter, decided that the most representative and balanced tweet to show as an example was this, a tweet that could have easily been ripped directly from a Koyaanisqatsi polemic:



    Who is this horse, and why is his anonymous tweet being featured on national news? Well.


  10. Top | #160
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Just leaving this here as a reminder





    Here's the thing: if you believe that Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton in the general in 2016 was why she lost, then it follows that you believe Sanders supporters were needed to beat Trump.

    If that was true, and if it's still true today, and you paint yourself as someone who just wants to get Trump out of the White House, then your only logical option is to support Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Moderate Democratic voters are never going to vote for Trump; but no matter who is the Democratic nominee, they will vote for that person in the general.

    If your hypothesis about Sanders voters is correct, namely that they are capable of giving Trump another four years if a candidate does not appeal to them (either by voting for Trump or simply not voting at all), then they are clearly the demographic whose support you should be locking the fuck down.

    Not the never-Trump Republicans, not the mythical centrists. If you really, truly believe that a larger Sanders-supporting turnout in 2016 would have won Clinton the presidency, then it necessarily follows that today, when that contingent has multiplied in number many times, picking a candidate who appeals to them guarantees Trump is out. There's no other option: if all the Democratic voters from 2016 still vote Democrat, AND all the disaffected Bernie voters join in, you don't need a single former Trump voter. Not one.

    It's almost like beating Trump isn't really the main priority for the Koch-funded Third Way liberals and establishment Democrats who think the best 2020 strategy is the one that failed in 2016. It seems more like they just prefer Trump to Sanders, because at least Trump won't threaten their wealth.

Similar Threads

  1. Bernie Sanders on the current state of media today today
    By RVonse in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-08-2018, 08:07 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders about to be #MeTooBoated?
    By Derec in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-10-2017, 04:22 AM
  3. Bernie Sanders - Op Ed
    By Don2 (Don1 Revised) in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 07:35 PM
  4. God supports Bernie Sanders.
    By Angry Floof in forum Separation of Church & State
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-10-2016, 06:52 PM
  5. How would Bernie Sanders really like it in Scandinavia?
    By Tammuz in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-15-2015, 03:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •