Forum Thread

Why Bernie should not drop out

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 65 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, There are two correct answers. Where I live there is a process for contacting the police department. There is a number for regular business and a number for emergencies. The Democratic Party doesn't list an emergency process because if they did then they would be responsible because they have been in control. It is 911 time for the Democratic Party. You can't dismiss opposition wanting a change because there is no process for it. Bernie is well within the party platform and guidelines because he is proffering a position from which to bargain from. He has not stated my way or shut the government down. Hillary is going to try and improve from a position that leaves a significant group behind. She is the one not coinciding with the Democratic Party position. It says and she says everybody. But she comes from years of dealing with a lot and most but never everybody. She verbalizes everybody but only helps less than that. She even helps those who need nothing. This is not the time to quell a revolution with process. It is time to answer the revolution.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I'll give you my take on it. Bernie won big today and he made a long victory speech full of "I will's" and outright promises that he knows he cannot deliver on. His agenda of what he "will achieve" is to the left of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which BTW is closer to Hillary's platform. Sanders's big "promises" are for the most part not doable, and certainly not the single payer health care system.

    But by making promises of "free stuff" to a passionate audience, he is in effect an opportunist, just like Trump. It will drive up his support even more, putting more pressure on Hillary to move even further left. Hillary has thus far been cautious trying to avoid making outlandish promises that cannot be kept. I hope she doesn't fall into that trap. No promises.

    Bernie is the "real deal". He is an ideologue absolutely 100 percent committed to his socialist revolution and will do anything to make it happen. In this case he is pandering to an audience of supporters that have a limited knowledge of government and what it takes (e.g. compromises) to get legislation passed...an audience of young people that has never voted and knows little of the Republican obstructionism over the last seven years. If he is not elected, he never has to deliver on his promises. No skin in the game. Just continue his political revolution from Congress.

    However, what happens if he is elected? What then? He has no plan to deliver on his "land of promises" by going through the legislative process in Congress. Rather it would appear from his thinly veiled words that his plan is to have his people take to the streets and protest...a real revolution that can turn ugly. I may be wrong on this, but that's the way I read it now.

    In that sense he and Trump are not that far different.

    In any case, if Bernie does beat out Hillary, I will be there for him canvassing neighborhoods in 2016...and in 2018. I just hope his idealistic supporters will be there with me canvassing in not only 2016, but even more importantly in 2018. A true revolution requires participation in the election process including canvassing for state and local representatives as well as federal. It's hard work and time consuming. That's what will make or break his revolution.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I'll give you my take on it. Bernie won big today and he made a long victory speech full of "I will's" and outright promises that he knows he cannot deliver on. His agenda of what he "will achieve" is to the left of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which BTW is closer to Hillary's platform. Sanders's big "promises" are for the most part not doable, and certainly not the single payer health care system.

    But by making promises of "free stuff" to a passionate audience, he is in effect an opportunist, just like Trump.

    I disagree with you that Sanders is an opportunist. I feel that's a very cynical reading of his intentions. He is igniting the imagination of an extremely weary electorate, with the basic American idea that it's possible to create change from the bottom up -- even given the epidemic dysfunction of all branches of government in D.C.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, The following is cut from the DNC sight: "There are several core beliefs that tie our party together: Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. Our party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lifts up all Americans, not just those at the top."

    That certainly describes unattainable promises. Especially the "everyone" part. Besides the very poor almost totally denied care under ACA they are taxed regressively and their condition worsens. When that happens they get sick more and die younger. Their status set a fifty year record for declining conditions under Obama. What you propose is to exclude them from consideration. Not acceptable.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, The promise for free stuff is interesting. Giving the wealthy tax cuts is giving them "free stuff" if the bills are not paid. On the other hand bringing people up to a living standard is not giving them free stuff. It is fulfilling the obligation of the country promising life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Free stuff to the poor is a term perpetuated by Romneites to legitimize expendability for the poor. Rights belonging to the poor is correct terminology. Bernie is proposing only returning a few of the rights at this time. Free education is maintaining resources. Bernie is trying to right years of wrongs. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". He knew who should be stepping up. Did he mean get off welfare or don't take deductions?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Bernie represents what a real Progersive should be, Hillary represents Wall Street, Big Corporations, the Pay for Prison lobby and god knows what else. The Republican candidates all suck and none of them are even the slightest bit qualified to be a dog catcher let alone POTUS! Therefore there can be only one candidate that deserves to win this election and his name is Bernie
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Dutch -- What is wrong with having a process of party rules? How do the various parties in the Dutch or British or Canadian parties choose they candidates to represent their party in the elections? You can't tell me that they don't have process rules in how or who they select their party. What I described is the Democratic Party process, which is what people on this website are complaining about. I would guess that if I were to look at the various parties that comprise the Dutch government I would find similar processes that have been agreed to by the party members. The Parliamentary system is no better than the American party system in that regard. Where our system has failed us is that not enough people participate in our government. It is the people that don't vote that I have the most contempt for. It is the citizens of this great country that don't educate themselves on how our government and democracy work and don't vote, or vote stupidly, that undermine our system of government. We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo
    No Schmidt; only votes should count not hoky poky delegates and how they get assigned; get the picture That is what is wrong here.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Mcsweet Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I'll give you my take on it. Bernie won big today and he made a long victory speech full of "I will's" and outright promises that he knows he cannot deliver on. His agenda of what he "will achieve" is to the left of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which BTW is closer to Hillary's platform. Sanders's big "promises" are for the most part not doable, and certainly not the single payer health care system.

    But by making promises of "free stuff" to a passionate audience, he is in effect an opportunist, just like Trump.

    I disagree with you that Sanders is an opportunist. I feel that's a very cynical reading of his intentions. He is igniting the imagination of an extremely weary electorate, with the basic American idea that it's possible to create change from the bottom up -- even given the epidemic dysfunction of all branches of government in D.C.

    Mcsweet -- The reason I use the word, "opportunist" is because Sanders is tapping into a certain discontent following the Great Recession and that has been exasperated by the Republican Party obstructionism over the past seven years. Sanders could have launched his "political revolution" years ago when he was much younger in 2000, 2004, 2008 and even as an alternative to Obama in 2012...or even earlier in the 1990s. The points that Sanders is making now about the rich, corporations, inequality, single payer health care, free college, etc. are not really new. They are truly his beliefs that go way, way back, probably to the time in his 20s when he spent several months in a Kibbutz in northern Israel. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. He is a true socialist of the kind that you will find in Denmark and Sweden. His worldviews are life long worldviews. Nothing has changed. There is no phoniness about his beliefs. He is the real deal.

    However, he is also very politically savvy, and he realized that if he would have embarked on his political revolution earlier, the political winds were just not right. So he has waited until the opportune time after the Great Recession had left it's toll on the American worker (8.7 million jobs lost over two years) and the Republicans had done everything in their power to slow job growth and otherwise make life miserable for the unemployed. It is the opportune time, and because of his age, it is also now or never.

    Donald Trump has likewise tapped into that same discontent, but his demographic is the older white guy, rather than the young, sometimes naïve first time voter. Again I don't want to appear critical of these young first time voters. As a former precinct chair I tried and I tried to get them engaged in the 2012 and 2014 elections. However, many of them were also feeling bitterness about government and President Obama's inability to deliver on "promises" to find them jobs. That's exactly what the Republicans wanted. It was their plan to make voters disillusioned with the Obama government so they could win in a big way in 2012, and if not 2012, then certainly 2016. That plan would have worked nicely if it wasn't for one Donald Trump who upset the apple cart.

    Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have had higher aspirations for some time. Both are now making the best of the opportunity delivered to them by the Republican Party.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Mcsweet Wrote: SUPERDELEGATES DID NOT come about as a result of the 1968 convention. They were established in the early 80s after the slaughter of Carter and Mondale.
    Mcsweet -- I stand corrected. You are right. After the 1968 Convention the McGovern-Fraser Commission made several recommendations that were implemented but were later found to have problems. The later Hunt Commission in 1982 was responsible for the implementation of Super Delegates. The 1984 election was the first to use Super Delegates. Today the super delegates make up about 20 percent of the delegates and include distinguished party leaders and all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors.
    Yes Schmidt; you should be convinced by now that such does not represent what you vote for; it is skewed all the way; assigning these delegates such way via a formula or winner takes all, often pushes the runner-up into the sewer. Thus dishonest as hell.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Mcsweet Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I'll give you my take on it. Bernie won big today and he made a long victory speech full of "I will's" and outright promises that he knows he cannot deliver on. His agenda of what he "will achieve" is to the left of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which BTW is closer to Hillary's platform. Sanders's big "promises" are for the most part not doable, and certainly not the single payer health care system.

    But by making promises of "free stuff" to a passionate audience, he is in effect an opportunist, just like Trump.

    I disagree with you that Sanders is an opportunist. I feel that's a very cynical reading of his intentions. He is igniting the imagination of an extremely weary electorate, with the basic American idea that it's possible to create change from the bottom up -- even given the epidemic dysfunction of all branches of government in D.C.

    Mcsweet -- The reason I use the word, "opportunist" is because Sanders is tapping into a certain discontent following the Great Recession and that has been exasperated by the Republican Party obstructionism over the past seven years. Sanders could have launched his "political revolution" years ago when he was much younger in 2000, 2004, 2008 and even as an alternative to Obama in 2012...or even earlier in the 1990s. The points that Sanders is making now about the rich, corporations, inequality, single payer health care, free college, etc. are not really new. They are truly his beliefs that go way, way back, probably to the time in his 20s when he spent several months in a Kibbutz in northern Israel. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. He is a true socialist of the kind that you will find in Denmark and Sweden. His worldviews are life long worldviews. Nothing has changed. There is no phoniness about his beliefs. He is the real deal.

    However, he is also very politically savvy, and he realized that if he would have embarked on his political revolution earlier, the political winds were just not right. So he has waited until the opportune time after the Great Recession had left it's toll on the American worker (8.7 million jobs lost over two years) and the Republicans had done everything in their power to slow job growth and otherwise make life miserable for the unemployed. It is the opportune time, and because of his age, it is also now or never.

    Donald Trump has likewise tapped into that same discontent, but his demographic is the older white guy, rather than the young, sometimes naïve first time voter. Again I don't want to appear critical of these young first time voters. As a former precinct chair I tried and I tried to get them engaged in the 2012 and 2014 elections. However, many of them were also feeling bitterness about government and President Obama's inability to deliver on "promises" to find them jobs. That's exactly what the Republicans wanted. It was their plan to make voters disillusioned with the Obama government so they could win in a big way in 2012, and if not 2012, then certainly 2016. That plan would have worked nicely if it wasn't for one Donald Trump who upset the apple cart.

    Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have had higher aspirations for some time. Both are now making the best of the opportunity delivered to them by the Republican Party.

    Schmidt, the thing is, which never worked for anyone in this country is because of the word "socialism" or "communism" that paints the guy, because we fought huge wars because of these words. I believe Sanders has been hampered by that right from the start, because the establishment and media make sure those remain dirty words. Sure people would like to have what he preaches, but not what is associated with these words. The indoctrination in this country is typical and put the brakes on this country's development, like education and healthcare as well a lot of other things Bernie stands for.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Just to be clear. I have no problems with anything that Bernie Sanders "stands for". His ideals are commendable. And I like Bernie Sanders as a person. No phoniness. However, I am also a practical realist, and I have spent hours reading about not what he stands for, but rather how he would accomplish his revolutionary platform of reform. That's where I become very doubtful because I just don't see it happening, at least not through the normal legislative processes at the state and federal level. I have listened to many of his speeches, and I cringe when his rhetoric includes many emphatic statements that sound like iron clad promises to deliver. That's the big difference between his rhetoric and Hillary Clinton's. Hillary is more cautious.

    So let me give just one example. His "free tuition" has sounded very good to young people, and yes I have personally talked to many of them at our last caucus meeting. It is just one of his "promises" but when you dig into the details (something that he glosses over in his monologue of promises) we find that his free college is not so free. It has a lot of caveats. As Matthew Yglesias writes in Vox, there is a problem with his free college plan:

    Matthew Yglesias, Vox, March 14, 2016: There's a big problem with Bernie Sanders's free college plan

    What Yglesias points out is that Sanders's College for All Act would not, in practice, eliminate college tuition. Rather it is a plan that offers federal matching funds on a 2-to-1 basis to states that want to increase higher education spending in order to eliminate tuition. The federal government pays 67 percent...states pay 33 percent. Okay maybe that doesn't sound too bad. However, the reality is that many states would not even take up federal funding of expanded Medicaid when it was offered on a 9 to 1 basis (10 percent cost to the states), so why would they now agree to absorbing 33 percent?

    Furthermore, as Yglesias points out, in the last seven years, 47 out of the 50 states have cut spending on higher education. So why would these states now reverse course and spend big on higher education? There are other caveats attached to the plan, which can read about in his article. Yglesias sums up the Sanders College for All Act as follows:

    "Put it all together, and what Sanders has is a plan for tuition-free college in Vermont and, if he's lucky, California, but not for the United States of America."

    That's just one view of just one of Sanders's plans in his political revolution. Others also become very shaky when put under the microscope. I do not believe that Sanders is so naïve as to believe that he could actually get his College for All Act passed by Congress, or if it does pass that it would be implemented nationwide. He has served in Congress for 25 years so he knows how obstructionist it can be. However, if he realizes that he is unlikely to be president, then there is no risk in making these "promises".

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Thus Schmidt, we have to continue in our old ways because of what you say? Look at the charts you published about Denmark being number 1 the US number 13. So guess you like keeping it that way because our governing system is so stuck in their ways to obstruct and twist and screw us around forever. That is what you get in a lawyer driven country; nothing is straightforward with common sense and simple here. So be proud of that. Go canvas all you like, the system stays as screwed up as it is and your efforts will not change that, because our votes have no power in this country. The PAC"s and "settled figures" determine any outcome or regulation; "money" and "connections" talk, not voters.

    I fully agree that if Bernie would be elected that indeed his promises will be torpedoed day one; due to the fact that this country is set in their ways and refuses change which smells like "socialism". Furthermore the "one percent" can't make too much money of it, so let's continue the castle lords and slave system. I hope you are proud of the way things are done in this country.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, People are beginning to realize that they have been shamed out of human rights. The radical conservatives have taught that you only have a right to what you earn and that a non productive member of society is a worthless liability. More and more people are being forced into little, no, diminishing or stagnant income through no fault of their own. People are becoming obsolete in a financial system that uses money instead of products to generate incomes. Bernie is teaching that a society has value. That an economy of goods and services is a right. The support for Bernie comes from a realization of rights. A country, its laws and taxes are for the country. United We Stand also means United We Live. Those new young voters are coming from a group that is beginning to realise that they are going to live to pay back college loans. If the Trump University plaintiffs have a case then so do millions of college students. Students that have been manipulated into 1.2 trillion dollars of debt. There are too many wrongs for Hillary to take a compromising position. She needs to give the country back to the people. Unfortunately this would hinder her candidacy of appeasement. Bernie is the voice of the people and the people are saying they want their country back.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, There is a saving grace. Bernie's supporters will be voting for congressional and senatorial candidates. Politicians have only one ideology and that is to get elected. Bernie will have lifelong supporters crawling out of the woodwork as well as the disenfranchised running for office. Schmidt, Bernie is not a dissident. He is voicing all the reasons the country was founded for and all the reasons used to get support. Now its time to cash that check. The people want to start seeing how good they have it. That is the road to world peace. Happy, healthy people earning living wages producing discretionary income don't cause problems. They make plans and live to enjoy life.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Thus Schmidt, we have to continue in our old ways because of what you say? Look at the charts you published about Denmark being number 1 the US number 13. So guess you like keeping it that way because our governing system is so stuck in their ways to obstruct and twist and screw us around forever. That is what you get in a lawyer driven country; nothing is straightforward with common sense and simple here. So be proud of that. Go canvas all you like, the system stays as screwed up as it is and your efforts will not change that, because our votes have no power in this country. The PAC"s and "settled figures" determine any outcome or regulation; "money" and "connections" talk, not voters.

    I fully agree that if Bernie would be elected that indeed his promises will be torpedoed day one; due to the fact that this country is set in their ways and refuses change which smells like "socialism". Furthermore the "one percent" can't make too much money of it, so let's continue the castle lords and slave system. I hope you are proud of the way things are done in this country.

    Dutch -- This has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. I deal in reality. I am not defending the fact that Sanders will have his proposed agenda blocked in Congress. Having watched what the Republicans did to obstruct President Obama over the last seven years, I have a hard time seeing how an agenda to the far left of Obama can pass anything. You are critical of American government and so am I. I will try and work within the system and elect candidates who will have a better chance of maneuvering the political landscape to make incremental improvements as a result of compromise. You haven't offered any solutions...just a doomsday scenario. I still believe in our government...but not some of the people we elect to government. There is a difference.