Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Are you kidding? Those primaries were closed most of them. Imagine if they were open to all parties. sanders would have won no problem. And as a result of this fiasco, states are working to make primaries in the future open to all.
I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly about the primaries and how they were closed. You Cannot compare closed primarirs and him losing to Hillary when it was not open and fair to begin with.
so are you trying to tell me that 4 million more republican or independent voters if allowed to vote in the democratic primaries would have voted for Bernie over Hillary? how many non-democrats would you expect to vote in the primary if they were open? he would have to at least get +4 million votes. come on dude your grasping at straws. the numbers don't add up.
That's right. When you deny most of the independents a chance to vote in this country and it is a hugely growing party, you are eliminating the chance of an independent to win. Which he would have done Easily.
Post edited by Free on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,947
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
I totally understand that the odds are skewed towards the candidates from either of the two parties. I truly feel that in spite of this, given the rep and dem nominees, his independent ticket truly would have sent a strong message about not tolerating corruption, and shown a willingness to fight uphill battles when they will be for right and just reasons.
Jane Sanders: Why Bernie Voters Shouldn't Get Over It
good read but this line stands out. what i said earlier today.
"He lost this election by more votes than can be explained by the things that people are concerned about — the voting irregularities, or the DNC. If it was closer, we might have done something differently, but there is no choice. It's not like we're stopping because we want to. We're stopping because those are the rules of the game. That's democracy. There is a winner and a loser in every election."
Jane Sanders: Why Bernie Voters Shouldn't Get Over It
good read but this line stands out. what i said earlier today.
"He lost this election by more votes than can be explained by the things that people are concerned about — the voting irregularities, or the DNC. If it was closer, we might have done something differently, but there is no choice. It's not like we're stopping because we want to. We're stopping because those are the rules of the game. That's democracy. There is a winner and a loser in every election."
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
edit: sorry ... to be more clear on your question ... sanders ran as a democrat probably because his best chance at changing things is to win as a democrat ... that's why ron paul ran as a republican ... people don't think 3rd parties can win so, people continue to work within this 2-party system ...
How was Ross Perot able to get 20 some percent?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I wanted This guy to win years ago, before the system ousted him.
Would be very cool to see more Kucinich influence in this mess of a political system.
He said here, "Most millennials are independents by nature". Good! Time to shake things up! It won't be smooth, it won't be easy, but it's going to happen. It needs to happen.
Great interview!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Interview with a black Sanders delegate post convention:
JS: Well, from her perspective she’s trying to do what she can to help the movement she believes is necessary. As a Sanders delegate, why do you believe supporting Jill Stein is such a mistake?
RM: I had so many conversations this week about people who said that they were supporting Jill Stein. And to them I’ve tried making this point clear: I don’t have the privilege of supporting Jill Stein.
I’m black, and I have four black sons. Some white liberals have the privilege to pretend that Jill Stein is going to be taken seriously. I don’t. If Donald Trump wins, he's more likely to appoint judges that oppose Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform, and who think that police officers — who can kill black people without being charged — already don't have enough power. That means if my kids get shot, the officers who did it would become less likely to be charged. A lot of white liberals don’t understand that they have the privilege of a protest vote that will hurt the people they purport to stand for — black people, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, and so many people who will be affected adversely if Trump wins.
If they stay home or vote for a third party — particularly in swing states — these folks are gambling with real lives. Because here’s the reality: They won’t be affected by the fallout. Their privilege will inoculate them to it, but minorities won’t be. I don’t understand how they could not see that.
So I don’t have the luxury of conviction. I can’t afford four years of tyranny. Trust me, I would love if Hillary had every position that Bernie has. But I live in the real world, and in the real world — even if Hillary isn’t 100 percent where I want her — at least I trust that she will be better than Trump for the people I love.
Jane Sanders: Why Bernie Voters Shouldn't Get Over It
good read but this line stands out. what i said earlier today.
"He lost this election by more votes than can be explained by the things that people are concerned about — the voting irregularities, or the DNC. If it was closer, we might have done something differently, but there is no choice. It's not like we're stopping because we want to. We're stopping because those are the rules of the game. That's democracy. There is a winner and a loser in every election."
people assume that everyone who voted for clinton in the primaries wanted her to win ... if DNC insiders wanted Clinton to win and deployed tactics to secure that outcome - it wouldn't be surprising to know that a portion of the people that voted for Clinton might have voted for Sanders ... so, it isn't exactly like Sanders needed to come up with another 4 million votes ... if a million people voted for Clinton instead of Sanders because of the DNC tactics - that means Sanders is only down 2 million ... who knows how many people voted for Clinton in the primaries instead of Sanders because of the tactics!?
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
edit: sorry ... to be more clear on your question ... sanders ran as a democrat probably because his best chance at changing things is to win as a democrat ... that's why ron paul ran as a republican ... people don't think 3rd parties can win so, people continue to work within this 2-party system ...
How was Ross Perot able to get 20 some percent?
he didn't quite get 20% but ya ... impressive ... he was loaded so he could finance a lot of his presidency run and they allowed him on debates ... it's much harder for a Sanders to run as an independent because without the backing of the DNC - his fundraising gets hampered significantly ...
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,947
Comments
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/jane-sanders-why-bernie-voters-shouldnt-get-over-it-w431428
Jane Sanders: Why Bernie Voters Shouldn't Get Over It
"He lost this election by more votes than can be explained by the things that people are concerned about — the voting irregularities, or the DNC. If it was closer, we might have done something differently, but there is no choice. It's not like we're stopping because we want to. We're stopping because those are the rules of the game. That's democracy. There is a winner and a loser in every election."
we will find a way, we will find our place
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/15/bernie-sanders-progressive-message/87073052/
Kucinich: A Major Third Event Is Coming
I wanted This guy to win years ago, before the system ousted him.
He said here, "Most millennials are independents by nature". Good! Time to shake things up! It won't be smooth, it won't be easy, but it's going to happen. It needs to happen.
Great interview!
https://mobile.twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/759155638119329792
Populism Even Republicans Can Get Behind
A new campaign aims to oust every single member of Congress — from either party — who's backed by Big Money.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/01/populism-even-republicans-can-get-behind
JS: Well, from her perspective she’s trying to do what she can to help the movement she believes is necessary. As a Sanders delegate, why do you believe supporting Jill Stein is such a mistake?
RM: I had so many conversations this week about people who said that they were supporting Jill Stein. And to them I’ve tried making this point clear: I don’t have the privilege of supporting Jill Stein.
I’m black, and I have four black sons. Some white liberals have the privilege to pretend that Jill Stein is going to be taken seriously. I don’t. If Donald Trump wins, he's more likely to appoint judges that oppose Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform, and who think that police officers — who can kill black people without being charged — already don't have enough power. That means if my kids get shot, the officers who did it would become less likely to be charged. A lot of white liberals don’t understand that they have the privilege of a protest vote that will hurt the people they purport to stand for — black people, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, and so many people who will be affected adversely if Trump wins.
If they stay home or vote for a third party — particularly in swing states — these folks are gambling with real lives. Because here’s the reality: They won’t be affected by the fallout. Their privilege will inoculate them to it, but minorities won’t be. I don’t understand how they could not see that.
So I don’t have the luxury of conviction. I can’t afford four years of tyranny. Trust me, I would love if Hillary had every position that Bernie has. But I live in the real world, and in the real world — even if Hillary isn’t 100 percent where I want her — at least I trust that she will be better than Trump for the people I love.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12337522/bernie-bust-sanders-delegate
Some folks just have a hard time moving on, I guess.
I know there are poll lovers here...
Not All Bernie Backers Buying His Clinton Pitch
Polls show about one-third of Sanders supporters won't back Clinton when presented with third party options
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/08/not-all-bernie-backers-buying-his-clinton-pitch
http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,21023646,00.html
Bernie Sanders Buys His Third Home – A $600K Summer Retreat in Vermont
http://www.people.com/article/bernie-sanders-600k-summer-home-vermont