Sanders: Clinton Will Have To Win Over My Supporters Herself

[uo111 5,282]

He doesn't have to endorse her. Just because he is running on the democratic ticket doesn't mean he likes her.

I wouldn't be surprised if he runs independent and splits the vote and Trump is elected.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

18 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

Holy ****, do you care more about being a Democrat or an American? 

so ****ing tired of partisanship and allegiance to political parties. pitiful

Well. Explain to me how politics would work without cooperation and partisanship? Should it be a free for all? 

Wouldn't voices be lost in the ensuing mess? 

Wouldn't certain disenfranchised people not get proper representation?

Should people be banned from getting together and working together for a common cause?

Why should people not be biased towards people that represent them? Isn't that what trust is all about? Is trust so easily breached by one or two issues?

Political parties aren't inherently bad. They may be abused, but I don't see how that applies with the Democratic party as of late. Give me one good example where they haven't been the main drivers of progress, and no you do not need to nitpick minor details. There are always discrepancies among the constituency, but the general flow has always been progress.

It's not perfect, but its liberal leanings are the catalyst behind most of the major progressive changes in US history from civil rights to LGBT rights. Why do you dismiss those so readily?

Perhaps you'd like to join a third party that isn't those? History shows that they'll always be a mess, because humans are ultimately imperfect creatures that inevitably **** up down the line. Two parties or twenty parties it's all the same. Look at Lebanon. It's a hot mess because of so many parties. I wish we had two.

So...I don't mean to sound rude but how old are you? What could you have possibly experienced that would turn you off this much? It's nice to be living in a world that was only created because of efforts of people that are working with the system rather than fighting it, but I find it implausible that you have been so negatively affected by the Democratic party during Obama's and perhaps Bill Clinton's tenures.

[hausofandrew 105]

He is trash.

[socotra 3,357]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well. Explain to me how politics would work without cooperation and partisanship? Should it be a free for all? 

Wouldn't voices be lost in the ensuing mess? 

Wouldn't certain disenfranchised people not get proper representation?

Should people be banned from getting together and working together for a common cause?

Why should people not be biased towards people that represent them? Isn't that what trust is all about? Is trust so easily breached by one or two issues?

Political parties aren't inherently bad. They may be abused, but I don't see how that applies with the Democratic party.

It's not perfect, but its liberal leanings are the catalyst behind most of the major progressive changes in US history from civil rights to LGBT rights. Why do you dismiss those so readily?

Perhaps you'd like to join a third party that isn't those? History shows that they'll always be a mess, because humans are ultimately imperfect creatures that inevitable **** up down the line.

So... how old are you? What could you have possibly experienced that would turn you off this much? It's nice to be living in a world that was only created because of efforts of people that are working with the system rather than fighting it. 

I'm not arguing against cooperation. Cooperation is what we need in politics more than partisanship. Partisanship is divisive and has no place in politics. Be loyal to your party, sure – but when logic dictates something contrary to the platform of your party and representatives are too afraid to break rank and file, that's detrimental to what democracy is about. Representatives should feel more aligned and responsible for their constituents and the greater good than to their political parties.

I'm not against political parties at all. I'm against having two. Why do we, as a country with roughly 320 million people, have only 2 major political parties? Why is it that Spain, a country that has been in near constant decline since its empire days, with 46 million people, can enact major political change in ONE election and suddenly increase their major political party count to 4? The UK, 64 million, has 10 groups represented in their parliament. I'm not saying a greater variety of political parties creates a better democracy (Mexico has 8 parties and they're a wreck), but it does appear to make it more difficult for big money to infiltrate the legislature and also reflects the eclectic views of a large country.

For example, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (in my opinion) should not be in the same party. Kasich should not be in the same party as Trump and Cruz. We have a massive political spectrum with all types of differences in flavor, and yet everybody gets smashed into two massive national parties that are too large and easily corrupted. 

I don't know why people see the two-party system as so sacrosanct to our system. It can and should be changed, but not until our voting methods are changed (I personally advocate STV or approval voting so that a split vote could never happen and thus third parties have more room to grow)... but I digress.

I don't dismiss the triumphs of the Democratic Party... not sure where you got that from. Just because I note the evils of the Democratic Party does not make their victories any less significant to me, in the same way I acknowledge what the GOP has done for our country in the past (Lincoln, Roosevelt). 

This notion that we have to work from within the system negates what this country was founded on – and I realize that sounds incredibly cliche, but it's true. What if the colonials had continued to working within the system with the British Empire? At some point, you need to break with the system, and I don't think that the system we have now can be salvaged if it's rotten in its core. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

*snip*

Fair enough. I don't actually disagree.

Those changes in foreign countries you mentioned were a result of sweeping ideological shifts. 

The USA is tired of those. 

In any case it's too late to try to enact change now. Trump is the winning Republican ticket and he has the majority of the GOP on lock. It would be virtual liberal suicide to fight the tide now.

It's not the time. Yes that may sound like a broken clock but it has never been more true than ever.

Now is not the time.

[socotra 3,357]

18 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Fair enough. I don't actually disagree.

Those changes in foreign countries you mentioned were a result of sweeping ideological shifts. 

The USA is tired of those. 

In any case it's too late to try to enact change now. Trump is the winning Republican ticket and he has the majority of the GOP on lock. It would be virtual liberal suicide to fight the tide now.

It's not the time. Yes that may sound like a broken clock but it has never been more true than ever.

Now is not the time.

Then when, may I ask, is the time? Each generation has a crisis. Throughout much of the United States's early history, it was slavery... tariffs, the Bank War, states' rights vs. the federal government, etc. In the 1950s and 60s, a time of domestic economic prosperity, it was the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1920s, it was the temperance movement and the fundamentalists vs. modernists and nativism and the Emergency Quota Act. In the 1930s, it was the Great Depression, the 40s World War 2. Nowadays, it seems to be terrorism and stopping Trump.

There is not ever going to be a "perfect" time to change the system in the same way that there will never be a "perfect" candidate, but that should never stop us from trying. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

Then when, may I ask, is the time? Each generation has a crisis. Throughout much of the United States's early history, it was slavery... tariffs, the Bank War, states' rights vs. the federal government, etc. In the 1950s and 60s, a time of domestic economic prosperity, it was the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1920s, it was the temperance movement and the fundamentalists vs. modernists and nativism and the Emergency Quota Act. In the 1930s, it was the Great Depression, the 40s World War 2. Nowadays, it seems to be terrorism and stopping Trump.

There is not ever going to be a "perfect" time to change the system in the same way that there will never be a "perfect" candidate, but that should never stop us from trying. 

It's not about a crisis. It's about the fact that Trump is a very dangerous opponent. He makes McCain look like Lincoln. I'm sorry but the fact of the matter is that voting for a third party or abstaining in this election carries too much risk that outweighs whatever message you are trying to spread.

I mean...feel free to ignore the reality and work with your ideals. That's fine. Just remember that you are still held accountable for your choices by whatever situation the USA ends up in. Your vote matters, for good or ill.

[Bebe 17,289]

Is it that outrageous to say that Hillary should work to actually listen to and earn the vote of such a large proportion of Democratic voters? 

Sure she is the better candidate than Trump or Cruz (if he somehow manages to defy all odds and win ), but that doesn't mean that Hillary should just take these voters for granted and avoid listening to them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bernie saying that Hillary should work to win over his supporters. He is right to say that there are millions of voters who "do not believe in establishment politics or establishment economics, who have serious misgivings about a candidate who has received millions of dollars from Wall Street and other special interests".

If/When Hillary wins the nomination there are going to be millions of people who feel like there is nobody in the political system that represents their interest and it is up to Hillary to convince them that she does represent them. 

As The Huffington Post says:

"Sure, Clinton would be better than Trump, but better won’t prevent the next endless war, or devastating financial collapse. President Obama is sending evenmore American soldiers to Syria, imagine what Clinton would do as president.

Perfection, from the perspective of keeping the status quo, would be grudgingly voting for Clinton and upholding a flawed system.

We’ve had too many never-ending wars, and financial debacles, to stick with a system that rewards candidates under FBI investigation.

The long-term good, for the Bernie or Bust movement, is to ensure future Democratic nominees aren’t advised by Henry Kissinger, paid millions by Wall Street, or given donations from political rivals like Donald Trump.

Sorry, I’m never voting for a Democrat who accepted, alongside her husband,$153 million from Wall Street. How does this affect her value system? These millions were given so that Clinton doesn’t advocate breaking up Too Big to Fail banks or reinstate Glass-Steagall. It’s structural change that Wall Street fears, not a watered-down Dodd-Frank."

"Bernie or Bust exists, because even Charles Koch is fine with Clinton, but would never endorse Bernie Sanders. Party loyalty should be reciprocal; not simply a lesser evil calculus. In 2016, only Bernie Sanders offers structural change and tackles a corrupt system. If a great many voters don’t see real change, they won’t settle for anything less, and fear of Trump won’t sway their vote."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/if-sanders-isnt-democratic-nominee-dont-blame-bernie-or-bust-trumps-victory_b_9769874.html

Bernie Sanders supporters are worried about campaign finance corruption, they are worried about Wall Street destroying the economy, they are worried about private prisons and institutional racism, they are worried about fracking and environmental issues, they are worried about an aggressive foreign policy and perpetual war.

These are real and important issues that millions of voters hold as extremely important. It is up to Hillary Clinton and the DNC to appeal to the millions of voters who consider these issues among the most important issues they need their president to care about.

It's cowardly and patronising for the democratic establishment to ignore the growing support for these issues and the growing percentage of Democrats who support these issues.

Could you imagine if a candidate like Ted Cruz was the democratic nominee and Trump was the republican? I mean, sure we can try to make a distinction on who is worse but I'm sure you Hillary supporters would feel like none of the issues important to you are being represented. You would feel pretty disgusted being forced to choose between these two candidates and you would feel like the political parties don't represent you at all.

[Bebe 17,289]

17 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's not about a crisis. It's about the fact that Trump is a very dangerous opponent. He makes McCain look like Lincoln. I'm sorry but the fact of the matter is that voting for a third party or abstaining in this election carries too much risk that outweighs whatever message you are trying to spread.

I mean...feel free to ignore the reality and work with your ideals. That's fine. Just remember that you are still held accountable for your choices by whatever situation the USA ends up in. Your vote matters, for good or ill.

Great, but you know what? It's never going to be a great time to fight against establishment politics. There clearly is never going to be a nice, friendly centrist republican nominee that Democrats will be happy with winning. It's never going to be risk free and easy.

If the Democratic party loses then the fault is with them for not appealing to the voters. Simple.

If people want real change then they need to stop voting down party lines even though their candidate doesn't represent them and the issues they hold dear. If the DNC loses then the need to start re-prioritising what issues they stand for and they need to take a larger look at the people they represent and their needs.

Do we want decades upon decades of political corruption? With Koch and others paying big money to ensure environmental policies are not supported, with Wall Street paying big money to ensure that they can run amuck without regulation, with private prison lobbyists paying big money to ensure they can continue to incarcerate Americans for profit, with the NRA paying big money to ensure that there are no serious gun regulations? Do we want decades of aggressive foreign policy? 

4 years of a conservative sounds awful but 20+ years of continuing corruption, banks to big to fail, lack of environmental action and perpetual war sounds pretty horrific too....

What is the lesser of those two evils I wonder?


I mean, I'd prefer that people vote Hillary in the general election. But  I don't think it's so crazy, ignorant or stupid for people to decide that they are not going to vote for either major party candidate. They just want the issues they hold dear to be represented and in this current political climate they are not.

[Stefani328 321]

10 hours ago, FFXSoul91 said:

ITT: Clinton supporters post that Bernie needs to have more dignity when their main ammo is calling him a "piece of ****," a "****tard," and a "son of a bitch." Then they talk down to his supporters by calling them "Bernie Bros."

You aren't helping your case.

When I'm on Facebook, one of my friend's feed, a Hillary Clinton supporter is filled with Bernie Sanders supporters with hashtags, #DropDeadHillary. It happens daily, most of the comments like this get 400 likes. People need to calm down. I know a Presidential Election is serious matter, but telling a person to drop dead or calling them a son of a bitch, is just too much.

[2020Covid19IsOurs 6,901]

I'll just leave this here for your amusement  

[socotra 3,357]

41 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's not about a crisis. It's about the fact that Trump is a very dangerous opponent. He makes McCain look like Lincoln. I'm sorry but the fact of the matter is that voting for a third party or abstaining in this election carries too much risk that outweighs whatever message you are trying to spread.

I mean...feel free to ignore the reality and work with your ideals. That's fine. Just remember that you are still held accountable for your choices by whatever situation the USA ends up in. Your vote matters, for good or ill.

I get that. But doesn't that argument work for any election? If a Republican wins this election, then the next election is about voting a Democrat back into office. If a Democrat wins this election, the next election is about keeping that Democrat in office or else darkness will befall the land... 

What my point is is that there is always going to be a Goliath that needs to be defeated, and when will there ever be an "off" election where we can change the system? Under your line of thinking, never. We will always need to vote for the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater evil. That's, again, why I hate this two-party trap and why this cycle has likely never ended. Even before the Republicans/Democrats, it was the Democratic-Republicans vs. the Federalists. Whigs vs. Democrats. Democrats vs. Republicans. 

The "Feel free to ignore the reality" is so distorted because how can you deny the fact that the American system is broken? Other governments around the world work much more effectively than we do, and yet we continue this pessimistic worldview that takes us around in a circle. I'm aware of the reality of the situation, and I don't like the cards we've been dealt, so I want to throw out the deck – and millions of others do too.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

How do you feel about the people trying to get people to write-in Bernie if Hillary ends up being the Dem nomination? I understand why people think it's smart to split the Democrat and Independent vote like that. I've argued with people saying that there are more Independent voters then D and R combined... I'm worried that this mindset will destroy any chance for a Democrat victory in November. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

I get that. But doesn't that argument work for any election? If a Republican wins this election, then the next election is about voting a Democrat back into office. If a Democrat wins this election, the next election is about keeping that Democrat in office or else darkness will befall the land... 

What my point is is that there is always going to be a Goliath that needs to be defeated, and when will there ever be an "off" election where we can change the system? Under your line of thinking, never. We will always need to vote for the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater evil. That's, again, why I hate this two-party trap and why this cycle has likely never ended. Even before the Republicans/Democrats, it was the Democratic-Republicans vs. the Federalists. Whigs vs. Democrats. Democrats vs. Republicans. 

The "Feel free to ignore the reality" is so distorted because how can you deny the fact that the American system is broken? Other governments around the world work much more effectively than we do, and yet we continue this pessimistic worldview that takes us around in a circle. I'm aware of the reality of the situation, and I don't like the cards we've been dealt, so I want to throw out the deck – and millions of others do too.

Well the issue this time around is far greater than before. The divide has grown too large now. Perhaps that's a good time to sow some seeds of change, but not just yet. Let the waters calm a bit.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

13 hours ago, Monster2015 said:

I'm literally not voting at this point. The New York Primary was rigged against independent voters so F the democratic party. It's more corrupt than the republican party.

Are you f**king kidding me. Every independent who wanted to vote in a closed primary state had more than enough time to change their party affiliation. But it's easier to say the system is rigged rather than send a f**king letter in the mail. Lazy ass, last minute mother f**kers complaining about everything.