2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA common statement I see being made by Hillary Supporters about Bernie...
It normally goes along the lines of, "I know what he's up to." or "He's not fooling me."
What is it about Bernie that leads you to believe he's got something up his sleeve? What is it about his record that leads to believe that he's lying or hiding something?
I honestly want to know.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)Very odd.
Maybe it is just that he is nefariously not dropping out?
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Some people come out and throw shit and run back under cover.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)We all know what he's up to and he isn't fooling any of us. Those are good traits.
Maybe it means they are starting to Feel the Bern.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)"I know what he's up to." or "He's not fooling me."
the honest & transparent man
beedle
(1,235 posts)to be unwaveringly consistent, always working for the people ... just so he can become president and WHAM!!!! Then it's too late when we learn his 'true nature' as a Koch brothers plant.
Never trust a person with a 35+ year record of consistency. You never know what they're going to do??
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)crashing our Party and pandering on college campus after college campus promising desperate students trillions of dollars of new entitlement spending that Sanders himself knows won't see the light of day in this politically paralyzed Congress. Did I clear that up for you ?
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Aside from your anger over I'm not sure what, you have no basis to make such a statement. And get the terminology correct - Democratic Socialist. One who has sided with Democrats more than some with a D after their name.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts).
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's a head-scratcher. 
Bernie would be the one to bust the trusts, not Wall Street Hillary.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)to convince a significant portion of the opposition party's base to pressure their representatives to stand up to the special interests of the day. I don't think FOX, Breitbart, Limbaugh or Beck will join Sanders in his endeavor. The political conditions on the ground should determine the timing of a movement and not the advanced age of one man. TR himself would tell you that if he was alive today.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)people on DU keep telling me all those right-wing outlets are in fact teaming up with Bernie
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You think this revolution is happening because of Bernie's age and not his message about conditions on the ground?
Have you not been paying attention to the "real" conditions on the ground over the past thirty or fifty years?
You just proved to me that you probably don't even know what you are talking about.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)a significant portion of the Republican base will be required. They've been cheering their representatives as they've voted 62 times to repeal the ACA. Teddy Roosevelt didn't break the Trusts with only Republican support. And yes, I think if Sanders were a 50 year old Senator with a longer time horizon ahead of him, he would not have chosen this moment due to the politically polarized environment that exists right now. At 74, this was his one and last shot.
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)...our leadership crashed our party and abandoned a great number of us. I really resent some of the attitudes around here about party loyalty. I've given years to the party, and still feel unheard.
So did I clear that up for you??
retrowire
(10,345 posts)-He's campaigned at more than college campuses? I saw him first at Greensboro Coliseum Complex... We were 4000 over capacity... It wasn't a college campus...
-That no matter who we elect, we need to replace the congress with a Democratic one to get anything done and that Bernie's campaign enthusiasm is more likely to carry over to the midterms?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)to Boone Country Iowa from Illinois to see Bernie in a quonset hut on their fairgrounds. I wouldn't walk across the street to see the other dem candidate, no interest, I'm not a center-right leaning dem.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)That's a lot of cash for college students.
Thanks for your info. I didn't know that!
Is Bernie also promising the elderly gadzillions so that people can retire on social security at age 40 and a million dollars a month in benefits?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)You can find the answers you seek at his website.
If seeking no actual answers: why indulge such a hideous part of yourself here?
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Sorry you didn't get it.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)
think
(11,641 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Sanders does not have a magic wand that Obama does not have and Obama's agenda was much much smaller. I think that Sanders is misleading the Millenials and I don't respect him for doing that.
revbones
(3,660 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)i cant stand it any more
icantstanditanymore
wegotpastthatgobbledeegookmonthsago..
ithinkiamgoingtofaint
senz
(11,945 posts)ithinkialreadyfainted!!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Oyasuminasai.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)so easy led.
Sorry I don't know too many of those...
R. P. McMurphy
(863 posts)Can't never did anything.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts).
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)pass TTP? start another war? find "constitutional" restrictions on abortion?
Change has come
(2,372 posts)probably will be on the 'first 100 days' to do list.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts) Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)The far Right tried that "compromise is a bad word" strategy and, needless to say, their Party is now in total meltdown mode.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Sorry the coronation of the entitled one was canceled. Not.
You sound like Paul Ryan.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)Is it that hard for you to admit that the only thing you have to become a Democrat is to say you are one. There is no purity test. Republicans are planted all through the party now, disgiused as Third Way Dems, and you are worried about the one candidate that clings more to democratic principles than any other.
Don't try because Republicans are mean? Fuck that.
senz
(11,945 posts)I think I've run into a few of those Republicans disguised as Third Way Dems. 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It isn't pandering when Hillary does it either, and that accusation bothers me just as much. It's called "running for office."
He has a plan that involves payments for college. He has a plan of how it can be paid for. He can't control Congress but that doesn't mean he can't state his vision and what direction he's headed in. I want to know what he wants to do. And don't forget we have midterms in two years.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)sense than you think you do.
Your reply started out with: 'Oh, I don't know.' Probably should have stopped there. Every sentence that followed sucked doorknobs.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I've been around the block and know a few things.
I know exactly what is possible and what is not, and what is possible but is difficult.
And I also know the whys.
And I stand with Bernie 100 percent.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Are your afraid he'll "run out of other people's money?"
pangaia
(24,324 posts)hootinholler
(26,451 posts)You have busted my trust, for you.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Heaven forbid Hillary has to get out and earn votes from us us poor proles.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)doesn't work.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Due to gerrymandering, the Republicans have guaranteed themselves control of the House until the 2020 census at a minimum. The Democrats very well might retake the Senate but will not have the 60 votes necessary to end a Republican filibuster. These Millenials need to know that Sanders is exciting them with proposals that will not see fruition during the next presidency.
And what do we risk ? We risk a Republican replacing Scalia and Ginsburg resulting in 6-3 Right leaning Court. The replacements will be Right wing Justices in their 40's or 50's meaning we will have a Right leaning Court for a generation. That will lead to a woman losing her right to choose, the rest of the Voting Rights Act struck down, Affirmative Action struck down, gay marriage struck down, EPA rules struck down, anti-Trust laws struck down, secular rights struck down and Citizens United upheld for a generation.
CONCLUSION: You are asking me to support a man who will not have the political means to push society 25 years forward and you're asking me to risk a Right leaning Supreme Court setting us back 25 years. A 50 year swing. I will not do that. I will not assume such great risk with such a politically small chance of a potential return. No thank you.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Now, thanks for the opinion.
State your case for Hillary and how she would do any better. I'm withholding my comment.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I gave my reasons why I cannot support a Sanders nomination.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)So, then I need to write up a new OP to get an answer to that question?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Should I write a new OP in order to get your answer to that question you're avoiding or...?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)If we get into Hillary on this thread than I probably will remain the only one that answers your original question. I don't want to do that on this thread.
"It normally goes along the lines of, "I know what he's up to." or "He's not fooling me."
What is it about Bernie that leads you to believe he's got something up his sleeve? What is it about his record that leads to believe that he's lying or hiding something?
I honestly want to know."
retrowire
(10,345 posts)That's a shame. 
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I'd be more than willing to make my case for Hillary at another time but I'm spent right now. It was a good question and discussion.
potone
(1,701 posts)But what I don't understand is how you expect Hillary to be successful with the Congress that you describe, either. Republicans hate her rabidly; and as for the Supreme Court, if we get control of the Senate there is no reason that I can see why she could get her nominees passed and Sanders couldn't. If we don't get control, I expect that both of them will have a hard time. The difference is that Bernie is willing to ask the people to help him, and I don't see any sign that Hillary would do that. I think she will just do what her husband did; embrace Republican policies and declare victory. More of that, in my view, is most emphatically not what we need.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)He can't do anything without Republican support. And, if you think Republicans and their base hate Obama, just wait until you hear what they think of Sanders. Trump has already offered a precursor when he refers to Sanders as his "communist friend Bernie". These things are not possible in the most polarized political atmosphere of my lifetime unless a total financial meltdown and depression wakes the Republican base up.
potone
(1,701 posts)He has said repeatedly that no one can get things changed without public pressure. After Obama was elected, he basically told his campaign staff to go home. He then wasted a lot of time trying to get the Republicans to be reasonable. Bernie is calling for a political revolution. Hillary is not, and I don't think that she will be able to get much done because she is unlikely to turn to the people to ask them to support her by flooding their representatives with phone calls. Bernie is being honest about what it will take to change things. Whether or not he will succeed if elected is, of course, far from certain. His supporters think that we need a radical change and soon. That is why we are willing to take a chance on him. That, and trusting him to be as steadfast as he has been in the past.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)at all 3 levels of the federal judiciary - the district courts, the circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Her Wall Street/Corporate/MIC/One Percent masters who have thrown hundreds of millions at her via her personal speaking fees, her family controlled Clinton Foundation, or her PACs have one over-riding quid pro quo - and that is controlling whomever she nominates to the Supreme Court, and to a less publicized degree, the lower courts.
As long as her handlers/supportors/"donors" are able to throw unlimited $$$$ into the United States' political campaigns via Citizens United, they are in control to do whatever they damn well want in terms of having legislation passed by the Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Protalker
(418 posts)As SNL stated Bernie has an electorate for all ages from 18 to 19. Hillary was on Hardball Town Hall. She is equipped for the job. Bernie is correct on billionaires and Wall Street. But he is a one note candidate. SCOTUS is the prize and having a good negotiate is key. I am voting and supporting Hillary. Like your posts.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Good to know Hillary is a shapeshifter. lol
RichVRichV
(885 posts)a Republican win in November. All I ever see is some obscure statements about socialism. There is plenty of evidence he will do extremely well against them, and plenty of evidence he will do better than Hillary in the general.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Though I do believe that a dove like Sanders would be particularly vulnerable if a San Bernadino-type attack should occur if he's the nominee. No, what I did was a simple cost/benefit or risk/reward analysis. What is the potential reward vs. what is the potential risk.
The reward is unlikely because the Republicans have the numbers and will to stop every one if Sanders" new entitlement proposals. The risk is losing the Supreme Court for a generation and all that entails. I wonder sometimes how I would feel about Sanders if the Supreme Court were not hanging by a thread. I don't honestly know that answer.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)If Bernie has as good of a chance winning the general as Hillary, doesn't that mean the risk should be applied equally to both candidates? Or does it just not apply to the one you favor? Or do you believe that Hillary as president would get more progressive justices through congress than Bernie would as president?
On the reward side of things, the Republicans hate Hillary with a deep seated passion. They will still control the house even if she's the president. What progressive legislation will she be able to get through that Bernie can't get through? Where is this great reward on her part that you won't get with Bernie?
And being president goes far beyond what can get pushed through congress. Do you believe Hillary will appoint people to her cabinet and agency heads that are more likely to help the average person than Bernie will? Do you believe Hillary (with her history of regime changes and hawkish nature) is more likely to keep us out of costly wars than Bernie will? Do you believe Hillary is less likely to push through another job free trade agreement than Bernie is? Do you believe Hillary will be more likely to reject Republican backed bills that favor corporations over people than Bernie will?
You talk cost versus reward. But with Hillary I see a lot of costs and little reward. Bernie won't be able to get everything he's pushed for through in one term. No Bernie supporter believes he will. But here's what you're missing. It took 30+ years of Reaganomics and DLC triangulation to get to the level of economic disparity, dwindling union memberships, and shrinking middle class we're at. We're not going to get out of it in 4 years. It might take 20 or 30 years of Bernie and people like him to undo all the harm that has been done to the middle class and the poor by trickle down voodoo. But if we don't start at some point we're never going to achieve those goals. I'm sure of one thing, continuing the same failed philosophies of the DLC under Hillary isn't going to get this country back where it should be.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Their candidate is up to something, so yours must be.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)resonant with many Democratic voters, they would not be voting for him.
But they are. In significant numbers.
One weakness in Hillary Clinton's campaign is that she refuses to acknowledge that the large number of people attending Sanders campaign appearances are there because they find his message resonant. She ought to be able and willing to recognize this as a strength of the Sanders campaign, but to date she has clearly not grasped it, or, if she has, she either can't or won't respond.
If her campaign had a message owed the same level of enthusiasm as Sanders' campaign, she would be a far stronger candidate.
She did well in Michigan, for example.
Sanders did better.
demwing
(16,916 posts)that they think it cannot be possible to engage with a politician from a place of trust. They are a product of our system. I don't blame them for doubting, but when that doubt turns to false accusation, the misinformation can't go unchallenged.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)The Republicans will not go along with any of Sanders new entitlement proposals. The fact that the Republicans are mathematically guaranteed to hold the House during the next presidency is not a "false allegation". That's a cold hard fact.
Docreed2003
(18,714 posts)Most GOP folks I know would crawl through hot coals just to vote against Sec Clinton. What makes you think she'll be successful with a GOP congress when Sanders won't?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)That was an easy one to answer. The opposition party must work with a President to some degree if they want to see any of their issues addressed. But, there's a limit. The Republicans will not agree to trillions of dollars in new entitlement spending. Hillary's initiatives don't approach where Sanders wants to go. It's an issue of degree.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie is most unusual in his honesty and integrity. So they attack and try to weaken him there.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)It's true.
No, really.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)They can do what they want. That's their right. They don't influence my vote.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Immigration. On national television he announced he did not vote to protect the Minutemen. He insisted Clinton had pulled one part of a complex bill out of context. The fact is he voted for a designated amendment that did prohibit the Homeland Security from informing the Mexican government about Minutemen activity. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971/text
Roll call vote ( linked to on page with text of amendment) clearly shows his yes vote under independents: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml
His voting record in general on immigration differs dramatically from how he presents himself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/40/immigration#.VueLNJwrLWI
From the time he entered congress, he voted against every immigration reform bill until 2013, when, it appears, he may have been thinking about a run for the presidency.
In general I am suspicious of people who over-promise. I have seen Sanders make a number of promises (from overturning Citizens United, to within his first term making the US no longer have the highest prison population on earth , on and on) that are simply not within the purview of the presidency.
His statements about not "having" or "doing" Super pacs is particularly disingenuous to me. He said in a recent debate, "we decided not to do a Super Pac" and "Hillary Clinton has a Super Pac." Those statements play to the American public's ignorance about campaign finance law. Candidates do not "do" or "have" Super Pacs. They are legally separate entities. Yet Bernie has benefited from more super pac and dark money spending than Clinton, by a large margin. He also has affiliated PACs, which have, along with his campaign, been cited for repeated campaign finance violations. He pretends the issue is about personal virtue, ignoring all the spending done on his behalf, yet his campaign doesn't even follow the already existing and all to meager campaign finance law. ( I link to a number of sources in this post that provide evidence for the preceding paragraph. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1258143. And https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/ $23 million is not a minor amount of money).
Another key argument for his campaign is corporate accountability, yet he applies that only to one area of the economy: Wall Street.
He voted to grant immunity to gun corporations. After first denying that vote in an early debate, then saying he would rethink the position, he championed his vote in the debate just prior to Michigan. In addition to being all over the map on the issue, I interpret his last debate statement on the vote as a message to the rural Michigan voters. The NRA tweet the next day expressing support for his position helped in that regard. He played the politics of it masterfully, but I find the position reprehensible, not only because of my views on gun control but because it contradicts his claims to stand as an anti-establishment candidate against corporate excess.
He denounces military spending while voting for pet projects for VT (the f-35). Again, a great difference between rhetoric and behavior.
Then single payer. After disclosing to the press in 2010 that single payer was a nonstarter in the Obamacare debates, he now has built a campaign around attacking Clinton for not embracing a policy he himself said would only have gotten 8 or 9 votes, and that was when the Democrats had a majority in both houses. Now they are the minority in both.
I think he believes what he says about a political revolution, but that doesn't make it any more convincing. Turnout is not up from 2008. There is no indication that Bernie would receive the kind of voter support that would transform congress, as he claimed in his last debate. He has no answer as to how he will work with the existing congress. In other words, he has no plan to implement any of what he promises. I judge him lacking in credibility.
I also find highly disconcerting the fact he hasn't even assembled a foreign policy team and that he thinks it acceptable to pivot away from questions on foreign policy. That position might work for a candidate running to raise issues, but not for someone who seeks to actually be president. I want a president to be informed, engaged, and competent.
Another thing that really bothers me is his failure to take responsibility for his own votes. He blamed Clinton for mass incarceration but accepts no responsibility for his own vote for those laws. He announced it was a disgrace that Gitmo hasn't been closed, yet he himself voted on at least two occasions against closing it. How is it possible not to find that sort of thing questionable?
kerry-is-my-prez
(10,283 posts)I pretty much thought that Bernie was the real deal (however, I am voting for Clinton because I believe she's more electable). I hope he doesn't turn out to be another Dean or Obsma...... Would be so disappointing to me and many here.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)In bits and pieces.
If you're disappointed in Obama, I don't think the alternative is to vote for someone who promises more. Obama has been hampered by intransigence from congress. There is absolutely no reason to think a president Sanders would find a more receptive congress. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true. One point in Clinton's favor is that she has taken great pains to develop good relationships with the Democratic congress, something Obama never really did. She also has a successful history of working across the aisle, while Sanders congressional report card on bipartisanship is near the bottom. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I can't tell you how many I've posted full of specific policy and cited by sources that they completely ignore.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)complaining about HRC supporters not discussing issues.
You take the time to write a reply which is deep, knowledgeable, well reasoned, full of FACTS...just to be ignored.
The poster who complained about issues not being discussed ignores you, just to move on to another thread in which s/he complains how Clinton supporters never discuss issues...
<sigh>
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and just posted it as an OP. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511508859
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)
Haveadream
(1,632 posts)What is it about Bernie that leads you to believe he's got something up his sleeve? What is it about his record that leads to believe that he's lying or hiding something?
I honestly want to know.
That would probably be because, by his own admission, he is using the Democratic Party to gain media attention. Some Democrats already see that and thus, "Know what he is up to" and "Are not fooled".
He is the ultimate DINO.
kerry-is-my-prez
(10,283 posts)acting like they're progressive and then pulling switchetoos, can't blame people for being suspicious. I have been admiring Bernie for years and know he's the real deal. I have my reasons for supporting Clinton about 70% and Bernie about 30%. It mainly has to do with electability. You know the saying "once bitten, twice shy." In this case, for many, it's "twice bitten, once shy."
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)getting them to vote. I was presented with that gem earlier today. It seems Bernie has a secret plan to steal the election by getting white people to turn out in droves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1493497
In other words Hillary is getting ready to do some dirty tricks, so they are pushing a talking point preemptively implying Bernie is doing something wrong, so that when they do it, it will seem justified. For example if they use superdelegates to flip the election results.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)...they might mean he's as calculating as Hillary, which shouldn't be a surprise. They're both politicians, after all. I wouldn't worry about it hurting Bernie's support.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)He's been pulling the wool over your eyes for half a century so he could spring his "master plan" on America.
(I think they all flew over the coo-koo's nest)