Bernie Sanders for President

EarlWelsh

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

Let me draw a clear contrast, as I did earlier.

When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/270437-sanders-shuts-down-supporters-who-boo-clinton

This is an example addressing your problem with him not shutting down his supporters.

And to be fair, Sanders wasn't present when Dr. Song was speaking and didn't know of the remark (which, should be noted, doesn't mention HRC by name) until later.

I can't get the link to work, but yes this is what I would expect all the time. Not sure when this happened since I can't link.

It happened in late February, I believe.

I will add, however, that as respectable as I believe he personally wants to be and has been toward HRC, I don't think he's a fan of not letting people speak their mind.

That said, he has stopped his supporters from booing as the link shows.

Free

Expecting Sanders Supporters to "Close Ranks?"
Think again. Here's why many won't.

https://www.facebook.com/commondreams.org/posts/10153466705102016

When the Clinton campaign and the corporate press call for Sanders to drop out and turn his supporters over to Hillary, they reveal just how out of touch they are. Sanders’ army is not his to command. They arose out of a profound dissatisfaction over politics as usual, and many – if not most – will not be persuaded to vote for a status quo politician they perceive to be part of the problem, no matter how frightening a Trump Presidency could be.

Here are some of the reasons why:

"Expecting people to 'close ranks' around the Democratic nominee harkens back to a time that no longer exists."
Reason #1 – Party Affiliation Doesn’t Matter as Much as it Used to. In 1960, 75% of Americans belonged to one of the major political parties, and just 20% claimed to be independents. Today, 44% of Americans call themselves independents, and only a little over half of the people belong to a party. Most of the dropouts came from the Democratic Party, which claimed 50% of Americans in 1960. For the most part, Republicans have hovered between 20 and 25%, standing at 23% today.

Even those who belong to a party have less faith in it than they used to. For example, some 60% believe the US needs a third major party, because – to quote Gallup’s finding – people think the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" of representing the American people.

Expecting people to “close ranks” around the Democratic nominee harkens back to a time that no longer exists. Today, many people – including many Sanders supporters – vote on values or they don’t vote. The lesser of two evils and party affiliation simply aren’t enough to motivate them.

Reason #2 – The Myth of the Centrist Majority and the Disenfranchisement of the People. Democrats’ share of voters fell sharply after Carter, and continued to fall thereafter, as the DLC brand of corporate centrist Democrats took over the party – something both Clintons embraced whole-heartedly. In short, as the party abandoned the people, the people abandoned the party. The further Democrats drifted from the New Deal, the more ground they lost.

"The oligarchs controlling the Party believed people had nowhere else to go, particularly with Republicans having a protracted psychotic breakdown, and until Sanders, it worked."
This gives lie to the myth of the centrist majority, which has dominated political calculations since Reagan. The more the consultants and pundits pushed candidates to the center and beyond, the worse the party faired.

But it didn’t matter, because the mythical conservative “center” is exactly where the oligarchy wanted the party to go, and the myth fed their pursuit of power and their accumulation of wealth. And, in her own words, that’s exactly where Hillary has been for her entire political career. The oligarchs controlling the party believed people had nowhere else to go, particularly with Republicans having a protracted psychotic breakdown, and until Sanders, it worked.

But Sanders gave the people an alternative, and his supporters are reluctant to settle for the oligarchs' centrist choice. And they are rightfully skeptical about Hillary’s cynical shape-shifting towards progressivism in this campaign, particularly when her staff is discussing how she can begin to tack to the center now that the nomination is “done.”

Reason #3 -- In Response to their Diminished Status, the Democratic Party Moved to Protect the Entrenched Status Quo, rather than to Assure a Democratic Process. Closed primaries shut out independents -- the largest block of voters -- and in some states, including New York, rules made it difficult for the young or newly interested voters to engage. Corporate media and elite pundits ignored or discounted Sanders; Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee stacked the deck for Hillary; and many unions and public interest group elites ignored the wishes of the rank and file and endorsed Hillary. All of this left a bad taste in the mouths of Sanders supporters, and a distaste for the pay-to-play power politics of Clinton, the DNC, and the establishment elite.

Reason #4 -- The Rise of the Oligarchy: In their landmark study, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page found that the US was functionally an Oligarchy, not a democracy.

Two quotes from their work reveal how completely our democracy had been undermined:

"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." (emphasis added); and
"In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes."(emphasis added).
"In short, our country has been taken over as surely as if a foreign army had marched victorious across our lands from sea to not so shining sea."
In short, our country has been taken over as surely as if a foreign army had marched victorious across our lands from sea to not so shining sea. The only difference is that it was an inside job. Sanders, with his populist and progressive message, gave many people who’d dropped out of politics a reason to reengage. These people rightfully perceive Hillary -- with her PACs, Wall Street ties, and neoliberal policies -- to be part of the problem, not the solution.

Reason #5 -- The Oligarchy used their victory to abscond with the vast majority of the country’s wealth. The disappearance of the middle class has been well-documented, as has the elite’s tendency to set the economic rules in their favor. Here’s a quick summary:

Analysis by economists Saez, Zucman, and Piketty found that since 1980, the average income for the top 10 percent grew three times faster than for the rest of us – which grew a scant .07 percent;
In the same time period, the average income for the top 1 percent grew four times as fast as for the 99 percent;
The top 10% now take home half of all income;
And it’s getting worse – since 2009, 58 percent of all income growth has gone to the top 10 percent;
When it comes to net wealth, the divide is even starker. The 20 richest people in the country now have as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of Americans.
The disparity in income has gotten grotesque, and people are fed up. It got this way because both parties are beholden to the plutocracy in the game of pay-to-play politics. The elite in both parties, the media, in unions, and in environmental and public interest groups – organizations that used to represent the people’s interest by serving as a counter weight to the power of the über rich and corporations -- no longer serve the people, they serve the über rich and corporations. The average citizen has been muzzled and shunted aside. To many, Sanders gave people a way to attack this problem and they view Hillary – correctly – to be the kind of conventional politician that created the problem in the first instance.

Free

Reason #6: Hillary is a Neocon and War Hawk. Sanders has been an outspoken opponent of wars of occupation, while Hillary seems never to have met a war she doesn’t like. Given that neocon policies have created more terrorists rather than reducing terrorism, and that most people favor ending the endless wars, Sanders supporters are loath to support a candidate who would expand upon this failed strategy.

"Despite painfully transparent attempts on Hillary’s part to pass herself off as a Progressive, she is—and always has been—a slightly right of center candidate."
In Conclusion, It’s About Values and Self Interest, Stupid -- Sanders voters are motivated by a chance to change the system so that power is restored to the people, and with it a just share of the nation’s wealth. They reject the status quo politics of pay-to-play candidates. They are part of the progressive majority that has not had a real choice in elections for decades, and they won’t be motivated by party loyalty. And many have come to believe there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats beyond rhetoric.

Let’s be clear. Despite painfully transparent attempts on Hillary’s part to pass herself off as a Progressive, she is – and always has been – a slightly right of center candidate. Hillary Clinton serves the status quo – she is a creature of, by and for the corporatized version of American politics that has ripped people off and disenfranchised them.

She is, in many ways, exactly what Sanders has been running against, and even the bogeyman of a Trump presidency will not be enough to motivate many Sanders supporters to turn out and vote for her.

Free

Essentially the DNC is playing bluff with the American voters. The narrative is "vote for Hillary or Trump becomes president" essentially blackmailing independent voters. What the DNC might not realize is that the independent voters might call their bluff and actually let Trump into the oval office screwing the DNC (and the country). The end game will be who gets the blame ? The DNC will surely blame Sanders supporters for letting Trump win (they won't outright blame all the independent voters) while independent supporters will blame the DNC for fielding Hillary against Trump when Bernie Sanders is a much stronger opponent against Trump.

brianlux

The long article you posted (worth reading!) and your post above, Free, illustrates, among other things, the point I made elsewhere about the difference between participatory government (Sanders) and government as control/fear based (Clinton).

Free

brianlux said:

The long article you posted (worth reading!) and your post above, Free, illustrates, among other things, the point I made elsewhere about the difference between participatory government (Sanders) and government as control/fear based (Clinton).

Are we talking to the walls though Brian? Because as many times as we post these points, there are as many as five people who won't believe it, like it's a choice whether we believe facts and reality. People arent interested in making the best choice for our country, they're only interested in hearing what they want to hear. Be damned the health of the future of the US.

mrussel1

Free said:

brianlux said:

The long article you posted (worth reading!) and your post above, Free, illustrates, among other things, the point I made elsewhere about the difference between participatory government (Sanders) and government as control/fear based (Clinton).

Are we talking to the walls though Brian? Because as many times as we post these points, there are as many as five people who won't believe it, like it's a choice whether we believe facts and reality. I really believe a lot of Trump supporters are truly uneducated and gullible.

Yes, it's really amazing how this communication style doesn't more positively influence people. I mean, who would have thunk that you couldn't sway a Trump supporter, for instance, by calling them uneducated and gullible? Or all the insults by Bernie Bros online against Hillary and her supporters. I totally would have expected that to work.

Free

Although I change the uneducated part of my post, I still believe it. Making informed choices is not what we're doing.

Free

And see? You can't make one post without digging it in good on Bernie or his supporters. It labels more than you ever want to know.

mrussel1

Free said:

Although I change the uneducated part of my post, I still believe it. Making informed choices is not what we're doing.

More people make informed choices than you realize. Your mindset is that your value system is right, therefore only your choice is right. But if someone doesn't have the same value system, their choice will be different.

Free

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Although I change the uneducated part of my post, I still believe it. Making informed choices is not what we're doing.

More people make informed choices than you realize. Your mindset is that your value system is right, therefore only your choice is right. But if someone doesn't have the same value system, their choice will be different.

No, my mindset is on the facts and objective view of what's happening here. Why don't you book back throughout this thread and see how your tone has been. You don't support anybody but you HATE Sanders.

Free

Even with video evidence, you will not even acknowledge!! Factual evidence.

And this is why a debate cannot happen with you.

mrussel1

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Although I change the uneducated part of my post, I still believe it. Making informed choices is not what we're doing.

More people make informed choices than you realize. Your mindset is that your value system is right, therefore only your choice is right. But if someone doesn't have the same value system, their choice will be different.

No, my mindset is on the facts and objective view of what's happening here. Why don't you book back throughout this thread and see how your tone has been. You don't support anybody but you HATE Sanders.

You made it clear that you didn't even know about the Paul Song incident, or the dollar bill throwing incident. These are all facts that you avoided and demanded "sources!". Well anyone who keeps up with a balance of the news on all sides knew about these incidents.

And I think I've made it clear that I support Clinton for a number of reasons. That should be fairly obvious, coupled with the fact that I've been highly critical of Trump on these boards. And just because I am critical of Sanders and question his leadership, that doesn't mean I "HATE" Sanders. I wish him no ill will. If I met him, I'd be polite, respectful and thankful to speak with him for a few minutes. The world is not so binary as there is only "hate" and "adoration" of politicians.

brianlux

I thought the throwing the dollars at Hillary incident was hillaryarious and made a great point without hurting anyone (at least I don't think those dollar bills put anyone's eye out).

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Although I change the uneducated part of my post, I still believe it. Making informed choices is not what we're doing.

More people make informed choices than you realize. Your mindset is that your value system is right, therefore only your choice is right. But if someone doesn't have the same value system, their choice will be different.

I think everyone chooses the value system that they think is right. Otherwise, they'd choose something else. Nothing wrong with thinking the value system you choose is the right one. That means you believe in it.

hedonist

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Although I change the uneducated part of my post, I still believe it. Making informed choices is not what we're doing.

More people make informed choices than you realize. Your mindset is that your value system is right, therefore only your choice is right. But if someone doesn't have the same value system, their choice will be different.

I think everyone chooses the value system that they think is right. Otherwise, they'd choose something else. Nothing wrong with thinking the value system you choose is the right one. That means you believe in it.

True. But, no need to be dismissive or derisive of those who see things differently...and perhaps have informed themselves.

*edit - informed themselves but not to someone else's liking.

what dreams

Totally agree with mrussel1. I am so tired of being told that I only choose what I choose because I'm not informed.

I don't hate Bernie or his supporters just because I will support Clinton in the general. I totally agree that there is vast income inequality in this country. I just don't spend my days wondering about everybody else's income. I spend my days wondering what I can do for myself to improve my own lot. I absolutely reject the idea that the government can solve my problems or that somehow we need to elect Bernie so that all the corporations roll over and start handing out cake to the peasants.

Honestly, reading though all of Free's and brianlux's posts . . . They come across as desperate. I understand and appreciate the passion, but replaying the same old lines over and over, sometimes bolded, sometimes in caps, is not persuasive at all. You can only say the same things so many times before people stop listening, so yes, you are talking to a wall. Shouting louder each time isn't going to change that. It seems like an enormous waste of energy to think your campaign efforts on PJ.com is going to change the course of the election. But do carry on if you will.

brianlux

It gets a bit tricky when you consider the difference between an anthropocentric value system and a biocentric value system because an anthropocentric viewpoint is, by its very definition, dismissive of all life besides human life.

hedonist

B, I don't get how that relates to Bernie. Unless I've misunderstood (and if so, please clarify), are you saying that those who aren't supporters of Bernie don't care about life beyond our own? Adopting animals from shelters, donating to organizations that care for many species who've fucked with?

It's really not so tricky in my mind. Put your view forth - it's welcomed - but extend that same courtesy and openmindedness to others.

I haven't seen that too much in this thread.

brianlux

hedonist said:

B, I don't get how that relates to Bernie. Unless I've misunderstood (and if so, please clarify), are you saying that those who aren't supporters of Bernie don't care about life beyond our own? Adopting animals from shelters, donating to organizations that care for many species who've fucked with?

It's really not so tricky in my mind. Put your view forth - it's welcomed - but extend that same courtesy and openmindedness to others.

I haven't seen that too much in this thread.

My brain tends to run on lines of connectors. It's sort of like holistic health where everything is connected. Kind of like the second basic law of ecology, The Law of Interdependence. So in that way, an anthropocentric or biocentric viewpoint very much has to do with any political issue.

So here's my basic line of thinking:

A biocentric viewpoint states that all life relies on diverse ecosystems, that all species are interdependent and that all life must live within the confines of finite resources. From a biocentric viewpoint, if we ignore or do not follow any of these laws, we invite the extinction of ours and many other species. Assuming we desire our species to carry on, it therefore makes sense to select the candidate who is more likely to understand and follow these basic laws. To my understanding, Bernie Sanders is far more likely to be that candidate than Trump or Clinton. Jill Stein would be even more likely to know what the hell I'm talking about but her chances of making president are about as good as mine are of getting inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame.