What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (2 Viewers)

The General said:
IIRC Bernie was quite a bit larger favorite over Trump in polls than Clinton.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the damage it does within the Democratic Party.  He is so crazy far left but his supporters absolutely adore him. To the point that they hate his Democratic competition. I hate doesn't end if Sanders loses the primary. and then you have many people that just won't vote at all in the main election. That happened last time and the result is a trump presidency

 
JuniorNB said:
I'm talking about the damage it does within the Democratic Party.  He is so crazy far left but his supporters absolutely adore him. To the point that they hate his Democratic competition. I hate doesn't end if Sanders loses the primary. and then you have many people that just won't vote at all in the main election. That happened last time and the result is a trump presidency
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of all his policies but I do love listening to him. If he were to win the primary I guess that's where we are. Think he would pound Trump.

Would be nuts to go from Trump to Berns.

 
Run any white guy that doesn't call himself a socialist, atheist, communist or any other "ist" that the GOP have been demonizing for the past couple of decades. 

 
JuniorNB said:
I'm talking about the damage it does within the Democratic Party.  He is so crazy far left but his supporters absolutely adore him. To the point that they hate his Democratic competition. I hate doesn't end if Sanders loses the primary. and then you have many people that just won't vote at all in the main election. That happened last time and the result is a trump presidency
Click to expand...
No it didn't.

 
Radio Free Homer said:
No it didn't.
Click to expand...
What didn't happen?  Maybe I misunderstand the point, but about a quarter of Sanders' primary voters either voted for Trump, voted third party, or stayed home.  Now those number are exaggerated because non democrats voted for Sanders in the primary and many democrats being "never Hillary" had nothing to do with Sanders, but even a tiny percentage of 13+ million left over would seem to equate to "many" in such a close race. 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH7GmdyW0AEL6ny.png:large

Oh, and I'm not in agreement that Sanders or those more liberal than usual running damages the democrats chances in 2020, but I'm not so certain that the resentment from Bernie supporters about the process didn't play a significant role in 2016.

 
Radio Free Homer said:
No it didn't.
Click to expand...
The Sanders/Hillary primary caused many Sanders supporters to consider Hillary to be the enemy and an evil woman. That contentious primary played out perfectly for the Republicans.  Sanders also only half-assedly supported Hillary afterwards. He should have conceded earlier and made it crystal clear immediately that all must bond together to keep Trump out of office. He failed to do so.  Him running again is going to do the exact same thing. Unless the old dog can learn a new trick and not divide the party so badly this time around.

 
JuniorNB said:
The Sanders/Hillary primary caused many Sanders supporters to consider Hillary to be the enemy and an evil woman. That contentious primary played out perfectly for the Republicans.  Sanders also only half-assedly supported Hillary afterwards. He should have conceded earlier and made it crystal clear immediately that all must bond together to keep Trump out of office. He failed to do so.  Him running again is going to do the exact same thing. Unless the old dog can learn a new trick and not divide the party so badly this time around.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

 
I always chuckle at centrist Dems railing on Bernie being "too far left" and implying that he doesn't represent what the Democratic party is (or should be). You're right that he isn't a Third Way Democrat, which is what the Clintons made the Dems into. But he's been carrying the torch for the New Deal wing of the party for 30 years. Thankfully, it is beginning to look like he was able to finally find his audience again and pass that torch on to (much younger, and more diverse) others. And trust me, the Progressive/New Deal wing of the party didn't need  the 2016 election to inform us that Hillary doesn't have our ideals at heart. That's been clear from the very beginning.

Here's what I'll say. For those that think Democratic Socialists/Progressives (or whatever you want to call the general ideology of a strong leftwing social contract between the government and the people) are a losing proposition politically, all I can do is point to FDR.

No, he wouldn't have called himself a Democratic Socialist back then. He very likely might today. He ran on a platform of heavy reform and regulation and massive government intervention in the societal ills of the day:

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. ... 

Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1936
Click to expand...
In so doing, he created the most lopsided voting block our country has ever seen and rode that to 4 elected terms with truly landslide victories in the electoral college (472 - 59, 523 - 8, 449 - 82, 432 - 99). Both parties have strived to recreate anything approaching that level of success since it fell apart in the Civil Rights era.

I just wish he'd managed to get some form of his Second Bill of Rights passed before he died:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
Click to expand...
Sure sounds a lot like Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez's platform to me.

It seems to me that in nearly every country across the world throughout modern history, there come times of internal strife that ultimately boil down to a fight between the two main extremes of political ideology. Rarely do the cautious Centrists end up as the victors, instead steamrolled by which ever side of the scale wins in the court of public opinion. If we're in one of those times right now (which, personally, I think we absolutely are), I'd much rather go down swinging for my side of the scale than standing in the middle, wringing my hands at the divisiveness of it all.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I always chuckle at centrist Dems railing on Bernie being "too far left" and implying that he doesn't represent what the Democratic party is (or should be). You're right that he isn't a Third Way Democrat, which is what the Clintons made the Dems into. But he's been carrying the torch for the New Deal wing of the party for 30 years. Thankfully, it is beginning to look like he was able to finally find his audience again and pass that torch on to (much younger, and more diverse) others. And trust me, the Progressive/New Deal wing of the party didn't need  the 2016 election to inform us that Hillary doesn't have our ideals at heart. That's been clear from the very beginning.

Here's what I'll say. For those that think Democratic Socialists/Progressives (or whatever you want to call the general ideology of a strong leftwing social contract between the government and the people) are a losing proposition politically, all I can do is point to FDR.

No, he wouldn't have called himself a Democratic Socialist back then. He very likely might today. He ran on a platform of heavy reform and regulation and massive government intervention in the societal ills of the day:

In so doing, he created the most lopsided voting block our country has ever seen and rode that to 4 elected terms with truly landslide victories in the electoral college (472 - 59, 523 - 8, 449 - 82, 432 - 99). Both parties have strived to recreate anything approaching that level of success since it fell apart in the Civil Rights era.

I just wish he'd managed to get some form of his Second Bill of Rights passed before he died:

Sure sounds a lot like Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez's platform to me.

It seems to me that in nearly every country across the world throughout modern history, there come times of internal strife that ultimately boil down to a fight between the two main extremes of political ideology. Rarely do the cautious Centrists end up as the victors, instead steamrolled by which ever side of the scale wins in the court of public opinion. If we're in one of those times right now (which, personally, I think we absolutely are), I'd much rather go down swinging for my side of the scale than standing in the middle, wringing my hands at the divisiveness of it all.
Click to expand...
His goals/ plans were in line with the established platform more than anyone else. These people are loopy. 

 
mcintyre1 said:
I just wish he'd managed to get some form of his Second Bill of Rights passed before he died:

Sure sounds a lot like Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez's platform to me.
Click to expand...
Never knew about this 2nd BoR. Will read up on this. Very interesting.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I always chuckle at centrist Dems railing on Bernie being "too far left" and implying that he doesn't represent what the Democratic party is (or should be). You're right that he isn't a Third Way Democrat, which is what the Clintons made the Dems into. But he's been carrying the torch for the New Deal wing of the party for 30 years. Thankfully, it is beginning to look like he was able to finally find his audience again and pass that torch on to (much younger, and more diverse) others. And trust me, the Progressive/New Deal wing of the party didn't need  the 2016 election to inform us that Hillary doesn't have our ideals at heart. That's been clear from the very beginning.

Here's what I'll say. For those that think Democratic Socialists/Progressives (or whatever you want to call the general ideology of a strong leftwing social contract between the government and the people) are a losing proposition politically, all I can do is point to FDR.

No, he wouldn't have called himself a Democratic Socialist back then. He very likely might today. He ran on a platform of heavy reform and regulation and massive government intervention in the societal ills of the day:

In so doing, he created the most lopsided voting block our country has ever seen and rode that to 4 elected terms with truly landslide victories in the electoral college (472 - 59, 523 - 8, 449 - 82, 432 - 99). Both parties have strived to recreate anything approaching that level of success since it fell apart in the Civil Rights era.

I just wish he'd managed to get some form of his Second Bill of Rights passed before he died:

Sure sounds a lot like Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez's platform to me.

It seems to me that in nearly every country across the world throughout modern history, there come times of internal strife that ultimately boil down to a fight between the two main extremes of political ideology. Rarely do the cautious Centrists end up as the victors, instead steamrolled by which ever side of the scale wins in the court of public opinion. If we're in one of those times right now (which, personally, I think we absolutely are), I'd much rather go down swinging for my side of the scale than standing in the middle, wringing my hands at the divisiveness of it all.
Click to expand...
didnt FDR bring us japanese concentration camps?   plus he was a toady for Stalin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JuniorNB said:
The Sanders/Hillary primary caused many Sanders supporters to consider Hillary to be the enemy and an evil woman. That contentious primary played out perfectly for the Republicans.  Sanders also only half-assedly supported Hillary afterwards. He should have conceded earlier and made it crystal clear immediately that all must bond together to keep Trump out of office. He failed to do so.  Him running again is going to do the exact same thing. Unless the old dog can learn a new trick and not divide the party so badly this time around.
Click to expand...
But Bernie endorsed her.  In debates he talked about getting off Hillary's emails and focusing on the issues.  He did this despite the Party turning its back on him and his progressive base.  The absolute balls of these people to stiff him in the primary process and then blame his base for not having blind devotion to the Party. 

A lot of leftist women still call themselves "Bernie Bros" to this day. Bernie didn't owe his base to the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party owed it to his base to reach out to them in a meaningful way.  The scapegoating is off the charts with these people.  

 
The Commish said:
I'm talking about the people within the dnc that think he is too far left. His platform was right in line with what the party had professed that were all about at the time. Everyone else was "right"of that
Click to expand...
Bernie he has a certain charisma that people are drawn to 

 
I love Bernie and his message - and the older I get the less I'm inclined to dismiss a politician on age alone - but I think the window on his presidential aspirations has closed; BUT, on the right ticket I could see him cast as a VP candidate because the next President is going to be eyes-deep trying repair US global credibility (and prosecuting the #### out of traitors).  As VP, Bernie would make a great Grand Poobah over domestic policy.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Could he actually get anything accomplished in Congress regardless of which party is in control there?
Click to expand...
Probably some. But not all. I don't necessarily agree with some of his agenda but him being president would continue to shows us who people really are in their positions. He'd be removing a lot of rocks people commonly hide behind. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
I love Bernie and his message - and the older I get the less I'm inclined to dismiss a politician on age alone - but I think the window on his presidential aspirations has closed; BUT, on the right ticket I could see him cast as a VP candidate because the next President is going to be eyes-deep trying repair US global credibility (and prosecuting the #### out of traitors).  As VP, Bernie would make a great Grand Poobah over domestic policy.
Click to expand...
Go full throttle President!!!!!!!!

 
Gopher State said:
Mister CIA said:
I love Bernie and his message - and the older I get the less I'm inclined to dismiss a politician on age alone - but I think the window on his presidential aspirations has closed; BUT, on the right ticket I could see him cast as a VP candidate because the next President is going to be eyes-deep trying repair US global credibility (and prosecuting the #### out of traitors).  As VP, Bernie would make a great Grand Poobah over domestic policy.
Click to expand...
Go full throttle President!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Go.

 
Mister CIA said:
I love Bernie and his message - and the older I get the less I'm inclined to dismiss a politician on age alone - but I think the window on his presidential aspirations has closed; BUT, on the right ticket I could see him cast as a VP candidate because the next President is going to be eyes-deep trying repair US global credibility (and prosecuting the #### out of traitors).  As VP, Bernie would make a great Grand Poobah over domestic policy.
Click to expand...
VP is a completely useless position.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
551
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
476
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
890
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top