Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44545
PAGE 16 of 30
Quote:I have a few problems with this line of argument, which seems to imply that Democratic voters in Texas don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, Texans are notoriously conservative. Nobody can save them from themselves.
“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”
(The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made by Sanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there.
Texas is quite diverse. Ideologically Austin isn’t exactly “the most conservative part” of the country and Texas is diverse racially. It contains not only a substantial number of African-Americans but also Hispanics and, increasingly, Asian-American voters.
In fact, Texas is demographically representative of the diverse Obama coalition that Clinton or Sanders will have to rely on in November.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that
-look-like-the-democratic-party/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, you're focusing on the most trivial aspect of my post. Firstly, Texas is NOT reflective of the greater USA, no matter how "diverse" you think it is.
But more importantly, are you so wedded to having "a Democrat" in office that you don't care that that particular Democrat is so wedded to big money and neocon interests that she's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only)?
Except for some "social policy" differences with the GOP .... which is the least of our problems right now ... Hillary is a warmongering, bankster-loving, welfare-cutting, free-trade groupie. That woman has been a disaster thru her entire career. She voted for the Iraq War, which was the prominent reason for her defeat by Obama, and is endlessly quoted by the reichwing here for her endless justifications (at the time) of that misguided vote.
There is nothing important (ie outside of some social policy votes) that she's gotten right in her entire career. As far as I can tell, she's a bank/CIA whore. I challenge you to find one thing that redeems her. Take your time. I'll be interested in the results.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I will pretend I'm a politician and say, "I agree with you completely about Hillary. If I had a choice, Obama would be running for a third term. Bernie would be my second choice. But sadly for all us Bernie supporters, our wonderful candidate is slightly behind the evil witch according to
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, you're focusing on the most trivial aspect of my post. Firstly, Texas is NOT reflective of the greater USA, no matter how "diverse" you think it is.
But more importantly, are you so wedded to having "a Democrat" in office that you don't care that that particular Democrat is so wedded to big money and neocon interests that she's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only)?
Except for some "social policy" differences with the GOP .... which is the least of our problems right now ... Hillary is a warmongering, bankster-loving, welfare-cutting, free-trade groupie. That woman has been a disaster thru her entire career. She voted for the Iraq War, which was the prominent reason for her defeat by Obama, and is endlessly quoted by the reichwing here for her endless justifications (at the time) of that misguided vote.
There is nothing important (ie outside of some social policy votes) that she's gotten right in her entire career. As far as I can tell, she's a bank/CIA whore. I challenge you to find one thing that redeems her. Take your time. I'll be interested in the results.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/cal
ifornia-democratic/
If there is a chance Clinton will be the nominee, our Bernie should not try to sabotage her before the nomination. OR AFTER. A Republican President would only be worse than the witch, as bad as she is."
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bernie can't "sabotage" her with the facts. Hillary sabotaged herself when she decided to lap-dance for the banks and the internationalists and the neocons. Along those lines, I can't see a dime's difference between her and establishment Repubs. If she loses, she deserves to lose.
I noticed that you can't come up with any redeeming qualities for her, all you can say is ... But Cruz! But Trump! Personally, I'd rather vote for Trump. Sure, he's a manic blowhard. But better a manic blowhard than a sociopathic shill.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is Bernie "sabotaging" Clinton rather than "factually" campaigning.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bernie can't "sabotage" her with the facts. Hillary sabotaged herself when she decided to lap-dance for the banks and the internationalists and the neocons.
Quote:And this is you making sure that everyone knows the mentally ill witch is evil beyond redemption and that Clinton is no different (except maybe worse) than the worst Republican running for President. Personally, I think she can be persuaded by Congressional Democrats to do right where a Republican President could not have his mind changed.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Along those lines, I can't see a dime's difference between her and establishment Repubs. If she loses, she deserves to lose. Personally, I'd rather vote for Trump. Sure, he's a manic blowhard. But better a manic blowhard than a sociopathic shill.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, I listened to the Bernie Sanders clip, and I couldn't find anything factually wrong or "sabotaging" about his statements.
Is he raising most of his money from small donations?
Yes
Is Hillary dependent on large donors for her campaign?
Yes
Is the United States "moving to" an oligarchy?
Well, according to a convincing research paper published by respected academicians, we're not "moving to" an oligarchy, we're already there.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I have linked this paper at least five times by now, you really should at least read the abstract about policy outcomes and who gets to determine them, from a study of the results of about 1800 well-polled policy decisions.
As far as Hillary being a sociopath, it was the quickest summary of my view of her record. FWIW, I think she's a "made" sociopath, not a "born" one. That doesn't take away from the fact that she's been a destructive and evil force for much of her career. I'm not going to repeat over and over the observations that have led me to that conclusion.
As far as Congress being able to "persuade" Hillary to "do the right thing" ... Congress is a money-grubbing, neocon-and-fake-evangelist-dominated, smoke-filled back room. Congress has NOT prompted Obama to "do the right thing" and it's doubtful they would be heading in that direction post-November. Don't count on Congress, for god's sake, to steer the USA! What we need is President who will prevent the WRONG thing, not someone who "might" be persuaded to go against the source hundreds of million$ (if not billion$) by a Congress which doesn't exist.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is why I support Sanders. He's the only candidate to correctly identify our oligarchy, and the only one who wants to change it.
Hillary will continue giving blowjobs to all her big money owners. She is bought and paid for, and she'll be indistinguishable from the Republicans on most matters.
Money controlling politics is our #1 problem. Hillary's fine with it. Sanders is our last chance to recover democracy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can't disagree with that paper: "Leaving aside the difficult issue of divergent interests and motives, we would urge that the superior wisdom of economic elites or organized interest groups should NOT simply be assumed. It should be put to empirical test. New empirical research will be needed to pin down precisely who knows how much, and what, about which public policies."
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Is the United States "moving to" an oligarchy?
Well, according to a convincing research paper published by respected academicians, we're not "moving to" an oligarchy, we're already there.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I have linked this paper at least five times by now, you really should at least read the abstract about policy outcomes and who gets to determine them, from a study of the results of about 1800 well-polled policy decisions.
Centuries ago, most of the American people (as in all women and all men without a certain level of wealth, which varied from state to state) couldn’t even vote and the wealthy rushed into the power vacuum when Americans switched allegiance, slowly over many years, from King George to George Washington, leaving the government in the hands of the richest American in the 13 colonies, the Original Oligarch. The King lost control, but the rich never gave back control of the country to the citizens since March 1, 1781. Bernie will have to do a whole lot more than nominate a Supreme Court justice who would vote to reverse the Citizen's United decision of January 21, 2010. Bernie hasn't explained what more he can do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... but the rich never gave back control of the country to the citizens since March 1, 1781."
FDR, who created the New Deal starting in 1935, can arguably be said to have represented the citizens of the country in opposition to the oligarchy. However, he wasn't elected under those terms, but came to them after socialists and communists started the largest mass movement of workers in the country. Which is why I've concluded the US democracy has never tested the power of the vote itself - the will of the people in pure, free political expression, without violence or the threat of it - as a force in opposition to the ruling class.
It would be sad, and incredibly ironic, if republicans had a populist candidate first.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/oldsters-and-hillary
On the Democratic side, primaries have specialized in having at least one bold truthteller like Bernie in every cycle since the 1960s. Sometimes they're lefty truthtellers, sometimes they're "hard truths" truthtellers, and sometimes they're a bit of a mishmash. But the one thing they have in common is that they can afford to tell the truth—in the beginning, at least—because they're mostly running as rebels who don't really expect to win. And if you're not seriously trying to win, there's no downside to being entirely candid. Who cares if you're going to lose a few important demographics in the process?
Since 1968, we've seen at least one of these in every contested Democratic primary. Off the top of my head, the list includes Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Mo Udall, Gary Hart, Paul Simon, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich. They all attracted a crowd of fans, some more than others, and generally speaking they were lionized by the press. None of them won except for McGovern, who went down to an epic defeat in the general election. (Probably any Democrat would have lost that year, but McGovern lost in a landslide.)
So this year I look at Bernie, and I see the same old thing: a bold truthteller who could afford not to play conventional politics because he was never really planning to win. He just wanted to get his issues on the table. The fact that he's running so close is probably as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.
But this is obviously something that's far more salient to older voters than to younger ones. Bernie doesn't seem fresh and courageous to us. He seems like the same guy we've seen every four years. They all have one or two issues they care about. They want those issues on the table, and running for president is a good way to do it. They usually drop out by spring. And generally speaking, most of them probably didn't have the temperament to make good presidents.
Obviously your mileage might vary. Maybe Bernie is finally the one to do it, and I'm just too old and jaded to see it. Maybe his temperament is different, and he'd surprise us all by being a pretty good president. Maybe he'd get serious about rallying his troops to care about downballot elections, and win control of Congress. Maybe he'd really get a lot of the stuff done that he's been talking about.
I doubt it. But then again, none of the previous truthtellers has ever made it to the White House, so who knows? Maybe eight years from now we'll all be feeling the Bern.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME