The problem with Bernie: he's not much of a Democrat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sense that some of the Hillary supporters are worried that Bernie Sanders may have some effect on the Democratic Party platform. Is this the real problem? I just don't get the vitriol for BS at this point in the campaign?? It makes no sense.

You are wrong. I liked it when I thought he was bringing campaign finance reform and bank regulation more to the forefront of the Dem platform. If that was his effect, great. That's when I respected him. Now it seems he's hell-bent on taking Clinton down. My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Many folks have indicated he is not "hell bent" (meaning, that he's willing to go to deep, dark places in the gutter, not even "email-gate," to attack Clinton) on bringing her down. He's voiced in no uncertain terms his policy differences with her. Now, if you think that pressing her on policy issues is bad, then I have nothing to say to you on that--you've dropped off a cliff. If you feel that these things you've pointed to regarding Sanders are WORSE than cozying up to Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Loan Sharks and so on, well, again, we disagree. And, in fact, I disagree with anything you accused Sanders of doing as being actually wrong.

Anyway. I have a feeling a lot will shake out after the primaries are over. You might wind up eating your words... We'll see.

Well said. I wish people would look more closely at the substance of the matter - our concerns about the corporate takeover of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sense that some of the Hillary supporters are worried that Bernie Sanders may have some effect on the Democratic Party platform. Is this the real problem? I just don't get the vitriol for BS at this point in the campaign?? It makes no sense.

You are wrong. I liked it when I thought he was bringing campaign finance reform and bank regulation more to the forefront of the Dem platform. If that was his effect, great. That's when I respected him. Now it seems he's hell-bent on taking Clinton down. My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Many folks have indicated he is not "hell bent" (meaning, that he's willing to go to deep, dark places in the gutter, not even "email-gate," to attack Clinton) on bringing her down. He's voiced in no uncertain terms his policy differences with her. Now, if you think that pressing her on policy issues is bad, then I have nothing to say to you on that--you've dropped off a cliff. If you feel that these things you've pointed to regarding Sanders are WORSE than cozying up to Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Loan Sharks and so on, well, again, we disagree. And, in fact, I disagree with anything you accused Sanders of doing as being actually wrong.

Anyway. I have a feeling a lot will shake out after the primaries are over. You might wind up eating your words... We'll see.

Yeah, none of that persuaded me if anything. I guess I'm supposed to be scared of something?

I'm not scared of any of the Bigs and I am not scared of Bernie's revolution. I've been through a real revolution. This one ain't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sense that some of the Hillary supporters are worried that Bernie Sanders may have some effect on the Democratic Party platform. Is this the real problem? I just don't get the vitriol for BS at this point in the campaign?? It makes no sense.

You are wrong. I liked it when I thought he was bringing campaign finance reform and bank regulation more to the forefront of the Dem platform. If that was his effect, great. That's when I respected him. Now it seems he's hell-bent on taking Clinton down. My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Many folks have indicated he is not "hell bent" (meaning, that he's willing to go to deep, dark places in the gutter, not even "email-gate," to attack Clinton) on bringing her down. He's voiced in no uncertain terms his policy differences with her. Now, if you think that pressing her on policy issues is bad, then I have nothing to say to you on that--you've dropped off a cliff. If you feel that these things you've pointed to regarding Sanders are WORSE than cozying up to Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Loan Sharks and so on, well, again, we disagree. And, in fact, I disagree with anything you accused Sanders of doing as being actually wrong.

Anyway. I have a feeling a lot will shake out after the primaries are over. You might wind up eating your words... We'll see.

Yeah, none of that persuaded me if anything. I guess I'm supposed to be scared of something?
I'm not scared of any of the Bigs and I am not scared of Bernie's revolution. I've been through a real revolution. This one ain't it.

If you aren't scared of the Bigs in Govt, then, yes, Hillary is your Spirit Animal! Peace out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sense that some of the Hillary supporters are worried that Bernie Sanders may have some effect on the Democratic Party platform. Is this the real problem? I just don't get the vitriol for BS at this point in the campaign?? It makes no sense.

You are wrong. I liked it when I thought he was bringing campaign finance reform and bank regulation more to the forefront of the Dem platform. If that was his effect, great. That's when I respected him. Now it seems he's hell-bent on taking Clinton down. My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Many folks have indicated he is not "hell bent" (meaning, that he's willing to go to deep, dark places in the gutter, not even "email-gate," to attack Clinton) on bringing her down. He's voiced in no uncertain terms his policy differences with her. Now, if you think that pressing her on policy issues is bad, then I have nothing to say to you on that--you've dropped off a cliff. If you feel that these things you've pointed to regarding Sanders are WORSE than cozying up to Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Loan Sharks and so on, well, again, we disagree. And, in fact, I disagree with anything you accused Sanders of doing as being actually wrong.

Anyway. I have a feeling a lot will shake out after the primaries are over. You might wind up eating your words... We'll see.

Yeah, none of that persuaded me if anything. I guess I'm supposed to be scared of something?
I'm not scared of any of the Bigs and I am not scared of Bernie's revolution. I've been through a real revolution. This one ain't it.

If you aren't scared of the Bigs in Govt, then, yes, Hillary is your Spirit Animal! Peace out.

That's all you got out of that? Boy, you fit the description so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people want him out of the race so badly. Just let him stay in until it's over. What's the big deal with that?

I'm the OP and I don't want him out of the race. I want him to stop attacking HRC, since he probably can't win the nomination, and I want him to say he will back the eventual nominee. If he's genuinely a party member, he needs to do that, and needs to invest in building the party down ticket.

I'm with you, OP. I don't care if he stays in the race. But I don't like they way his campaign has been acting lately: suing the DNC, planning to court the super delegates because they are losing the popular vote, completely dismissing the Southern states and the AA vote, his statements about supporting HRC should he not be the nominee etc. Like I said before, he wasn't my first choice, but I respected him a great deal. No more.

I don't think he's dismissing the southern states. He was the first one to state he was going to run a 50-state campaign, and by golly he did. At some point you throw your campaign resources where you think they'll get you the biggest bang, especially when you're behind and especially when the race is veeeeery tight but you have momentum. As far as dismissing the AA vote, I see he's not getting the AA vote, but I don't see him dismissing this group in his campaign, rhetoric, or policy. Where have you read that?

The 50-state strategy is the brain child of Howard Dean, not Bernie. Dean supports Hillary.

Sanders has skipped some states. He had no organization or ads in several areas. This is unwise because it hurts significantly in the delegate count. Even in states where Clinton expects to lose, like Washington, there's an organization and ground game to win delegates in certain areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the OP and I don't want him out of the race. I want him to stop attacking HRC, since he probably can't win the nomination, and I want him to say he will back the eventual nominee. If he's genuinely a party member, he needs to do that, and needs to invest in building the party down ticket.


What are his attacks? Can you say what they are, specifically? (Are they without merit? Are they personal? Are they underhanded?)

Yeah, that was a big attack when he said that he could care less about Hillary's emails. During the first debate.
Look, this guy wants to debate the issues. He does not attack Hillary. Give an example of an attack he made on Hillary. Please.

Don't you get his campaign emails?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will support the Democratic nominee when the time comes. He's said he will not run as a third party candidate. He will not at this point in time engage in a discussion about whom he will support, because NO CANDIDATE DOES THIS until they drop out. NO CANDIDATE DOES THIS.

You're simply wrong about this. All of the Republican candidates signed a pledge to support the ultimate nominee. They all stood there on live TV (twice!) and pledged they'd support the ultimate nominee.

Moderator: Tonight, in 30 seconds, can you definitively say you will support the Republican nominee, even if that nominee is Donald J. Trump?
Rubio: I’ll support Donald if he’s the Republican nominee, and let me tell you why. ...
Cruz: Yes, because I gave my word that I would.
Kasich: I will support whoever is the Republican nominee for president.

Moderator: Mr. Trump, ... Can you definitively say tonight that you will definitely support the Republican nominee for president, even if it’s not you?
Trump: Yes, I will.

So don't give us this crap again about how "no candidate does this."

But Bernie? Nope. He's going to lay out a series of strict requirements that Clinton has to meet first before he'll support her. Making support conditional is really what "no candidate does" ... except for Bernie. So screw him. It's that sort of ego-driven crap that is making me dislike Bernie more and more each day.

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure some Sanders fan is going to respond to say I'm not sufficiently kissing enough Bernie ass ... and that this isn't the way to attract the Sanders fan. Well, I'm done trying to attract Sanders fans. Sanders doesn't deserve any flattery when he pulls blackmail stunts like this, and neither do his supporters when they play the same game.

Sanders eventually endorsed Obama. What makes you think he won't eventually endorse whomever becomes the Democratic nominee? Seems to me you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Why isn't Clinton endorsing Sanders?

Because she already said a long time ago that she'd support the Democratic nominee, maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Republicans are arguing about who is a "true conservative" and the Democrats are arguing about who is a "true Democrat". Do we all have to fit into neat little boxes? Can't we think outside the box a bit? Aren't these parties and politics dynamic? Because our country sure as heck is not the same as it was.

Truly, I wouldn't care so much about Bernie had he been a Democrat for any length of time. If the soul of the Democratic Party were so important to him, you'd think he see fit to be one prior to a Presidential campaign.

I think the soul of American politics is important to him, yes. I do believe that is true. The GOP is a lost-cause pile of garbage.

He paid establishment political consultant Tad Devine $800,000 in one month so he can save the soul of American politics from greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sense that some of the Hillary supporters are worried that Bernie Sanders may have some effect on the Democratic Party platform. Is this the real problem? I just don't get the vitriol for BS at this point in the campaign?? It makes no sense.

You are wrong. I liked it when I thought he was bringing campaign finance reform and bank regulation more to the forefront of the Dem platform. If that was his effect, great. That's when I respected him. Now it seems he's hell-bent on taking Clinton down. My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Many folks have indicated he is not "hell bent" (meaning, that he's willing to go to deep, dark places in the gutter, not even "email-gate," to attack Clinton) on bringing her down. He's voiced in no uncertain terms his policy differences with her. Now, if you think that pressing her on policy issues is bad, then I have nothing to say to you on that--you've dropped off a cliff. If you feel that these things you've pointed to regarding Sanders are WORSE than cozying up to Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Loan Sharks and so on, well, again, we disagree. And, in fact, I disagree with anything you accused Sanders of doing as being actually wrong.

Anyway. I have a feeling a lot will shake out after the primaries are over. You might wind up eating your words... We'll see.

You clearly don't read his campaign emails. I do think that harping on her speeches is attacking her personally. That's not policy. He disingenuously ignores that Colin Powell was paid almost the same amount after he left his position. So what influence was he peddling then? People pay for celebrities, and intellectuals pay for intellectual celebrities. He's trying to make her seem like she was "pay to play". That's dirty and false. And helps the GOP narrative. It definitely doesn't help the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Republicans are arguing about who is a "true conservative" and the Democrats are arguing about who is a "true Democrat". Do we all have to fit into neat little boxes? Can't we think outside the box a bit? Aren't these parties and politics dynamic? Because our country sure as heck is not the same as it was.

Truly, I wouldn't care so much about Bernie had he been a Democrat for any length of time. If the soul of the Democratic Party were so important to him, you'd think he see fit to be one prior to a Presidential campaign.

I think the soul of American politics is important to him, yes. I do believe that is true. The GOP is a lost-cause pile of garbage.

He paid establishment political consultant Tad Devine $800,000 in one month so he can save the soul of American politics from greed.

Doesn't count. Cuz Bernie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sense that some of the Hillary supporters are worried that Bernie Sanders may have some effect on the Democratic Party platform. Is this the real problem? I just don't get the vitriol for BS at this point in the campaign?? It makes no sense.

You are wrong. I liked it when I thought he was bringing campaign finance reform and bank regulation more to the forefront of the Dem platform. If that was his effect, great. That's when I respected him. Now it seems he's hell-bent on taking Clinton down. My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Many folks have indicated he is not "hell bent" (meaning, that he's willing to go to deep, dark places in the gutter, not even "email-gate," to attack Clinton) on bringing her down. He's voiced in no uncertain terms his policy differences with her. Now, if you think that pressing her on policy issues is bad, then I have nothing to say to you on that--you've dropped off a cliff. If you feel that these things you've pointed to regarding Sanders are WORSE than cozying up to Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Loan Sharks and so on, well, again, we disagree. And, in fact, I disagree with anything you accused Sanders of doing as being actually wrong.

Anyway. I have a feeling a lot will shake out after the primaries are over. You might wind up eating your words... We'll see.

Yeah, none of that persuaded me if anything. I guess I'm supposed to be scared of something?
I'm not scared of any of the Bigs and I am not scared of Bernie's revolution. I've been through a real revolution. This one ain't it.

If you aren't scared of the Bigs in Govt, then, yes, Hillary is your Spirit Animal! Peace out.

That's all you got out of that? Boy, you fit the description so well.

I know. These bros are becoming caricatures of themselves. Sheltered know it alls who are pretty sure everyone else's perspective is worthless.

[Anonymous]

I think there's a lot of sanctimony in this thread...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Republicans are arguing about who is a "true conservative" and the Democrats are arguing about who is a "true Democrat". Do we all have to fit into neat little boxes? Can't we think outside the box a bit? Aren't these parties and politics dynamic? Because our country sure as heck is not the same as it was.

Truly, I wouldn't care so much about Bernie had he been a Democrat for any length of time. If the soul of the Democratic Party were so important to him, you'd think he see fit to be one prior to a Presidential campaign.

I think the soul of American politics is important to him, yes. I do believe that is true. The GOP is a lost-cause pile of garbage.

He paid establishment political consultant Tad Devine $800,000 in one month so he can save the soul of American politics from greed.

But Tad said very clearly that the $800,000 didn't influence him at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Republicans are arguing about who is a "true conservative" and the Democrats are arguing about who is a "true Democrat". Do we all have to fit into neat little boxes? Can't we think outside the box a bit? Aren't these parties and politics dynamic? Because our country sure as heck is not the same as it was.

Truly, I wouldn't care so much about Bernie had he been a Democrat for any length of time. If the soul of the Democratic Party were so important to him, you'd think he see fit to be one prior to a Presidential campaign.

I think the soul of American politics is important to him, yes. I do believe that is true. The GOP is a lost-cause pile of garbage.

He paid establishment political consultant Tad Devine $800,000 in one month so he can save the soul of American politics from greed.

Meh, Clinton has been spending 8 times more on consultants and staffers.

[Anonymous]

My fear is that he's weakening her chances in the general. That would be tragic and much more important than him continuing to plug on.

Okay. Here it is. Finally. You are worried that Hillary is weak. That she is not strong enough to take on the Republicans. If she is not the strongest candidate, maybe she should not be the nominee. Hillary is the only one who can weaken her chances. If Sanders can do it, she wasn't strong enough. Maybe she should heed Sander's message and make herself stronger.

If she is the best candidate, you have nothing to worry about. And, as you say, Bernie is a "phony" . . . and just a "bad person" so not to worry.