Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being.

Recommended Posts

The Sanders-Trump connection is in that they are both anti-establishment. 

Sanders funded his campaign from small donations from large numbers of individual Americans.  He is beholden only to them and the feeling is he would represent the American voter, not the corporate interest.

Trump has not taken corporate money (yet).  He has "self-funded" his campaign.  The difference between him and Sanders is that while Sanders was beholden to American voters, Trump is beholden only to himself and his ego.  Still, many people who are frustrated with the system expect that he might be more likely to challenge the status quo than HRC, who is beholden to Wall Street and SuperPACs.  

I suspect that those who might transition from Sanders to Trump are those who supported Sanders even against their own economic self-interest, but liked Sanders because he is anti-establishment.  They are likely middle to upper middle class whites who are right or left leaning moderates, not true liberals.  

While I fall into that category, when the time comes, I'll likely hold my nose and vote for Hillary.  But Hillary's campaign has severely underestimated the numbers of the people who won't do as I do, regardless of whether Sanders endorses her or not.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, glock said:

A movement is movement- it isn't about anyone snapping their fingers to make things happen. We need to create movement on many fronts.

I can agree with that. But as I've said before, this type of movement will work so much better if people stay mobilized and work bottom-up instead of top-down. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:
16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think everything you're saying is a valid viewpoint, but there are additional pieces to the puzzle.  Such as the establishment Democratic Party attempt to sandbag Sanders in this election.  If all liberals just go ahead and toe the party line anyway, where is the accountability for that? What motivation does the party have for doing anything differently the next time? We have time and again seen candidates get elected this way and move right on past the true progressive agenda into centrism or Conservativism, while we stand aside and look.  "Oh, well, I guess it's impossible to get anything we want out of a candidate" is not a political position.  

A lot of people are sick of it, and refuse to vote for someone whose party and party-affiliated private groups just spent months tearing down an actual liberal candidate.  Or vote for a candidate who shouted at a rally that single payer "will never, ever come to pass."

I'm not sure I could be one of those people, but I understand them.

I'm a liberal. I don't consider my support for Hillary "toeing the party line." Maybe Bernie supporters should step back and consider the possibility that they did not have the best candidate to represent the democratic party and that's why they did not win the nomination

This is what I keep having to remind myself of.  He doesn't represent what the democrats have become.  They've slowly moved right for a good while now and are what they are.  Bernie represents liberals, not democrats.  This puts me at a crossroads for people like you pantagrapher. I'm not exactly sure how you reconcile a vote for Hillary and at the same time label yourself liberal.  Is your position such that you are liberal and want liberal things outside of your representative where you want them to be generally a centerist with a slightly left lean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

I'm a liberal and I supported Hillary. Maybe Bernie supporters should step back and consider the possibility that they did not have the best candidate to represent the democratic party and that's why they did not win the nomination.

Of course, that is correct.

The dilemma now is what to do with our general election vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pantagrapher said:

I can agree with that. But as I've said before, this type of movement will work so much better if people stay mobilized and work bottom-up instead of top-down. 

It would have worked top-down along side of bottom-up just fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, don't want to sound like I'm slagging Sanders there.  I think the benefit of any 3rd-party candidate is that they are frequently successful enough to force one (or both) parties into adopting key pieces of their platform.  Sanders (and Trump) are both doing that this time around.

IMO Sanders is opening the door to a Democrat like Elizabeth Warren in 202x, and Trump is exposing the schisms in the Republican Party.  No idea where they go from here.  Both are super useful in terms of forcing the major parties to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm sure that's it.  No sense considering them to have a valid position on the issue.  They'll probably respect you and your candidate more for telling them that this candidate represents the party better so they should vote for her even if they don't agree with her policies, history, or tactics and don't think she is being honest.

If Sanders supporters want to stay home because they don't like Hillary as a candidate, that's fine. We seem to go through something like this every four years, and I guess it's the pitfall of having a big tent. But if the rationale is that they'd stay home because of a party conspiracy to sink Bernie, those people need to get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Idiot Boxer said:

The Sanders-Trump connection is in that they are both anti-establishment. 

Sanders funded his campaign from small donations from large numbers of individual Americans.  He is beholden only to them and the feeling is he would represent the American voter, not the corporate interest.

Trump has not taken corporate money (yet).  He has "self-funded" his campaign.  The difference between him and Sanders is that while Sanders was beholden to American voters, Trump is beholden only to himself and his ego.  Still, many people who are frustrated with the system expect that he might be more likely to challenge the status quo than HRC, who is beholden to Wall Street and SuperPACs.  

 

 

Actually, the vast majority of money Trump is using in his campaign was officially a loan from Trump. This is different from a donation because a loan can be paid back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

I can agree with that. But as I've said before, this type of movement will work so much better if people stay mobilized and work bottom-up instead of top-down. 

Endorse.  And said more politely than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clayton Gray said:

Actually, the vast majority of money Trump is using in his campaign was officially a loan from Trump. This is different from a donation because a loan can be paid back.

Hence the (yet)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pantagrapher said:

If Sanders supporters want to stay home because they don't like Hillary as a candidate, that's fine. We seem to go through something like this every four years, and I guess it's the pitfall of having a big tent. But if the rationale is that they'd stay home because of a party conspiracy to sink Bernie, those people need to get a grip.

There's no conspiracy.  There is a concerted effort in the name of "everyday politics" to sink him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wdcrob said:

IMO Sanders is opening the door to a Democrat like Elizabeth Warren in 202x, 

It's actually kind of the opposite of that.  When given a clear choice between a progressive and a DLC "third way" centrist, the party rejected the progressive and chose the centrist. That doesn't open the door to a progressive in 2024.  On the contrary, it sends a clear message that the party is more interested in staking out a position near the center than nominating somebody who better appeals to progressives.  

I say that as somebody who's happy about that development.  If the Republican party is going to go off the deep end and nominate insane people, I'd prefer to see the Democrats nominate a centrist rather than a real liberal.  (I'd strongly prefer that that centrist be somebody other than Hillary Clinton, but that's a different issue).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's actually kind of the opposite of that.  When given a clear choice between a progressive and a DLC "third way" centrist, the party rejected the progressive and chose the centrist. That doesn't open the door to a progressive in 2024.  On the contrary, it sends a clear message that the party is more interested in staking out a position near the center than nominating somebody who better appeals to progressives.  

I say that as somebody who's happy about that development.  If the Republican party is going to go off the deep end and nominate insane people, I'd prefer to see the Democrats nominate a centrist rather than a real liberal.  (I'd strongly prefer that that centrist be somebody other than Hillary Clinton, but that's a different issue).

The relative success of Bernie has been a shock to the party.  It has shown that his ideas are popular with large numbers of Democrats.  Although I agree with much of your post, Bernie's success with young voters is certainly noteworthy.  If those millennials' politics don't change (big if, I know) and they are reinforced by a new crop of young voters, it could very well be a majority of the party.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's actually kind of the opposite of that.  When given a clear choice between a progressive and a DLC "third way" centrist, the party rejected the progressive and chose the centrist. That doesn't open the door to a progressive in 2024.  On the contrary, it sends a clear message that the party is more interested in staking out a position near the center than nominating somebody who better appeals to progressives.  

I say that as somebody who's happy about that development.  If the Republican party is going to go off the deep end and nominate insane people, I'd prefer to see the Democrats nominate a centrist rather than a real liberal.  (I'd strongly prefer that that centrist be somebody other than Hillary Clinton, but that's a different issue).

You're right about what's happening in 2016, but somewhere out there are a bunch of progressive Democrats who are seeing what Sanders and Trump are doing and thinking -- I got this.  

If that's right you'll see more liberal/progressive Dems and more populist Republicans winning in state races because they're willing and able to tap into the Sanders/Trump piece.  And that will eventually translate to national politics.

Either way, the fact that the party faithful weren't willing to vote for a Socialist without any real standing in the Democratic Party doesn't mean his ideas won't stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Idiot Boxer said:

There's no conspiracy.  There is a concerted effort in the name of "everyday politics" to sink him.

This.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's actually kind of the opposite of that.  When given a clear choice between a progressive and a DLC "third way" centrist, the party rejected the progressive and chose the centrist. That doesn't open the door to a progressive in 2024.  On the contrary, it sends a clear message that the party is more interested in staking out a position near the center than nominating somebody who better appeals to progressives.  

I say that as somebody who's happy about that development.  If the Republican party is going to go off the deep end and nominate insane people, I'd prefer to see the Democrats nominate a centrist rather than a real liberal.  (I'd strongly prefer that that centrist be somebody other than Hillary Clinton, but that's a different issue).

In 2004 and 2008, Dennis Kucinich was only able to muster in the single digits nationally and was never considered a serious candidate.  The fact that Sanders has been getting over 40% of the vote in 2016 suggests that the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's actually kind of the opposite of that.  When given a clear choice between a progressive and a DLC "third way" centrist, the party rejected the progressive and chose the centrist. That doesn't open the door to a progressive in 2024.  On the contrary, it sends a clear message that the party is more interested in staking out a position near the center than nominating somebody who better appeals to progressives.  

I say that as somebody who's happy about that development.  If the Republican party is going to go off the deep end and nominate insane people, I'd prefer to see the Democrats nominate a centrist rather than a real liberal.  (I'd strongly prefer that that centrist be somebody other than Hillary Clinton, but that's a different issue).

If Bernie was half the campaigner Obama was he'd be President instead of Hillary next year. Democrats had no problem nominating Obama over Hillary, but the reality is that Bernie is a flawed candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cstu said:

If Bernie was half the campaigner Obama was he'd be President instead of Hillary next year. Democrats had no problem nominating Obama over Hillary, but the reality is that Bernie is a flawed candidate.

Sanders' biggest flaw is that he wanted to take a big step away from the status quo. People generally aren't comfortable with big changes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clayton Gray said:

Sanders' biggest flaw is that he wanted to take a big step away from the status quo. People generally aren't comfortable with big changes.

This is like an interview answer. My biggest weakness? I'm a perfectionist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Short Corner said:

If HRC wins we can run another progressive in 8 years.  If GOP wins we only have to wait 4.  The difference between HRC and what the GOP puts up is marginal at best.  

This is silly!  At her worst as a fully bought and sold pawn of the establishment she is still merely center right.  Other than possibly "the real" Trump there isn't anyone close to the "sane right" on the GOP side.  Supporting Hillary over the GOP might be settling compared to Sanders, but supporting the GOP is out right selling out the ideals that has built this campaign, Sanders entire public life that Sanders' supporters claim to admire.  

And the revolution isn't going to happen if "you" concentrate only on the White House.  Change won't really happen until progressives start winning the smaller elections.  Until we start filling the DNC positions that the moderate establishment folks take by default.  This election was not rigged by the DNC insiders, but conceded to those that support the establishment by inaction.  The revolution is not going to happen if we throw up our hands ind quit in despair when we lose the beauty contests.  

If the GOP wins in November there won't be an opportunity for progressives anytime soon as we will once again be electing a candidate to undo the damage that the next round of tax cuts create.   This notion that after another disaster from the GOP that the country will finally try a liberal is just wishful thinking unless we are hoping for "a good crisis" worst than the Great Recession.  I'll be "all in" taking advantage of such a crisis to push policy positions, but I'm not ever going to be wishing for it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

In 2004 and 2008, Dennis Kucinich was only able to muster in the single digits nationally and was never considered a serious candidate.  The fact that Sanders has been getting over 40% of the vote in 2016 suggests that the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

I'll buy into this if it's not a Clinton the next actual progressive is running against and the numbers stay up.  Like it or not, there's been "against" voting with respect to Hillary.  It's really tough to say how much of the % was motivated by that.  I know many people like me who voted in the two party primary for the first time ever because of Bernie.  People like me skew the evidence that the "Democratic Party" is moving left.  I'm not part of the party outside of voting for Bernie.  Had he been an independent, the pessimist in me would be willing to bet that there'd be very little to no evidence of the Democratic Party moving left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Clayton Gray said:
20 minutes ago, cstu said:

If Bernie was half the campaigner Obama was he'd be President instead of Hillary next year. Democrats had no problem nominating Obama over Hillary, but the reality is that Bernie is a flawed candidate.

Sanders' biggest flaw is that he wanted to take a big step away from the status quo. People generally aren't comfortable with big changes.

With his second biggest flaw being his unwillingness to bow to the establishment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NCCommish said:

When you vote for someone you are rewarding their behavior. In this case the way they are or will govern. If you continue to vote for people who don't govern the way you would like why should they change? Oh silly liberals I can do anything and you'll still vote for me because Trump is scary. See him acting stupid? Scary right? So you know screw you I will continue to bathe myself in the system I say I detest and dare you to not vote for me 

It's like going everyday to the same place and eating food you hate. You pay for it every day and you tip every day all while hoping that one day they'll change. Why would they?

So I'm not eating at that diner anymore. I hope it doesn't take a lot of us not eating there to get someone's legitimate attention but it's on them if it does.

I've been saying this for a while now.  It's like giving your kids an ice cream cone after they kick you in the nuts- it shouldn't be a surprise that they are going to continue to kick you in the nuts, and it's pretty silly to try and rationalize it by saying well, at least they aren't gouging your eyes out too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:
48 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's actually kind of the opposite of that.  When given a clear choice between a progressive and a DLC "third way" centrist, the party rejected the progressive and chose the centrist. That doesn't open the door to a progressive in 2024.  On the contrary, it sends a clear message that the party is more interested in staking out a position near the center than nominating somebody who better appeals to progressives.  

I say that as somebody who's happy about that development.  If the Republican party is going to go off the deep end and nominate insane people, I'd prefer to see the Democrats nominate a centrist rather than a real liberal.  (I'd strongly prefer that that centrist be somebody other than Hillary Clinton, but that's a different issue).

In 2004 and 2008, Dennis Kucinich was only able to muster in the single digits nationally and was never considered a serious candidate.  The fact that Sanders has been getting over 40% of the vote in 2016 suggests that the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

Exactly!  Sanders has raised the ceiling.  Still needs to be pushed higher but liberalism is becoming a position to embrace rather than run from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

With his second biggest flaw being his unwillingness to bow to the establishment.

His third biggest flaw is how authentic and amazing he is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Commish said:
11 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Democrats are winning? A lot?  Maybe the White House, but not much else,

That's all that matters to the simple minded :shrug:  And they've done just fine for themselves in the Senate.

The Senate is like a ping pong game but that is still just 20 or so jobs actually bouncing back and forth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

In 2004 and 2008, Dennis Kucinich was only able to muster in the single digits nationally and was never considered a serious candidate.  The fact that Sanders has been getting over 40% of the vote in 2016 suggests that the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

Or maybe that Democrats didn't particularly care for Kucinich, perhaps disliking the messenger more than the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NCCommish said:

I won't vote Trump and I will not vote Clinton . I will vote though. Offices from local to state and federal up for grabs. I just won't vote the top of the ticket.

 

Thought I should add I won't vote any Republican and none of the 3rd party people excite me.

At the very least, write-in a name (e.g. Bernie Sanders) for President.  Bring down the percentage that the top two candidates get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

Or maybe that Democrats didn't particularly care for Kucinich, perhaps disliking the messenger more than the message.

Sure, but I think this theory would be more persuasive if Bernie wasn't also different from the way we normally think of Presidential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:
11 hours ago, NCCommish said:

I won't vote Trump and I will not vote Clinton . I will vote though. Offices from local to state and federal up for grabs. I just won't vote the top of the ticket.

 

Thought I should add I won't vote any Republican and none of the 3rd party people excite me.

At the very least, write-in a name (e.g. Bernie Sanders) for President.  Bring down the percentage that the top two candidates get.

Check your state election rules.  Apparently, not all states have a write-in option.  For instance, in SC, I have to get a petition signed by X people to have his name on the ballot.  Can't just write him in.  Not sure how that's legal, but that's the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Sure, but I think this theory would be more persuasive if Bernie wasn't also different from the way we normally think of Presidential candidates.

Bernie is rather likable, you don't hear an objection from Hillary supporters or Democrats based on his personality. Irrespective of what he had to say, there was just something that just didn't sit well with me about Kucinich, to the point that even though I agreed with him on many issues, I just couldn't get behind supporting him.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Bernie is rather likable, you don't hear an objection from Hillary supporters or Democrats based on his personality. Irrespective of what he had to say, there was just something that just didn't sit well with me about Kucinich, to the point that even though I agreed with him on many issues, I just couldn't get behind supporting him.

Yeah, I know what you mean, I didn't support him either.  I still think there's a compelling argument that the Democratic party is drifting leftward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked John Edwards and look how that turned out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Yeah, I know what you mean, I didn't support him either.  I still think there's a compelling argument that the Democratic party is drifting leftward.

I don't have a link so don't run with these details but the percentage of self described "liberals" has risen from the low 40's to the high 40's over the recent few years.  Liberals are still the minority against a moderate-conservative coalition, but the gap is closing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

I really liked John Edwards and look how that turned out.

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wdcrob said:

Throwing the pacifier out of the crib probably feels AWESOME for a minute or two.  But then you're stuck in the crib crying for the next four years without anything to comfort you.

You're missing the point. For many Sanders supporters, HRC as President is no more comfort than Trump would be. And they have valid reasons for feeling that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the Democrats ever allow the Sanders/Warren faction to dominate the party, they will lose national elections. Even now they are losing state and local elections because they are perceived to be more liberal than they are (this is especially true of Obama). 

America is not a liberal country and its not going to become one. Whoever presents itself as more to the center is going to win most of the time. The Democrats are a coalition party of minorities plus unions- that's basically how they win elections. White leftists and millennialis who don't vote are an afterthought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

You're missing the point. For many Sanders supporters, HRC as President is no more comfort than Trump would be. And they have valid reasons for feeling that way.

To them I'd say: it's time to set aside the comfort and feelings and put on big boy pants. This is politics. It doesn't always make you feel nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

if the Democrats ever allow the Sanders/Warren faction to dominate the party, they will lose national elections. Even now they are losing state and local elections because they are perceived to be more liberal than they are (this is especially true of Obama). 

America is not a liberal country and its not going to become one. Whoever presents itself as more to the center is going to win most of the time. The Democrats are a coalition party of minorities plus unions- that's basically how they win elections. White leftists and millennialis who don't vote are an afterthought. 

Remember when we had legal segregation? Remember when women couldn't vote? Remember when homosexuals couldn't marry? Remember when marijuana was completely illegal everywhere? Remember when we didn't have an ACA? Yeah, the U.S. will never become a liberal country.

Given your track record, it's no surprise you'd make a bunch of unequivocal off base statements, but you sure have jammed above your normal quota in to that tiny post.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

if the Democrats ever allow the Sanders/Warren faction to dominate the party, they will lose national elections. Even now they are losing state and local elections because they are perceived to be more liberal than they are (this is especially true of Obama). 

America is not a liberal country and its not going to become one. Whoever presents itself as more to the center is going to win most of the time. The Democrats are a coalition party of minorities plus unions- that's basically how they win elections. White leftists and millennialis who don't vote are an afterthought. 

I don't subscribe to this at all. If anything, the country is much more liberal than its politicians.

Edited by pantagrapher
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

To them I'd say: it's time to set aside the comfort and feelings and put on big boy pants. This is politics. It doesn't always make you feel nice.

Maybe the next 100 years is more important to some voters than the next 4. Maybe, if that 40% block of Sanders voters all decided to bail on the Democratic party, we'd get some real change. Hillary isn't going to bring it. Maybe if we bottom out now, we'll get a better country out of it later. And when the remaining choices are as unpalatable as they appear they will be, opting otherwise can make a ton of sense.

Also, please retire the "big boy pants" meme - it's dumb. Always has been. The condescension from some of the HRC reporters since Tuesday has been a bit much.

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Remember when we had legal segregation? Remember when women couldn't vote? Remember when homosexuals couldn't marry? Remember when marijuana was completely illegal everywhere? Remember when we didn't have an ACA? Yeah, the U.S. will never become a liberal country.

Given your track record, it's no surprise you'd make a bunch of unequivocal off base statements, but you sure have jammed above your normal quota in to that tiny post.

I should have quantified my statement- I was referring more to economic liberalism than social liberalism. We are a centrist economic country and have been since the New Deal. Free enterprise combined with reasonable government regulation and a safety net. That's not going to change no matter how much the extreme on either side desires it IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

I should have quantified my statement- I was referring more to economic liberalism than social liberalism. We are a centrist economic country and have been since the New Deal. Free enterprise combined with reasonable government regulation and a safety net. That's not going to change no matter how much the extreme on either side desires it IMO. 

So, I guess the ACA didn't happen?

Single payer is coming Tim, it's just a matter of time.

I think some sort of basic income arrangement will have to happen in the next 50 years, probably less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absolutely insane IMO that in a country as large and diverse as the US that we effectively have a 2 party system.  The electoral college/winner take all system seems so ridiculous.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Maybe the next 100 years is more important to some voters than the next 4. Maybe, if that 40% block of Sanders voters all decided to bail on the Democratic party, we'd get some real change. Hillary isn't going to bring it. Maybe if we bottom out now, we'll get a better country out of it later. And when the remaining choices are as unpalatable as they appear they will be, opting otherwise can make a ton of sense.

Also, please retire the "big boy pants" meme - it's dumb. Always has been. The condescension from some of the HRC reporters since Tuesday has been a bit much.

Wishing for bad things so that your personal goals for political transformation can happen is misguided, childish, and selfish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, #### all the doom and gloom, we have a nomination to win.

 

From Sanders's campaign:

Quote

There are 27 primaries and caucuses between now and June 7, which is the day we expect to overtake Hillary Clinton's campaign in pledged delegates needed to win the nomination.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pantagrapher said:

Wishing for bad things so that your personal goals for political transformation can happen is misguided, childish, and selfish. 

If I was being selfish and solely concerned with my own personal goals, I'd be a big HRC supporter, maybe Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

Wishing for bad things so that your personal goals for political transformation can happen is misguided, childish, and selfish. 

Some people just want to watch the world Bern.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

If I was being selfish and solely concerned with my own personal goals, I'd be a big HRC supporter, maybe Trump.

But you've also said you're not one of the Bernie voters you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.