I am voting for Bernie but can't stand some of Bernies supporters.

[Craig234]

He caucuses with the Dems because both sides had something to gain from it..

Who does that not apply to? List the Democratic Senators who caucus with the Democrats who are really hurt by doing so, but do it anyway just because they believe so strongly in the party. Your comment is totally irrational, worth of the trump side. Bernie supports Democratic principles more than other Democrats. Many of them are corrupt compared to him. You can look at THAT as why he keeps a little distance.

In fact, he co-founded a caucus for like-minded members of the part to distance themselves from the corporatists - the Progressive Caucus. It now has about 80 members and is the largest caucus in congress. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a war between the half of Democrats he is a leader of, the progressives, and the corporatist Democrats.

He was too weak to sponsor and push much through legislatively alone, and the party needed his vote as often as possible.

Unlike the Democrats who can 'push much through legislatively alone'. Another ridiculous comment.

Bernie is functionally a Democrat for the reasons any other Democrat is, and better reasons than most of them. Bottom line: it's up to Democratic voters to decide. And they can recognize the best Democrat in the country or they can be idiots and make things up about why he's a bad choice.

The name of that caucus he co-founded and chaired was the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Note that 'Democrat' is not in the name. It had mostly Dems in it, because that's the party that provided those progressives with a home and the structure from which they could win elections. The socialist workers parties and the green party weren't winning many elections. He refused to caucus with the Dems for eight years back then.

Your serious nonsense just doesn't stop.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is 'a caucus within the Democratic Party Caucus' in the House. It has no Republican members. Could it if any actually supported their policies? I don't know, but none are even close. Now you're attacking all 80 of its members as not really Democrats, the largest caucus in Congress. Bernie is the only Senator in the Caucus, because they respect him as its co-founder.

The Congressional Black Caucus is all Democrats, also; it doesn't have the name 'Democrat' in its title either; it's had a handful of Republicans. I guess they aren't 'real Democrats', either.

There are Democrats who want to push the party right, keep it where it is, push it to the left. Bernie wants to push it to the left. The Party originally refused to let him caucus with them. But their relationship improved. The Party backed Bernie against a Democrat who wanted to challenge him. Then, as Politico explains:

"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."

It was when he ran for the US Senate that these 'I scratch your back -you scratch mine' deals with the Democratic Party leadership began with Schumer Chairman of the Senate Campaign Committee endorsing him before any Dem could get any party funding. He began to caucus with the Dems when we needed him for a 51-49 majority under the condition that he promise to vote with Dems on all procedural votes and so long as he was allowed to keep his seniority and received the committee seats that would have been available to him as a Democrat. He kept his bargain and the Senate Democratic Leadership kept theirs and both sides benefited.

False, as noted above.

What party leadership position did he have? He wasn't or the Majority/ minority leader, or the whip, or the assistant majority leader or assistant whip and Wiki does not mention anything other than this Congressional Progressive group and he has the title 'ranking minority member.' in several committees which should mean he will become the chairman if the Senate turns blue.

Bernie is the outreach director for the party, and an offiicial member of party leadership.

Sanders joins Democratic leadership, isn't officially a Democrat - POLITICO

I am fine with this deals, as long as both sides benefit, and he keeps his word, but he is not a Democrat any longer than he has to be and his loyalty the party is one of convenience.

He has a complicated relationship with the party, which you mis-characterize to attack him.

 

[Craig234]

In other words these same people are probably going to vote for Trump again and their "Bernie mania" is just a sham or even a goof. That is a serious problem given Bernie's already low polling numbers, who's to say they would even really vote for him if he was on the ballot? Sorry but Bernie has not even been vetted by the Republicans and they are quietly hoping he will be the one to run against Trump so they can use all the dirt they have been gathering. That alone makes him a risky choice against an incumbent. This election is ours to lose and expecting midwesterners and independents to vote for a "socialist" is asking for trouble.

Just a dishonest shill smearing Bernie.

You couldn't be more of one if you were paid by the corporate interests backing corporatist Democrats. Bernie outpolled Hillary and trump with those 'midwesterners and independents' - getting two independents for every one Hillary got. This same garbage about 'risky' is what you people said to support Hillary. You got your chance. The 'safe' candidate Hillary lost. You are shameless to repeat this ignorant crap.

 

[btthegreat]

Who does that not apply to? List the Democratic Senators who caucus with the Democrats who are really hurt by doing so, but do it anyway just because they believe so strongly in the party. Your comment is totally irrational, worth of the trump side. Bernie supports Democratic principles more than other Democrats. Many of them are corrupt compared to him. You can look at THAT as why he keeps a little distance.

In fact, he co-founded a caucus for like-minded members of the part to distance themselves from the corporatists - the Progressive Caucus. It now has about 80 members and is the largest caucus in congress. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a war between the half of Democrats he is a leader of, the progressives, and the corporatist Democrats.



Unlike the Democrats who can 'push much through legislatively alone'. Another ridiculous comment.

Bernie is functionally a Democrat for the reasons any other Democrat is, and better reasons than most of them. Bottom line: it's up to Democratic voters to decide. And they can recognize the best Democrat in the country or they can be idiots and make things up about why he's a bad choice.



Your serious nonsense just doesn't stop.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is 'a caucus within the Democratic Party Caucus' in the House. It has no Republican members. Could it if any actually supported their policies? I don't know, but none are even close. Now you're attacking all 80 of its members as not really Democrats, the largest caucus in Congress. Bernie is the only Senator in the Caucus, because they respect him as its co-founder.

The Congressional Black Caucus is all Democrats, also; it doesn't have the name 'Democrat' in its title either; it's had a handful of Republicans. I guess they aren't 'real Democrats', either.

There are Democrats who want to push the party right, keep it where it is, push it to the left. Bernie wants to push it to the left. The Party originally refused to let him caucus with them. But their relationship improved. The Party backed Bernie against a Democrat who wanted to challenge him. Then, as Politico explains:

"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."



False, as noted above.



Bernie is the outreach director for the party, and an offiicial member of party leadership.

Sanders joins Democratic leadership, isn't officially a Democrat - POLITICO



He has a complicated relationship with the party, which you mis-characterize to attack him.

He has a complicated relationship with a party of which he is not a member . He is not a Democrat any longer than it takes to get what he wants, then he ditches the party to be independent while retaining several of the perks with a promise to vote with them on procedural votes. Its a symbiotic relationship. He is not 'more of a Democrat' than other Dems, unless the only Democrats that you are willing to recognize, are progressive ones. The difference between you and me, is I let people decide whether they are or not. You decide for them. He has decided he wants to remain independent. So I consider him an independent with democratic socialist leanings. I will vote for him if he becomes our party's nominee, but I will not vote for him when there are viable, electable and capable Democrats to vote for.

I am not hung up on which wing of the party they represent. I want both wings well represented through at least Super-Tuesday so my party can make a real choice this time. I want him to stay in the race. I want him to press forward with his anti-corporate socialist leaning income re-distributing message, because its good for the country to here from him, but I'd rather pick Harris or Warren to represent the progressive wing or the party, because I don't think they are Dems of convenience. He'll probably switch back to independent within days after winning that General election. Its what he does.

 

[Craig234]

He has a complicated relationship with a party of which he is not a member . He is not a Democrat any longer than it takes to get what he wants, then he ditches the party to be independent while retaining several of the perks with a promise to vote with them on procedural votes. Its a symbiotic relationship. He is not 'more of a Democrat' than other Dems, unless the only Democrats that you are willing to recognize, are progressive ones. The difference between you and me, is I let people decide whether they are or not. You decide for them. He has decided he wants to remain independent. So I consider him an independent with democratic socialist leanings. I will vote for him if he becomes our party's nominee, but I will not vote for him when there are viable, electable and capable Democrats to vote for.

I am not hung up on which wing of the party they represent. I want both wings well represented through at least Super-Tuesday so my party can make a real choice this time. I want him to stay in the race. I want him to press forward with his anti-corporate socialist leaning income re-distributing message, because its good for the country to here from him, but I'd rather pick Harris or Warren to represent the progressive wing or the party, because I don't think they are Dems of convenience. He'll probably switch back to independent within days after winning that General election. Its what he does.

You're just blabbering irrationally. Do what you want, I'm not going to waste more time explaining to you.

 

[Greenbeard]

In your notably erroneous and unsupported opinion. How's your boy Delaney doing? Or are you still sold on the candidate who is rapidly losing his sense of temporal awareness and making racist gaffes?

Not sure who this was directed at but you mistakenly quoted me.

 

[Greenbeard]

Wrong on both counts. You can't tell the difference between someone who is a good speaker and a demagogue.

Does Bernie's rhetoric make you angry? Does Bernie tell you who to be angry at? Bernie's a demagogue. Rage-fueled populism and grievance politics is in right now but it turns ugly fast.

 

[Craig234]

Does Bernie's rhetoric make you angry? Does Bernie tell you who to be angry at? Bernie's a demagogue. Rage-fueled populism and grievance politics is in right now but it turns ugly fast.

You can't tell the difference between someone who is a good speaker and a demagogue.

 

[Surrealistik]

Not sure who this was directed at but you mistakenly quoted me.

No, because it was directed at you.

 

[Greenbeard]

You can't tell the difference between someone who is a good speaker and a demagogue.

Does Bernie’s rhetoric make you angry? Does he tell you who to be angry at? Bernie’s a demagogue. Rage-fueled populism and grievance politics are in but that stuff turns dangerous quickly.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, because it was directed at you.

Oh, weird.

 

[Craig234]

Does Bernie’s rhetoric make you angry? Does he tell you who to be angry at? Bernie’s a demagogue. Rage-fueled populism and grievance politics are in but that stuff turns dangerous quickly.

You're on the line to not be read again.

 

[WCH]

Not yet...hehe...but if the right fights with the left and loses...I mean, either you believe your claims that the Left will "ruin" your country or you don't...lol....if you do, then you must be afraid that they will change the fundamental makeup of the country, no?

Anyway, this whole conversation is a joke, given that I was just riding you on your internet tough guy routine. My point was simply that if the majority of the country want to adopt socialist policy, a la Bernie Sanders (which is not communism, irrespective of whether or not you understand what socialism is, or what adopting socialist policy means), it will, whether you like it or not, up to and including constitutional amendments. Then you got all weird and Internet tough guy, and it all became a lark after that.

You seem to be having this same conversation in Canada but, I guess if you're fine with it, we here in the US should be also.

Are Justin Trudeau’s “Media Bail-Outs” An Incremental Step Toward Communism? | Cultural Action Party of Canada

Personally, I see it encroaching and am not fine with it.

 

[WCH]

And there it is (again for this year I think), yet another threat of violence.

Members of our military and LEO are willing to lay their lives on the line to preserve this country. That's not a threat, it's service.

 

[WCH]

Just go away.

That's what Debbie blabbermouth Shultz and the DNC told Bernie. LOL!

 

[OscarLevant]

Too late for Bernie.

2016 was it.

Hence the Bernie or Bust movement.

Hillbots made everybody's bed - time to lie in it.

:hm

Neither Tulsi nor Yang have a chance, they are too bland.

Once upon a time, a bland candidate could win ( Jimmy Carter) but no way, not today.


Hillary is not running.

 

[OscarLevant]

You do know that the GOP and Russian lie machines have never targeted Bernie and even Trump complemented him in 2016. It is like the want him to be the nominee and that should worry you. They have surely built up a arsenal of half true propaganda on him starting with his honeymoon in the USSR that they can't wait to unleash. I think a Biden/Warren ticket would be unbeatable and that is the point now.

Russia purchased pro Bernie and pro Stein ads in Facebook in 2016 in order to take votes away from Hillary in order to help Trump.


If he is the nominee, that will no longer be true.


I'm okay with Biden, but I'm voting for Bernie in the primaries.

 

[Amelia]

In no way, shape or form did Bernie fan any flames against Hillary or the DNC after losing the primary. He called for unity, campaigned for Clinton and pushed progressive issues to be adopted in the Dem platform. I'd love to hear a few examples of what he did after the primary that made you hate him enough to come up with this slanderous nonsense. He is not his Bernie-or-bust supporters.

Yep, Bernie came to Wisconsin to campaign for Hillary when Hillary couldn't be bothered to ask for leftleaning votes here after losing the primary to Bernie.

This was after Obama defaulted on his obligations to the DNC making them desperate for the money the Clinton machine could provide them. And after Democrats watched Republicans under Scott Walker turn blue/purple Wisconsin redder and redder for six years and did nothing to reverse the trend before Bernie ever declared his candidacy. And after the DNC reversed Obama's rules against lobbyists. For starters. Not going to go down the list of offenses the tone-deaf Democratic party committed in their march to humiliating defeat.


But somehow it's Bernie's fault ...


I don't even support Bernie this year. I'm just saddened by Hillary supporters still trying to find someone other than the worst presidential candidate in memory to blame for Donald Trump becoming president. That kind of lingering bitterness could help Trump stay president.

And of course us saying this cues the Hillary supporters to become more and more defensive. So we should hold our tongue and not object when they try to scapegoat Bernie? Who knows. A no-win situation from people who decided that a careless candidate with a self-made FBI cloud over her head would be the best choice to represent the Democratic party against whomever the GOP put up.

 

[Mach]

Members of our military and LEO are willing to lay their lives on the line to preserve this country. That's not a threat, it's service.

You aren't fooling anyone, it was another threat of violence.

 

[Surrealistik]

Oh, weird.

See I personally figure you love Delaney's spineless defeatism on SP and Biden's general commitment to stasis; I could be wrong of course, but I rather doubt it.

 

[Greenbeard]

See I personally figure you love Delaney's spineless defeatism on SP and Biden's general commitment to stasis; I could be wrong of course, but I rather doubt it.

Swing and a miss! Perhaps figuring isn’t your strong suit.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Yep, Bernie came to Wisconsin to campaign for Hillary when Hillary couldn't be bothered to ask for leftleaning votes here after losing the primary to Bernie.

This was after Obama defaulted on his obligations to the DNC making them desperate for the money the Clinton machine could provide them. And after Democrats watched Republicans under Scott Walker turn blue/purple Wisconsin redder and redder for six years and did nothing to reverse the trend before Bernie ever declared his candidacy. And after the DNC reversed Obama's rules against lobbyists. For starters. Not going to go down the list of offenses the tone-deaf Democratic party committed in their march to humiliating defeat.


But somehow it's Bernie's fault ...


I don't even support Bernie this year. I'm just saddened by Hillary supporters still trying to find someone other than the worst presidential candidate in memory to blame for Donald Trump becoming president. That kind of lingering bitterness could help Trump stay president.

And of course us saying this cues the Hillary supporters to become more and more defensive. So we should hold our tongue and not object when they try to scapegoat Bernie? Who knows. A no-win situation from people who decided that a careless candidate with a self-made FBI cloud over her head would be the best choice to represent the Democratic party against whomever the GOP put up.

For the record, I voted for Clinton in the primary and In the general election: I have no regrets for those votes because I believed at the time she was the strongest candidate currently running. As much as I liked Bernie’s policies, I was convinced that he could not not find broad support among the Democratic Party.

 

[Surrealistik]

Swing and a miss! Perhaps figuring isn’t your strong suit.

In light of your post history, and general preoccupation with tearing down any and all notions of SP, while relentlessly praising the virtues of incremental tweaks to ACA that will continue to leave many millions un and underinsured and subject to medical bankruptcy, I don't see how any reasonable person wouldn't come to those conclusions, so no, the figuring thing is pretty down as per the evidence.

 

[WCH]

You aren't fooling anyone, it was another threat of violence.

Don't be such a wus. Words can't hurt you.

 

[Amelia]

For the record, I voted for Clinton in the primary and In the general election: I have no regrets for those votes because I believed at the time she was the strongest candidate currently running. As much as I liked Bernie’s policies, I was convinced that he could not not find broad support among the Democratic Party.

Thanks.

But you just made me think of the Republcans who said, "It was Trump or Clinton, so of course we voted Trump." Well, at first it wasn't Trump or Clinton. At first it was Trump against a whole lot of other people, and Republicans chose Trump to be the foul face of their fetid party. (Which was my party until they showed Trump had a chance to win the nomination.)

It didn't have to be just Hillary or Bernie. If the Democratic party hadn't made all those other mistakes, of which I only mentioned a few, they could have had a robust, competitive primary, where potential contenders didn't feel shut out because more than 30 states' committees plus donors plus superdelegates prematurely threw their weight and resources behind such as flawed candidate. It's not your fault your choice was between Clinton and Bernie. Biden could have easily beaten both Clinton and Trump if he hadn't been shut out of the money race months before the primaries started. The fact that Democrats set things up so that the only choice was between Clinton and a dark horse candidate with nothing to lose was part of Democrats' tone-deaf march to humiliation. They didn't live up to the name "Democrat".

And again, none of this is Bernie's fault.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Thanks.

But you just made me think of the Republcans who said, "It was Trump or Clinton, so of course we voted Trump." Well, at first it wasn't Trump or Clinton. At first it was Trump against a whole lot of other people, and Republicans chose Trump to be the foul face of their fetid party. (Which was my party until they showed Trump had a chance to win the nomination.)

It didn't have to be just Hillary or Bernie. If the Democratic party hadn't made all those other mistakes, of which I only mentioned a few, they could have had a robust, competitive primary, where potential contenders didn't feel shut out because more than 30 states' committees plus donors plus superdelegates prematurely threw their weight and resources behind such as flawed candidate. It's not your fault your choice was between Clinton and Bernie. Biden could have easily beaten both Clinton and Trump if he hadn't been shut out of the money race months before the primaries started. The fact that Democrats set things up so that the only choice was between Clinton and a dark horse candidate with nothing to lose was part of Democrats' tone-deaf march to humiliation. They didn't live up to the name "Democrat".

And again, none of this is Bernie's fault.

Why do you say they “prematurely” threw their support behind Clinton?