Sanders Endorses Clinton
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 05:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Oh, I agree that it's a smart move under the given circumstances. However, I have my doubts that people voted for him because they wanted someone with political savvy.

You think that they wanted an imbecile?

Quote:Many Sanders supporters saw him as the leader of a once-in-a-lifetime political revolution, someone who would fight for what is right even with the entire establishment against him. Someone who would fight for the common people and not be beholden to special interests.

And this he did.

Quote:They certainly didn't want a spineless opportunist who abandons the revolution as soon as it becomes politically convenient

That isn't even remotely accurate. It was politically convenient a long, long time ago.

Quote:to do so by endorsing one of its worst enemies for president.

Neither is that given the way Trump and all of the GOP candidates have promised to enact policies that would pretty much screw Bernie's supporters.

Quote:The Democratic platform doesn't dictate Clinton's actions as president, by the way, so I'm skeptical of its pragmatic value.

OK, what would you have him do then? Seeing as how he has promised to do this quite some time ago you'd like to start with Bernie beaking his word. Cause that would set you apart from all the untrustworthy politicians. Thumbsup Facepalm

What then? Scorched Earth? Run as an Independant? Endorse Trump? Those are all non-starters.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 07:58 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 05:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-07-2016 04:34 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Well their biggest bit of
I know that you don't like Hillary but let's be honest here, he's just doing what any savvy politician will do to try and salvage something from his defeat. This is neither unusual nor unexpected.
Oh, I agree that it's a smart move under the given circumstances. However, I have my doubts that people voted for him because they wanted someone with political savvy. Many Sanders supporters saw him as the leader of a once-in-a-lifetime political revolution, someone who would fight for what is right even with the entire establishment against him. Someone who would fight for the common people and not be beholden to special interests. They certainly didn't want a spineless opportunist who abandons the revolution as soon as it becomes politically convenient to do so by endorsing one of its worst enemies for president. The Democratic platform doesn't dictate Clinton's actions as president, by the way, so I'm skeptical of its pragmatic value.

I think his endorsement of Clinton is the ONLY pragmatic move he could have made especially with the spectre of a Trump presidency. I think you’re being much too critical of the guy.

What would have had him do? Seppuku?

It’s a shame he’s so old and might not be in politics for another round or two.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
12-07-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
He could have done what a few (but not all) Republicans have done with Trump and refused to endorse her. He wasn't obligated. And, I doubt he believes much of anything he said about her today.

I'm not surprised he did it, but it's a little disappointing. But, it's part for course I guess.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
12-07-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 08:20 PM)BnW Wrote:  He could have done what a few (but not all) Republicans have done with Trump and refused to endorse her. He wasn't obligated. And, I doubt he believes much of anything he said about her today.

I'm not surprised he did it, but it's a little disappointing. But, it's part for course I guess.

I can understand the dissapointment of his supporters, he really is an “outsider” and his ideas are outside the political mainstream. His “taking one for the team” is pragmatic and in the event he does make another run for the presidency there won’t be a reason why his oponent won’t endorse him as well. He lives to fight another day without burning bridges.

Disappointed that he didn’t become the nominee is one thing but being dissapointed that he endorsed Clinton is not seeing the whole political picture, especially the political fallout for a future Sanders run for the office.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
12-07-2016, 08:47 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 06:15 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I really do not want Hillary Clinton as our president. She is a war criminal, a republican, and a liar who only tells people what is current with the times so she can get ahead.
A war criminal? A Republican? How's that? To my knowledge, she's a registered Democrat and has never been in a position to commit a war crime (e.g. as commander in chief or as a soldier in the US military).

(12-07-2016 06:15 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Even during her job in law, what ever that job was again when she got fired years ago, she was seen as unethical and a liar by her boss.
I've heard that story before and it turns out that Snopes and a few other fact checking websites rate it as 'false'.

It's no secret that I despise the Clintons as well, but listen, you need to make sure that your criticisms are rock-solid or your credibility will evaporate quickly. I also really don't like being put in a position where I have to defend her. Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
12-07-2016, 08:58 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
Well... she was a Republican in the 60s. And er, everyone knows the wink wink nudge nudge of secret service personal executions. Come on its so hip to be known it must be true.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2016 09:47 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 06:25 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(12-07-2016 05:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  That's not an accurate assessment of what happened. Sanders didn't ever promise to "fully endorse" the winner of the Democratic primary. The word "endorse" carries a particular meaning in the political sphere. Sanders actually found himself in a similar situation back in the 90s. His thoughts on the race at the time weren't too different from his views on the current race. Yet, that didn't stop him from writing the following piece about his unenthusiastic support for Bill Clinton:


"In terms of who to support for president, the choice is really not difficult. I am certainly not a big fan of Bill Clinton’s politics. As a strong advocate of a single-payer health care system, I opposed his convoluted health care reform package. I have helped lead the opposition to his trade policies, which represent the interests of corporate America and which are virtually indistinguishable from the views of George Bush and Newt Gingrich. I opposed his bloated military budget, the welfare reform bill that he signed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which he supported. He has been weak on campaign finance reform and has caved in far too often on the environment. Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat. I’m a democratic socialist.

Yet, without enthusiasm, I’ve decided to support Bill Clinton for president. Perhaps “support” is too strong a word. I’m planning no press conferences to push his candidacy, and will do no campaigning for him. I will vote for him, and make that public. Why? I think that many people do not perceive how truly dangerous the political situation in this country is today. If Bob Dole were to be elected president and Gingrich and the Republicans were to maintain control of Congress, we would see a legislative agenda unlike any in the modern history of this country. There would be an unparalleled war against working people and the poor, and political decisions would be made that could very well be irreversible.

Medicare and Medicaid would certainly be destroyed, and tens of millions more Americans would lose their health insurance. Steps would be taken to privatize Social Security, and the very existence of public education in America would be threatened. Serious efforts would be made to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, affirmative action would be wiped out, and gay bashing would intensify. A flat tax would be passed, resulting in a massive shift in income from the working class to the rich, and all of our major environmental legislation would be eviscerated.

The Motor Voter bill would be repealed, and legislation making it harder for people to vote would be passed. Union-busting legislation would become law, the minimum wage would be abolished, and child labor would increase. Adults and kids in America would be competing for $3.00-an-hour jobs.

You think I’m kidding. You think I’m exaggerating. Well, I’m not. I work in Congress. I listen to these guys every day. They are very serious people. And the folks behind them, the Christian Coalition, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, and others, are even crazier than they are. My old friend Dick Armey is not some wacko member of Congress laughed at by his colleagues. He is the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Check out his views. No. I do not want Bob Dole to be president. I’m voting for Bill Clinton.

Do I have confidence that Clinton will stand up for the working people of this country—for children, for the elderly, for the folks who are hurting? No, I do not. But a Clinton victory could give us some time to build a movement, to develop a political infrastructure to protect what needs protecting, and to change the direction of the country."

Oh, I agree that it's a smart move under the given circumstances. However, I have my doubts that people voted for him because they wanted someone with political savvy. Many Sanders supporters saw him as the leader of a once-in-a-lifetime political revolution, someone who would fight for what is right even with the entire establishment against him. Someone who would fight for the common people and not be beholden to special interests. They most certainly didn't want spineless opportunist who abandons the revolution as soon as it becomes politically convenient to do so by endorsing one of its worst enemies for president. The Democratic platform doesn't dictate Clinton's actions as president, by the way, so I'm skeptical of its pragmatic value.

I don't know what phrasing of special significance is out there that would matter to you. So saying the word endorse is seemingly that relevant to you, even though every logical conclusion leads it to be possible. Even months ago he was stated he will do everything in his power working to not let Trump or Cruz win and working will support Hilary to do that.

How anyone can interpret that as any lacking plans of doing this exact pattern in the case of a non-nomination for Sanders in this race is focused in some irrational miscued patterns of the past. It's simple to have expected this as the outcome. If he's going to do all in his power.. I don't know what in the world you think would follow these recent patterns.

You don't seem to want to follow American political obvious outcomes... and I'm not exactly sure why. You carry a tone and make statements of surprise of some situations in this outcome with Hillary, You were confused why Trump would say he will debate Bernie before the California voter to take it back days later(which several aware posters like girly were clear ahead how that was gonna happen,) and this kinda echoed some other details of the 3rd party waves. Maybe because you expect different based on European politics but these American political sphere events are nothing short of the obvious. Trump actually winning and not just being hot early and fizzling to lose to Rubio/Bush/Cruz is the only major not as easily expected event. Maybe you expect more seemingly rational behavior, but that just isn't sensible to expect.

Like you may say the 3rd parties get no respect in voters because they look silly but the real, which is clear as day again on twitter today if you look up the trending jill stein or responses to people talking about how Johnson is higher than Trump in 18-29 year olds the frequent prevailing is that, oh they just support them because they want Weed to be legal. That joke/stereotype penetrates the common perception of these groups... This is the mentality of many people who in the voting block had no clue or only passing vibes mid-way in the voting season of who Bernie Sanders was. It's that, and just the notion of "throwing a vote away" that makes people give them zero respect. They don't know any policy position they didn't know they had a convention with a guy stripping on stage or who John McAfee is even if they have had McAfee antivirus on their computer for a decade. (now maybe the mocking of those events was more muffs i dont remember but it was pointed out in those threads) The green party is the weed party and the libertarians are let guys die in the street with all the drugs party to so many who never think a step beyond that level about them.

That could be shaven off as a perception if Johnson and/or Stein get the 15% in a bunch of polls to get a network to let them debate in the Hilary vs Trump scenario. Now if Sanders had endorsed the GreenParty and Stein that would certainly happened, but if anyone is disappointed he didn't they weren't following the pattern he had held himself up to this entire presidential run he had starting with that windy day outside he announced his candidacy and people chuckled, look at that silly old man.
Yeah, our politics are quite different. You could say that this stark difference is part of the reason why I'm so interested in US politics. We don't vote for our head of state in Germany, we only elect representatives that serve in our equivalent of Congress. As a result, we don't see the same amount of passion and enthusiasm in our elections and don't have these weird personality cults that always seem to form over there. What I like about our system is that it allows every single vote to count, no one has to worry about wasting their vote because of things like gerrymandering or first-past-the-post. A party needs to receive a mere 5% of the votes in our elections in order to get proportional representation in government. We currently have five different parties ruling the country together and there are about 10 different parties which received at least 1% in the 2013 elections.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
12-07-2016, 09:46 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  You think that they wanted an imbecile?
No, I think they wanted someone who would never betray his deeply held convictions out of political convenience.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  And this he did.
Until now, that is.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  That isn't even remotely accurate. It was politically convenient a long, long time ago.
Was it? He would have gained nothing by giving up months ago. I'd say it's much more convenient to drop out when you've got enough political leverage to negotiate a better deal for yourself. He might even get a cushy cabinet position now.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Neither is that given the way Trump and all of the GOP candidates have promised to enact policies that would pretty much screw Bernie's supporters.
I'm not sure why you think that the Republican candidates are relevant to what I said. Clinton represents much of what Sanders fought against during his campaign regardless of what people on the other side of the aisle are doing. And, for all his faults, Trump is not bought by special interests the way Clinton is. He's also clearly not a war hawk like Hillary and unlike her, he opposes disastrous trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP. He once called out the Bush family on their Iraq War shenanigans on live TV during one of the Republican debates. The pundits thought it would be political suicide for a GOP candidate, but it looks like the American people do realize that this war was a giant mistake.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK, what would you have him do then? Seeing as how he has promised to do this quite some time ago you'd like to start with Bernie beaking his word. Cause that would set you apart from all the untrustworthy politicians. Thumbsup Facepalm
As I've pointed out before, Bernie never promised to endorse Clinton.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  What then? Scorched Earth? Run as an Independant? Endorse Trump? Those are all non-starters.
How about not endorsing the candidate who is bought by virtually every corporate special interest group under the sun after ranting about big money in politics and its corrupting influence for about a year? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 10:40 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
(12-07-2016 09:46 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  You think that they wanted an imbecile?
No, I think they wanted someone who would never betray his deeply held convictions out of political convenience.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  And this he did.
Until now, that is.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  That isn't even remotely accurate. It was politically convenient a long, long time ago.
Was it? He would have gained nothing by giving up months ago. I'd say it's much more convenient to drop out when you've got enough political leverage to negotiate a better deal for yourself. He might even get a cushy cabinet position now.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Neither is that given the way Trump and all of the GOP candidates have promised to enact policies that would pretty much screw Bernie's supporters.
I'm not sure why you think that the Republican candidates are relevant to what I said. Clinton represents much of what Sanders fought against during his campaign regardless of what people on the other side of the aisle are doing. And, for all his faults, Trump is not bought by special interests the way Clinton is. He's also clearly not a war hawk like Hillary and unlike her, he opposes disastrous trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP. He once called out the Bush family on their Iraq War shenanigans on live TV during one of the Republican debates. The pundits thought it would be political suicide for a GOP candidate, but it looks like the American people do realize that this war was a giant mistake.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK, what would you have him do then? Seeing as how he has promised to do this quite some time ago you'd like to start with Bernie beaking his word. Cause that would set you apart from all the untrustworthy politicians. Thumbsup Facepalm
As I've pointed out before, Bernie never promised to endorse Clinton.

(12-07-2016 07:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  What then? Scorched Earth? Run as an Independant? Endorse Trump? Those are all non-starters.
How about not endorsing the candidate who is bought by virtually every corporate special interest group under the sun after ranting about big money in politics and its corrupting influence for about a year? Consider

We don't have a 5 party system here. We've only two powerful parties.

Sanders had to endorse Clinton to unify the party, because if the democrats split (like what happened to Republican Party years ago) it's like handing the presidency to Trump.

We have one Supreme Court justice that died, the senate refused to replace them....they made it clear they'd rather gamble on the election and now they're made their bed.

There are also at least three others that are getting on as well, and four years is a long time.

So yeah, the Democratic Party must unite so we can preserve the civil rights we stand to lose -- because right now we stand to make a difference in the future of this country -- that could go far beyond the next four or eight years.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-07-2016, 11:47 PM
RE: Sanders Endorses Clinton
Im with vosur on this one. As I am also an outsider to your political system I find it horrifying and also sickening how Sanders, who's whole platform revolved around socialism, on reeling back in wall street and corporate control and attempting to close the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor..... how he then turns around and not only supports but endorses a woman who's campaign has been largely funded by the elements he allegedly opposes.

I liken it to an atheist campaigning against a preacher, who then turns around and supports that preacher, even though they have massive opposing belief's and views. I am also disappointed that a forum of logical minded people do not see this, or maybe you do and let it fall by the wayside by saying "What's the alternative, he has to do it"

I don't know what the alternative is, nor do I know how two people (sanders and clinton) can both even stand under the same platform /label (democrat) and gather support for two different sides of the same coin, it's madness. It would be like Jeremy Corbyn (the british equivalent of sanders and leader of the labour party) opposing austerity and then coming out and campaigning for a new leader who wants austerity.

Again, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The word "democrat" does not even make any sense...... sure you have a vote, which is of course what democracy is about, the people choosing. Your not being given the choice between living and dying though. Your "whats the alternative, he has to do it" is like giving you a choice between being stabbed or shot to death, sure you get a vote but the end result is bollocks.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: