• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do people support Warren over Bernie?

Bernie is just too far to the left for me. I'd rather vote for Warren or Buttigieg.

But I'll vote for whomever is selected to run against Trump.

How, exactly, not 'it just feels that way because of the media's attitude about him'.

See, this is what I was talking about. You could just ask him why, but instead you have to make most of your "question" an insinuation that RV has not actually been paying attention, has not actually thought about it, and is in fact just criticizing Bernie because whatever media you assume RV consumes does.

The far left will do far more damage to both the Democratic party and their own goals if the approach to winning people who are generally on their side of the political spectrum already is to act like they are either lying or ignorant. You can't badger or bully people into thinking your way.
 
Curious what Warren is offering that Bernie isn't?

An indoor voice.

And a viable path to a unified Democratic Party. Bernie is a corrosive influence, as even a cursory read of this thread will remind one.
 
Well, as I see it, it's like we're entering WWII and you've decided only ONE charismatic general can win the war, and if anyone doesn't support that one general, he's a Nazi sympathizer!!!@!!@!.

Bernie isn't a savior and if he's going to get anything done we'll need 60 at least Democrats in the Senate. But to you guys, anyone not on the Bernie train is your enemy. That's not a winning coalition. There aren't 60 Democratic senators out there in this environment that don't include what you'd call corporate sellouts, etc. In part I support Warren because her fans aren't like a cult in that regard.

LOL, it's not enough that I voted for him and will vote for him as the nominee, if I'm not on the Bernie train I'm the problem... Once again, it's as if you're trying to prove my point. We've seen this same crap all through 2016 and the years following and I'm sick of it, don't think it's productive. It's why I won't vote for him.

Which is more of your straw man. But yes, if I do think only one of the generals on the list can defeat Hitler, I will say it's important we pick him, and that in my opinion you are mistake to support one who will only let Hitler/plutocracy continue to gain ground. And I don't think only Bernie is a great choice; I think he's the best choice, though.



That's where I stop reading. You have exceed your straw man limit.

Oh, now JasperL is an enemy too? He doesn't agree with you so you'll stop reading his posts, too? You'll be in a far left party of one at this rate and perhaps that is for the best.

And, PS, to people who have been around here at least a few years, it looks pretty damn idiotic of you to try to convert posters with a history of being knowledgeable and thoughtful to your cause by attacking them, editing down their responses, and making a big show of announcing that you won't be reading their words. This probably hasn't occurred to you, but if you find yourself berating everyone who does not already think exactly what you do - and a whole lot of them identify as being somewhere on the left - the probability that your insights are as profound and self-evidently true as you think they are is actually pretty damn low.

It looks like political debate in a junior high cafeteria. We're only missing a burger flying through the air.
 
Last edited:
And a viable path to a unified Democratic Party. Bernie is a corrosive influence, as even a cursory read of this thread will remind one.

YOU ARE A DISRUPTIVE INFLUENCE IN THIS FORUM, CREATING DIVISION! My evidence? Just look at the statement in this post.
 
Yup. We are gonna have to play dirty. We are too worried with being nice.

When you've got McConnell basically laughing that he cheated the Dems out of a Supreme Court nomination, and then saying he would fill another vacancy during an election year, yeah **** the GOP. They'll need to earn our trust back.
 
Just curious, polls have them about tied for second place.

Curious what Warren is offering that Bernie isn't? To me Warren has a blind spot on foreign policy, where Bernie does not. And she's willing to play ball with the corporate interests that Bernie has vowed to fight.

An indoor voice.

And a viable path to a unified Democratic Party. Bernie is a corrosive influence, as even a cursory read of this thread will remind one.

YOU ARE A DISRUPTIVE INFLUENCE IN THIS FORUM, CREATING DIVISION! My evidence? Just look at the statement in this post.

Now Greenbeard is an enemy too?

:lol:

Seriously, man. Take a breather. Look over how you're behaving. Think about how to better approach disagreements with people you really shouldn't be treating like enemies. Or I suppose you could just go ahead and make sure a whole lot of people don't listen to you, on top of all the other Trumpists and right wingers who are never going to bother or agree if they did.
 
An indoor voice.

And a viable path to a unified Democratic Party. Bernie is a corrosive influence, as even a cursory read of this thread will remind one.

I think Bernie is in it to gain wealth for himself. Irony.
I doubt he wants to really be the POTUS.
 
Bernie misuses the term Democratic Socialism.

I think Bernie is a very intelligent man but you want me to believe that he's misusing terms. He could easily say, "I'm a Social Democrat" and that would put an end to it. Are you suggesting that Bernie doesn't know the difference between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist?

Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia



That's the problem. What do you mean by 'incremental change'? We need a lot of change to counter the massive change we've had toward plutocracy - and nothing Bernie is pushing is excessive. Healthcare. Education. What the hell is the problem?

Bernie is just as "pragmatic" as Warren. I'm tired of the word "pragmatic" - which is a propaganda lie to attack the progressive policies - and surprised to see you use it so wrongly.

Here is what I mean by pragmatic. Social systems are extremely complex. It's impossible to predict the result of changes to a complex system. You could mean well but your change can result in disaster. Louis XVI reacted to rising price of bread due to inflation by freezing the price of bread. He meant well but it was a total disaster and created shortages. So changes should be gradual and incremental to avoid catastrophes.

I don't agree that we should force everyone into Medicare. I believe in the incremental steps where people have the choice to join a government health care plan instead of a private one. If the government plan is better it will eventually replace private plans. But the incremental approach is better. We can see resolve problems as they emerge. And there are always problems.

I also don't believe in free college. College has become far too expensive and online education is emerging as an alternative. I would prefer that government creates a free online educational program.


Again, why doesn't Bernie call himself a Social Democrat?
 
Last edited:
An indoor voice.

And a viable path to a unified Democratic Party. Bernie is a corrosive influence, as even a cursory read of this thread will remind one.

I don't think it's just Bernie. He's the focal point because he's the main candidate representing that slice of 'the left'

It's one of the things I see as a major flaw on the farther spectrum of the left. I don't want to veer into Trumpist-like characterizations, but my (slightly) younger sister seemed to veer that way some years after moving to San Fransisco, and by "that way" I mean a sort of you are either with us or you are against us attitude; an approach to political discussion that involves righteous declarations that immediately change into vitriolic attack the moment someone isn't fully on board with whatever the idea is. It's as if some people think they really can bludgeon everyone else into seeing things their way.

In short, what I see on the far left - or at least the section of it I'm describing here - is what many DP conservatives wrongly ascribe to the entirety of the left.
 
Lies, lies, lies, after the first point. Warren was a Republican until 1996. Sanders has worked as a Democrat for decades, causused with Democrats for decades. You are smearing him with lies as you always have. He's not an 'independent socialist', he supports a light version of Democratic Socialism for Americans to have healthcare and education.

Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat? | PolitiFact
 
When you've got McConnell basically laughing that he cheated the Dems out of a Supreme Court nomination, and then saying he would fill another vacancy during an election year, yeah **** the GOP. They'll need to earn our trust back.

Earn our trust back? Al Queda laughed about how they launched the 9/11 attacks. **** Al Queda. They'll need to earn our trust back. (I'm not comparing the Republicans to Al Queda - Republican are FAR more harmful and more of a threat - I'm comparing the absurdity of a group who is so dedicated to a harmful agenda 'needing to earn trust back'. They're a long way from it making sense to get to 'earn trust back'.
 
I think Bernie is in it to gain wealth for himself. Irony.
I doubt he wants to really be the POTUS.

Idiotic.

What's he going to do? Go on a speaking tour about "why I lost AGAIN"? If someone's looking to enrich themselves using government, it's the orange lout you worship.
 
I don't think it's just Bernie. He's the focal point because he's the main candidate representing that slice of 'the left'

It's one of the things I see as a major flaw on the farther spectrum of the left. I don't want to veer into Trumpist-like characterizations, but my (slightly) younger sister seemed to veer that way some years after moving to San Fransisco, and by "that way" I mean a sort of you are either with us or you are against us attitude; an approach to political discussion that involves righteous declarations that immediately change into vitriolic attack the moment someone isn't fully on board with whatever the idea is. It's as if some people think they really can bludgeon everyone else into seeing things their way.

In short, what I see on the far left - or at least the section of it I'm describing here - is what many DP conservatives wrongly ascribe to the entirety of the left.

Your posts veer to being more like your sister's pov than you'd probably like to acknowledge.
 
Idiotic.

What's he going to do? Go on a speaking tour about "why I lost AGAIN"? If someone's looking to enrich themselves using government, it's the orange lout you worship.

Like I was just saying above...
 
Earn our trust back? Al Queda laughed about how they launched the 9/11 attacks. **** Al Queda. They'll need to earn our trust back. (I'm not comparing the Republicans to Al Queda - Republican are FAR more harmful and more of a threat - I'm comparing the absurdity of a group who is so dedicated to a harmful agenda 'needing to earn trust back'. They're a long way from it making sense to get to 'earn trust back'.

I believe in second chances but the GOP needs 12 step meetings and maybe even some in inpatient facilities as well :lamo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

From your own link:

...Sanders said, "Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination."

The party backed Sanders’ 1996 re-election bid over one of their own. Burlington lawyer and Democrat Jack Long, after being informed that the party was committed to Sanders, told the Washington Post that he felt like he was "caught in a Kafka play."

By 1997, Sanders was still not a member of the House Democratic Caucus nor a Democrat. But he voted with the party more often than the average Democrat (95 percent of the time opposed to 80 percent). Keeping good to their promise, Democratic leadership gave Sanders a subcommittee chairmanship over a freshman Democrat.

When he ran for the Senate a decade later in 2006, still as an independent, the party worked to stop Democratic candidates from running against him, and he was endorsed by numerous state and national Democrats.

In November, Sanders announced that he was full-fledged Democrat and declared as a Democrat in New Hampshire. But, as we previously noted, he’s still calling himself an independent in some cases, so it’s unclear how committed Sanders is to any label.

Was Eisenhower a Republican? Why, no you say!

Winger pointed out several instances of a party nominating a non-member: 1872 when the Democratic Party chose Republican Horace Greeley; in 1864 when the Republican Party chose Democrat Andrew Johnson; and in 1952 when the Republican Party picked independent Dwight Eisenhower (who promptly changed his party registration)
 
Now Greenbeard is an enemy too?

:lol:

Seriously, man. Take a breather. Look over how you're behaving. Think about how to better approach disagreements with people you really shouldn't be treating like enemies. Or I suppose you could just go ahead and make sure a whole lot of people don't listen to you, on top of all the other Trumpists and right wingers who are never going to bother or agree if they did.

^^ yeah. This.
 
I believe in second chances but the GOP needs 12 step meetings and maybe even some in inpatient facilities as well :lamo

Second chances... I think they used up a 20,000th chance, literally, vote after vote after vote (take the more than 50 to repeal Obamacare - or the North Carolina on 9/11). You'd have to go back to at least Hoover for a Republican president who didn't commit big crimes, and he wasn't exactly great for the country.
 
Second chances... I think they used up a 20,000th chance, literally, vote after vote after vote (take the more than 50 to repeal Obamacare - or the North Carolina on 9/11). You'd have to go back to at least Hoover for a Republican president who didn't commit big crimes, and he wasn't exactly great for the country.

But, if they do earn our trust back why wouldn't I give it to them?

Maybe they will just keep getting worse and worse after Trump. But, maybe not too.
 
When you've got McConnell basically laughing that he cheated the Dems out of a Supreme Court nomination, and then saying he would fill another vacancy during an election year, yeah **** the GOP. They'll need to earn our trust back.


Cheated Dems...HA HA HA come on...if Dems had the Senate and faced the same opportunities....they'd do exactly what Mitch did....The country had a National Election based on that SC nomination ....Stop Whining you lost because DNC stole the nomination from Bernie
 
I think Bernie is a very intelligent man but you want me to believe that he's misusing terms. He could easily say, "I'm a Social Democrat" and that would put an end to it. Are you suggesting that Bernie doesn't know the difference between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist?

I can't rule that out. What I can say, is look at everything he's said on policy for years, and all of it fits what I said. So if you want to claim that his use of the term 'Democratic Socialist' while every other word he's said for years has said something different than that literal term outweighs all the facts, that's all you have to go on.


You and I aren't arguing about the term.

Here is what I mean by pragmatic. Social systems are extremely complex. It's impossible to predict the result of changes to a complex system. You could mean well but your change can result in disaster. Louis XVI reacted to rising price of bread due to inflation by freezing the price of bread. He meant well but it was a total disaster and created shortages. So changes should be gradual and incremental to avoid catastrophes.

No offense, but that is simplistic, and doesn't really address 'pragmatic'. How 'pragmatic' is our radical, huge shift toward plutocracy for forty years? Was creating Medicare 'pragmatic'? Was the FDR New Deal 'pragmatic' and gradual and incremental, did it have catastrophes?

You may or may not know a fundamental advertising term, FUD - it stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". It's a messaging strategy to attack opponents. Yes, there are people who sit around looking for ways to create FUD. When Republicans screamed "death panels" at the ACA, they weren't shooting from the hip, it was FUD - they were trying to get low-information voters to feel FUD about the ACA and oppose it, and it worked.

That's all you're really offering here - trying to paint Bernie as some radical, that his polices aren't 'gradual and incremental' and so they risk "catastrophe" - RUN AWAY! FEAR! UNCERTAINTY! DOUBT! How can you vote for that?

I don't think you are doing that intentionally - I suspect you have fallen for FUD and are repeating it.

I don't agree that we should force everyone into Medicare. I believe in the incremental steps where people have the choice to join a government health care plan instead of a private one. If the government plan is better it will eventually replace private plans. But the incremental approach is better. We can see resolve problems as they emerge. And there are always problems.

I also don't believe in free college. College has become far too expensive and online education is emerging as an alternative. I would prefer that government creates a free online educational program.

Now, you're going from the FUD stuff - Bernie is a radical who risks catastrophe - into policy disagreements. You shouldn't really mix the two, but you did.

So, I'll adjust my response as well for those points. I think there's a very valid discussion to be had about the healthcare issue. All I ask is that you be informed and not have just a knee-jerk opposition. Try to understand the real differences between the options. Maybe you'll feel the same.

But Countries like England and Canada and Scandanavian countries sure aren't rushing away from 'Medicare for All', feeling 'forced' to be on them (a propagandistic word, but let's let it slide, it's not exactly wrong). Our most loved healthcare in the US is the VA and Medicare. Maybe they're not so terrible? Maybe we should consider what the advocates and experts say, not only FUD and resistance to change?

You know, I think that for many of the majority who have healthcare, and are used to it even with the high cost, it might not feel like such a pressing need to get healthcare for the tens of millions who don't have it, or even to reduce the costs. I've long said that people have a bias toward what they have - and people are resistant to change. Fearful.

I don't know what to say about your opposition to free college. There's a huge burden on young people, the policy would result in a happier, more productive society, but you can believe what you like - what can I say? But a majority agree with Bernie as I understand.
 
See, this is what I was talking about. You could just ask him why, but instead you have to make most of your "question" an insinuation that RV has not actually been paying attention, has not actually thought about it, and is in fact just criticizing Bernie because whatever media you assume RV consumes does.

The far left will do far more damage to both the Democratic party and their own goals if the approach to winning people who are generally on their side of the political spectrum already is to act like they are either lying or ignorant. You can't badger or bully people into thinking your way.
They do try. They surely do try.
 
But, if they do earn our trust back why wouldn't I give it to them?

Maybe they will just keep getting worse and worse after Trump. But, maybe not too.

Because it's not understanding the fundamental situation of who they are and why they are like they are.

They have become systemically corrupt. It permeates their organization the way authoritarianism permeates North Korea's - maybe North Korea next year will become a liberally democracy with multiple parties and freedom of speech. Maybe! Who's to say? Of course, they have to earn our trust back.

Parties in the US can change, but they only do so for a reason, and the Republican Party is entirely dominated by its donors, their ideology and interests, and has systems in place for spreading plutocrat propaganda in a complex network - so-called 'think tank' propaganda factories, dominating the US media, the lobbying system, and much more.

When they face hard tests of the limits of those politics - say, 'are you willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in the name of some money for your donors' - they didn't blink an eye, whether it was big tobacco, or now, big oil, or denying healthcare, and so on. That doesn't just change. They need to be defeated, not looked at with puppy dog eyes and a question, are you changed?
 
Back
Top Bottom