Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumElizabeth Warren: I have a huge problem with it. We must unite now...
@LollipopCrumbs I have a huge problem with it. We must unite now. #ElizabethWarren #EndCorporateRule #JoinTheRevolution
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
merrily
(45,251 posts)thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Sorry, but you are. There's no way Bernie gets elected to the presidency - ever.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Don't get me twisted, I like Bernie and if anything good comes out of his candidacy it's that he'll hopefully get some attention to some of the issues we all care about. I actually used to listen to him a lot on the Norman Goldman show on the drive home, but I just don't think he's going to beat the system. I'm not trolling, if that's what you're at.
I just don't want to see the same mistake made that we made with McGovern in 1972 or Nader in 2000. McGovern gave us Nixon, c Constitutional crisis, and more death in SE Asia. Nader gave us Bush, Iraq, the worst financial crisis since 1932, and disastrous chain of instability in the Middle East that we will be dealing with for a generation and maybe longer.
We need to be practical and realistic. We cannot afford another Bush in office. We cannot afford another corporate-minded, anti-constitutional radical on the bench. We absolutely cannot afford it. We need to settle for someone that 40 percent of the country hates, 40 percent of the country rallies behind, and 20 percent of the country can basically live with. If I can't say that without getting banned, then maybe this isn't the right forum for me.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and again and elect more corporate beholden presidents to office to the point that we have a corporate dictatorship.
Obama putting the TPA in for "trade deals" (which probably aren't really confined to "trade"
for the next president, whether that person be a Republican or a Democrat, along with even a slim majority Republican senate and house, we'll NOT be able to stop anything a corporate run Republican party will be able to do. And Obama doesn't seem to care about that possibility. I wonder why! Maybe, because he's corporate controlled. Shouldn't we be more demanding of our future presidents to avoid this pattern of both Republicans and Democrats being beholden to 1% money and their control, no matter how much the media which they also control tells us that it is "impossible" for anyone but their agents can win an election?
I really think having a huge clown car of heavily extreme right wingers running for the GOP is now the 1%er's plan, because they know that even if they likely don't have a shot at winning the way in other decades they might want a Republican to win, that it will provide them fodder to fuel the fear of why we should "nominate the inevitable one" so that we can avoid a Republican in office.
It will be interesting to see if the battle we ultimately have is between Trump and Bernie. Bernie on the one hand, who's campaign and followers want the takedown of corporate power, and Trump, who by advocating tearing down the 14th amendment, either consciously or unconsciously is potentially after the corporate power monger's basis of power, since the language of the 14th amendment is what provides the basis stare decisis wise that was used to justify the right wing/corporate judicial activist notion of "corporate personhood" which has given us the decisions of things like Citizen's United and others that provide corporations so much power now. I wonder what Korporate Amerika would be doing then in such an election.
We need to keep sticking to our principles this time around, and not let our voting be governed by fear. There's enough of us of all political persuasions that want corporate money calling the shots which is what has spurred both Bernie's campaign and ironically Trump's campaign on the right as well. Bernie in my book has a better chance at being accepted by a majority of Americans as the way to carry out this mission.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)But not having the worst person in office is preferable to not having the best.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)
unless we stop accepting the choices we are "told" that we have as happens so much today!
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)I'll grant you that Bernie could have a serious impact on the race -- that much is definitely possible. He could also serve as a cabinet member and give a greater voice to the progressive cause. But this is not a progressive country.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... where they were voting for an ISSUE and not someone for office. In many cases these same states voted OUT Democrats, because they DON'T TRUST THEM! They don't trust what this party has become.
Most of what Bernie is championing in terms of issues have SOLID MAJORITIES of AMERICANS (not just Democrats) supporting his position. The CORPORATE MEDIA disseminated myth that this is not a progressive country is precisely that. There's a growing populist movement, that none of the PTB wants to acknowledge or have us feel in tune with.
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)In 1976, people said the same thing about Reagan.
Handle those nevers carefully. They can turn on you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie is not McGovern. Take a video of an old McGovern speech and compare it to a video of a Bernie speech. Huge difference. Biden or Hillary have more in common with McGovern than does Bernie.
Bernie isn't like any candidate we have ever put up since Teddy Roosevelt.
Bernie is a reform candidate, a fighter, not a status quo, let's be nice to each other, kind of guy.
Another difference that is very important, McGovern ran against an incumbent.
Bernie will be running in a year in which voters will want change. Bernie is more believably that change than is any other candidate.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Incumbent names. With big campaign machines.
senz
(11,945 posts)He champions the working class. That's darn near everyone.
demwing
(16,916 posts)No need for us to "get you twisted" when your post comes pre-twisted.
McGovern gave us Nixon? You do realize that Nixon was running for re-election, right? We already HAD Nixon, and McGovern's loss had next to nothing to do with how liberal he was. Eagleton was a problem, as was McGovern's pledge that he was behind his VP "1000%" - which lasted all of two days. It was a "Read my lips" moment, but still not the reason McGovern lost.
The answer is simple. Nixon's first term was very successful. The economy was booming and war casualties had dropped significantly.
McGovern never really had a chance - and none of that was because he was a liberal.
As far as Nader was concerned, he was a third party candidate, something Bernie has sworn not to do. Also, Gore won the 2000 election, and if the SCOTUS had let the votes be counted, Gore would have been sworn in. Nader had nada to do with the SCOTUS decision.
And so both of your comparisons fail the sniff test. The only thing Nader and McGovern have in common is that they are often held as blue dog examples of why progressives cant win, should go away.
"Don't get me twisted" you say? Lol...not a chance...
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Does anyone here seriously think that Sanders is going to be supported by the majority of the people in this country? If you really believe that, then you really ought to get out of Santa Cruz, California, or Eugene, Oregon, or Vermont a little more often.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Times have changed - even since 2012. You either aren't getting it that the left /right divide has been supplanted by the up/down divide, or you get it, but just don't want to accept it.
Try to put Bernie in a box...go right ahead. It wont matter, Bernie defines himself. And unless you're fighting to maintain the oligarchy, you'll also benefit from the populist changes coming down the road. We'll all benefit. That's what happens when the voices of the populist majority are fully represented in DC, instead of just the dollars of a privileged minority.
The US is about to join the civilized world, will you join us to make it happen or will you continue to deride the man that can deliver that change?
Which side are you on?
greiner3
(5,214 posts)You forgot Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Oh, wait a minute.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)The only doubt was whether he could get past the issue of his ethnicity. But he was a conventional candidate all along, with conventional positions and a strategy and an organization that appealed to a cross section of the United States voting interests. Bernie is, well, a 'socialist'. A smart, fascinating socialist, but still a socialist.
FWIW, I don't find that term profane. I've lived in a socialist democratic country for several years, so I have a better appreciation of the things Bernie's fighting for than most. It's just that the conventionalist in me finds it difficult to believe he can actually win the presidency.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Obama already had a campaign machine and some endorsements in place. I like Bernie- I really do. Maybe a cabinet post or something, but we would get crushed if he won the nomination.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)uness you're referring to one's back side (two t's).
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Share your infinite knowledge.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Though I gotta admit, he's getting off to a rocky start. But people have short memories, and he's got the lead for PAC $$$. I think a moderate lefty can beat Bush, but Bernie would be Nixon v McGovern all over again. And sorry, we can NOT afford that right now.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)StoneCarver
(249 posts)I must say what is up with these people who dis folks with low post counts. I've been a DU readers since 2008 and don't post a lot unless I think it is necessary. I've seen people get high post with YEA or WAY TO GO! Stop with this nonsense. Give every poster respect. I know there are trolls out there (and probably have low posts). DU has been much harder since it was referenced by the national media. I long for the old DU. Where do we go to find the old DU?
Stonecarver
cui bono
(19,926 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I wish I was omniscient like you. Why do only some people get to born gods and others, like me, have to learn things the hard way, in the muck with all the other non-gods?
Wait - you should know, right? Please, mighty one, share just this small drop of wisdom from your overflowing font of all-knowingness, so that we, the unworthy, may more deeply comprehend how worthless our puny lives our as compared to the radiance that is you.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)How 'bout that? LOL!
No disrespect though, brah! In the end, our interests are the same, regardless of whether we support Billary or Bernie.
demwing
(16,916 posts)A vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo, a vote for Bernie is a vote for fundamental change. Those interests couldn't be any less aligned.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Sorry, but it is, There's no way any of us are going to change our minds based on a ridiculous post like that - ever.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.
Then Bernie will win
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)Just stop. He is electable. If people vote for him he'll be elected just like anyone else would.
All this defeatism is getting so so so old.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.
Then Bernie will win
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)imthevicar
(811 posts)The Perfect Handle!
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I won't listen to the counsel of despair. I would be wasting my vote by giving it to one of the corporatist candidates, the ones who would ensure that nothing relevant ever changed.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)I remember in 2006 and 2007 many of my friends making the same statement when I said I would vote for Barack Obama for President. They laughed, told me I was out of my mind, and that he would never get past the primaries... several years later and we are witnessing not only one term of the President but the winding down of the second term. Bernie can win the primary and the election. Would you rather we wasted our vote on Donald Trump?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Playinghardball
(11,665 posts)totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)powerful ticket. But I would support Sanders/Warren in a heartbeat.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Same problems Hillary has. Too much baggage.
A Bernie/Warren ticket could win.
The economy is still a mess for many, many people, especially the young voters and the people between 50-67. Really tough. And many retired people do not receive enough from Social Security to survive on but have virtually no savings.
Bernie speaks to them.
Biden can't. He is part of the administration that appointed Holden to Justice and Geithner to the Treasury.
Hillary -- the bills signed during the Clinton administration, especially NAFTA have nearly destroyed the American dream.
Bernie is the only candidate who can respond to Trump's critiques of today's America.
FloridaBlues
(4,668 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There appears to be some attempt to sell a Biden candidacy by coupling his name with that of Warren. I don't think they are a match.
Biden's banker friends might want to silence Warren and might think that putting her on a ticket with Biden would do the trick. I think she is smarter than that.
They want to break Bernie's momentum.
Biden is a nice guy, but his performance in 2008 was endearing but not sharp. He was badly beaten by both Obama and Clinton.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)himself is corrupt. If only all those who SAY this would do what Sanders is doing, or would have backed him and Warren when they stood up, we would not be where we are right now.
There is only one candidate in this race that the people trust, because he always has stood up for the people, and it isn't Biden.
I think Biden was trying to get the assurances from Warren so he could get her supporters away from Bernie. But Warren has been watching the corruption in DC for so long, I cannot imagine her choosing a status quo candidate who had as much of a chance to stand up and refuse to go along, over one who did. If she does, SHE will lose all her credibility.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)politician like Biden. That would be like giving up her soul, everything she stands for. Not going to happen.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)in the democratic wing of the democratic party would be if she agreed to be a silent partner to a corporatist Democrat.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)She has her place.
But we need to rally behind Billary. Not involved with her campaign, FWIW, though I probably could be at some point later in the cycle if you want me to be completely open. I just don't want to see another republitard president. The damage from the last one was too great.
whathehell
(30,468 posts)I like the guy personally, but I'm completely off "personality cults"..
I'm wondering if, or where, he parted ways with PBO on certain things like TPP and being
so neutral on organized labor, etc.
He always acts like he's got the back of the working class, but where, as VP at least,
has he actually shown it?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What we need to learn from the Trump triumph in the Republican Party is that millions and millions of Americans are unhappy with our current economy, especially the job situation.
The anger at immigration is about jobs. People (mistakenly) think that immigrants come in and take jobs, lower wages, etc.
The real issues are economic. And the only way to deal with the reality that in this technological economy and in this global market, so many American jobs that pay livable wages are disappearing, being sucked out or replaced by inhuman creatures with plugs and on-switches is to reform the economy.
Bernie is responding to what is troubling Americans.
Could it be that hanging around with ordinary voters in Vermont's Town Halls rather than in the French-wine filled salons in which the big donors are courted has given Bernie the opportunity to learn more about what is on Americans' minds?
I suspect that is the case.
Travel on ordinary planes and not in your personal helicopter and you can take the pulse of America.
Bernie does it. Bernie has felt the pulse of America.
The other candidates haven't. That's the story. And as time goes on, that story's ending will become easy for everyone to see.
trof
(54,274 posts)YESSSS!!!
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)
harun
(11,381 posts)Clinton vs. Bush you'd have about %10.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)loved and respected within the party and I think that Liz would most likely let him decide what he wants to do. There is also speculation that the meeting they had involved Joe's broaching the possibility of a Bide/Warren ticket.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)If she wasn't going to run for Pres, why in the world for VP?
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)Even that would be a big help. Plus Joe at his age would probably want a younger VP.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and big biz wanted, based on the myth of we're all deadbeats.
Her beliefs are much, much, much more aligned with Sanders. I think it's more likely that she's so far declined to endorse any candidate because she's waiting to see what happens with Hillary.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in Congress voted for. Among other things, that bill broadened the category of education loans and student loans that CANNOT BE DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY. That is really like making students into indentured servants for many, many years.
Some of our ancestors came here as slaves or a better condition, indentured servitude. The Bankruptcy Bill passed I believe in 2005 has turned our children into a somewhat "freer" but still chained class of people whose major debts cannot be forgiven even if they are broke and jobless.
It's downright wrong. That is one of Warren's biggest issues.
From NPR"
Warren is, of course, best known for her strident rhetoric against big banks. Meanwhile, Biden has close ties to the credit-card industry. And that has put the two at odds in the past.
Warren called Biden out in her autobiography as one of several high-profile Democrats who championed bankruptcy legislation that helped her make her name in Washington. In 2001, with the help of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Warren had just succeeded in stopping a banking-industry-backed bill that would have made filing for bankruptcy more difficult.
"The Senate was evenly split between the two parties, but one of the bill's lead sponsors was Democratic powerhouse Joe Biden, and right behind him were plenty of other Democrats offering to help.
"Never mind that the country was sunk in an ugly recession and millions of families were struggling — the banking industry pressed forward and Congress obliged. ..."
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/24/434331154/the-biggest-divide-between-joe-biden-and-elizabeth-warren
It would seriously hurt Elizabeth Warren's reputation for honesty were she to couple with Biden on a presidential ticket. No way would her supporters be happy about that.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)but didn't have anything specific to cite. So thank you for the detail and supportive links! 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)trust from Warren supporters. Biden is too close to the bankers.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)even being seriously talked about. It seems that a lot of people are getting nervous about having Clinton leading the ticket.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He has a nice personality, is very likable, but is very close to the banking industry.
Not a match for Bernie. Labor likes him better than they like Hillary, but he still has Wall Street and the banks to answer for, and that would make it very difficult for him.
Especially now.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They are no different than gamblers with an addiction.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in their lives, they tend to buy lottery tickets and gamble. One of the bad signs of our times is the popularity of gambling. Statistically, gambling is a bad bet unless you are very gifted at mathematics and pick the right game.
Better to stay home and do something productive for yourself.
The Trump phenomenon is astounding. But actually if you think about it considering the influence of the banking and stock market industries in the Democratic Party which used to represent the hopes and dreams of the common people, is it any wonder that the Republicans are picking a gambling magnate for their candidate???
We really need to think more soberly about our choices.
sorechasm
(631 posts)Nice analysis JDPriestly.
Hopelessness does explain a lot of Trumpet's appeal: 'My vote is as good as a lotto ticket. One day, I'm going to win big like The Donald did. He's going to show me how. He and I, we think alike. After all he gave me a hat that says: Make America Rich Again.'
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)By the uninformed. I remember his machinations that got Thomas on the bench. He's been REAL cozy with the credit card companies that prop him up and he's a bought and paid for corporate shill just like Hillary. The boy is not now nor will ever be ready for prime time.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)her and Sanders would have synergy though.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Biden is, regardless of his personal views, on the wrong side of that issue because of his part in the Obama administration. That was a big weakness of the Obama administration, the failure to properly prosecute the big offenders in the 2008 banking and derivatives crisis.
I don't think Biden will be able to shake off his role in the current job economy. It's bad out there, especially for very young and older workers. Really insecure.
The scare on Wall Street on Friday is just a taste. It's bad.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)With Biden vowing to only serve 1 term that sets Warren up as the Incumbent in 2020!!
TBF
(36,665 posts)nt
lobodons
(1,290 posts)nt
TBF
(36,665 posts)if I need to explain to you why Biden is a bad choice then you are in the wrong group.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)TBF
(36,665 posts)have seen it on Facebook as well.
NO WE DON'T WANT JOE BIDEN.
WE LIKE BERNIE.
I hope that is clear enough for them! lol
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Warren is an expert on bankruptcy law.
Biden helped to get a bankruptcy law passed that makes student and education loans virtually not dischargeable in bankruptcy, closing bankruptcy courts to students whose lives are ruined by their education debts.
I don't think Warren is going to give up on her life-long battle for fairness in our economic and banking system for the flattering idea of running for VP with Biden who lost badly in the primaries in 2008 to both Hillary and Obama.
I would seriously rethink my support of her if she did that.
Of all people, she knows how we are burdening our kids with debt they shouldn't owe.
Biden is a friend of the banks. He will bear the same onerous burden as Hillary especially if things continue to be edgy on Wall Street.
Wall Street recovered from the Friday massacre this time, but a lot of people lost money in that short run on their accounts. That is going to change the tone in the financial markets and it is not going to sweeten them. It was a test of vulnerabilities.
A friend of banks and Wall Street at this moment is not a friend of ordinary Americans.
Biden is also pro-TPP and a lot of other things Americans are not in the mood to stomach right now. Biden/Warren is a non-starter.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)take this bullshit elsewhere.
TBF
(36,665 posts)they are the same on the issues. I really hope she wouldn't sell out like that.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)I'm in awe of her ability to think great thoughts and articulate them so eloquently.
[img]
[/img]
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)That Biden asked Warren not to support anyone
during the primary. She recently sounded very
reluctant to support HRC, which may have worried
the administration in case of a Biden run.
We shall see, but I think that Biden will run as
a guy of the establishment in case HRC's
campaign starts to flounder.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)Centrism works in some cases when it comes to the middle class, but the corporate centrism that have been in place in years past does not. We need to end greed and corporatism in Wall Street with more reforms on Wall Street, but with a chance for all Americans to be successful and prosperous.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)It seems to be THE problem in the past few decades. It is the way status quo Democrats glide past the harshness of the Republicans, and Wall Street interests, offering a cookie or two to liberals, and leftists.
Wake up, don't fall asleep in the Matrix.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)but doesn't like the clown party.
TBF
(36,665 posts)It has been a meme by the media that "centrists" and "moderates" are just every day people who are in the middle and therefore the group to win over. It has never been that way and never will be as long as we have capitalism. It is just another stint by the owners of this country to keep people compliant. We can't afford "centrists". Right now the top 1/10th of the top 1% is controlling most of the assets. We are seeing how this is playing out around the country with increasingly more jobs being sent overseas. Our standard of living, as a whole for most people, is decreasing. We can't just sit back and hope the best from the 2 sides will filter through because we (meaning the working class - anyone who actually needs a paycheck) are getting killed.
This dream you're envisioning of "with a chance for all Americans to be successful and prosperous" is just that - a dream. We haven't had that here for a long time. You're in the right group though in terms of saving capitalism. Bernie Sanders is very clearly an FDR democrat at heart, and he will advocate for the return to the New Deal and Great Society type programs.
PatrickforO
(15,424 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)A problem with it? Sure, but not because of the unemployed or underemployed. Not because of strutting fat cats or fancy homes.
Because they lie. About what they are going to do, how they are going to do it, what its going to do and how great it will be.
The only truth is more for me and less for you, damn the consequences.
Consequences like getting more conservatives elected, of climate issues being ignored, of police brutality and prison for profit expanding, of more resource wars and more misery heaped on the young and the natural world.
I exist in the most reality, the most democracy, shareholders will allow me to. A window that grows smaller with each dollar in the hands of Wall St.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Regardless of what happens, each will continue to do so. We are fortunate.