Jump to content

Why we have Trump


laripu

Recommended Posts

Trying to deflect from his own foulness to the other posters in this room. Always looking for vengeance. Like our current Chief Executive, actually. The issue is not your political views but your contstant, unbroken record of violating rule #2 of the LO Rm: "Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated".

 

Stop the personal attacks and you can post your political views without criticism. I wonder if you're even capable of it. There's been no sign ... Ever.

And you don't think comparing me to Donald Trump is a personal attack because it comes out of your mouth and is directed at someone who bucks a narrow idelogiical party line you seem bound to enforce, even if it means abusing your Moderating authority.

 

Who else would hijack another members account and make false posts?

 

Calling me a right-winger is a personal attack. comparing me to the fascist Donald Trump is a personal attack.

 

Lying about my calling you a viper, a snake, or Stalin is a personal attack.

 

The forum is searchable.

 

Bill

I have a GREAT idea. Let's let SpyCar have a thread all to himself about why the people who didn't vote for HRC or think HRC was a terrible candidate and a terrible choice for POTUS are awful, horrid traitors to party, liberalism, and the country, and the rest of us can constructively discuss how to move forwards and work towards getting non-corporatist, non-oligarchic, actual liberals in office, whether of the Democrat persuasion or by replacing the party with something viable that will work for the people instead of Big Business and Big Bucks. Because, seriously, it's bullshit like this that is keeping us in the stagnant past wherein we.... ah.... lost. Badly.

More Democrat bashing and name calling.

 

I suspect you will not be moderated for your disrespectful attitude towards mainstream liberals.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply

​Part of the reason we have Trump is because liberalism is divided within itself. Some liberals are willing to tolerate big corporations with ever growing economic and political power. They will support certain regulations but they won't challenge monopoly capitalism or free trade. While they will tax upper incomes they would prefer to tweak the Welfare State to ease the effects of wealth/income inequality rather than narrow the gap. Other liberals however want to challenge corporate power and even break monopolies. They favor wage, tax, regulatory, and social welfare policies that redistribute wealth and income more evenly. Not all of the former are neoliberal but some are, and most of the latter should not be dismissed as ultraliberal or radical left extremist.

 

​Hillary Clinton and President Obama represent the former brand of liberalism that is unable and unwilling to adequately address the challenge posed by Corporate America and the wealthy elites. Bernie Sanders despite claims of being a Democratic Socialist along with Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison are part of the latter liberalism. Until more liberals are willing to challenge big money, big business, and the inequality that come with them the Democratic Party will not craft a message or mobilize it's voters or potential supporters to regain power and move America in the right direction.

 

Simply perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you don't think comparing me to Donald Trump is a personal attack because it comes out of your mouth and is directed at someone who bucks a narrow idelogiical party line you seem bound to enforce, even if it means abusing your Moderating authority.

 

Who else would hijack another members account and make false posts?

 

Calling me a right-winger is a personal attack. comparing me to the fascist Donald Trump is a personal attack.

 

Lying about my calling you a viper, a snake, or Stalin is a personal attack.

 

The forum is searchable.

 

Bill

 

More Democrat bashing and name calling.

 

I suspect you will not be moderated for your disrespectful attitude towards mainstream liberals.

 

Bill

 

What I observe is that you are, by far and away, the worst violator of LO Rule #2 "Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated". You perceive any criticism of you as an attack but constantly attack others gratuitously. There's something wrong when many regulars in the LO Rm start complaining about it which they are now. It seems not to matter to you. You never give an inch. You don't acknowledge anything. All you do is fight and fight

 

There is a nice little suspension coming if you keep this up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​Part of the reason we have Trump is because liberalism is divided within itself. Some liberals are willing to tolerate big corporations with ever growing economic and political power. They will support certain regulations but they won't challenge monopoly capitalism or free trade. While they will tax upper incomes they would prefer to tweak the Welfare State to ease the effects of wealth/income inequality rather than narrow the gap. Other liberals however want to challenge corporate power and even break monopolies. They favor wage, tax, regulatory, and social welfare policies that redistribute wealth and income more evenly. Not all of the former are neoliberal but some are, and most of the latter should not be dismissed as ultraliberal or radical left extremist.

 

​Hillary Clinton and President Obama represent the former brand of liberalism that is unable and unwilling to adequately address the challenge posed by Corporate America and the wealthy elites. Bernie Sanders despite claims of being a Democratic Socialist along with Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison are part of the latter liberalism. Until more liberals are willing to challenge big money, big business, and the inequality that come with them the Democratic Party will not craft a message or mobilize it's voters or potential supporters to regain power and move America in the right direction.

This is a completely inaccurate characterization of both mainstream Democrats and the agenda of socialists like Bernie Sanders.

 

They really amount to character assignations in the depth of the untruthfullness.

 

No Democrat is a champion of "monopoly capitalism." Not one. The charge is way over-the-top.

 

i'd challenge you to name a single such monopoly. As there are none,

 

I think most Democrats are concerned with the concentration of wealth and diminished competition that has come in some sectors due to mergers and acquisitions. These are not concerns of the so-called "Left" alone.

 

I happen to like Elizabeth Warren a great deal. She is whip smart andespecially in the areas of consumer protection and financeshe has the detail orientend mind to draft actual plans to tackle problems. Warren stands in marked contrast to Sanders in that she doesn't play the angry populist demagogue while advancing her ideas.

 

Sanders seems hell-bent on making enterprise and capitalism synomomus with greed and corruption, but when asked would also say the same folks he vilifies are going to pay for all the free stuff he promises to give away.

 

Social Democrats from Sweden to New Zealand do not play Bernie Sanders' game of rage and division. They are not populists who condem enterprise or seek to divide their societies by scapegoating people who build weath in those societies.

 

Social Democracies thrive on social harmony. Bernie Sanders is way the anthesis of the Social Democratic model. His "movement" is built on creating anger and division. He is another in a long-lline of nativist populist who vent their spleens, play Jerimiah, rabble-rouse, and get nothing accomplished other than undermining reason in the politicals sphere by creating rancor and enmity between people who ought to be allies.

 

Sanders represents a bad path on every front. He is a bad example to young people, who he demotivates by suggesting wealth-building is a dirty endeavor and that it is far preferable to be a mooch and a freeloader of the sort he was durning his young adulthood.

 

It is not a sustainable path.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I observe is that you are, by far and away, the worst violator of LO Rule #2 "Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated". You perceive any criticism of you as an attack but constantly attack others gratuitously. There's something wrong when many regulars in the LO Rm start complaining about it which they are now. It seems not to matter to you. You never give an inch. You don't acknowledge anything. All you do is fight and fight

 

There is a nice little suspension coming if you keep this up.

More false charges and more threats. No one has violated rules of decentcy more than you. Only you hijacked my account and make insulting posts under my screen name ( without apology).

 

Only you made false accusations that I called you a "snake, viper, and Stalin" without apology. The board is searchable.

 

Only you called me a liar, then didn't apologies for doing so whe you were wrong.

 

And you lead the chorus in attacking mainstream liberal Democrats (and me particularly) with accusations that we are corporatists, plutocrats, neoliberals or right-wingers who belong on NHB because we don't buy the angry populist/ collectivist agenda.

 

You've got a lot of chutzpah.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

More false charges and more threats. No one has violated rules of decentcy more than you. Only you hijacked my account and make insulting posts under my screen name ( without apology).

 

Only you made false accusations that I called you a "snake, viper, and Stalin" without apology. The board is searchable.

 

Only you called me a liar, then didn't apologies for doing so whe you were wrong.

 

And you lead the chorus in attacking mainstream liberal Democrats (and me particularly) with accusations that we are corporatists, plutocrats, neoliberals or right-wingers who belong on NHB because we don't buy the angry populist/ collectivist agenda.

 

You've got a lot of chutzpah.

 

Bill

 

You are getting closer. You can try to turn the tables but until they make you moderator, it won't work. On you rebuttal (post 219), you didn't miss a beat in accusing the author of lying. You refuse to acknowledge anything or change anything. That's the way to go for a suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More false charges and more threats. No one has violated rules of decentcy more than you. Only you hijacked my account and make insulting posts under my screen name ( without apology).

 

Only you made false accusations that I called you a "snake, viper, and Stalin" without apology. The board is searchable.

 

Only you called me a liar, then didn't apologies for doing so whe you were wrong.

 

And you lead the chorus in attacking mainstream liberal Democrats (and me particularly) with accusations that we are corporatists, plutocrats, neoliberals or right-wingers who belong on NHB because we don't buy the angry populist/ collectivist agenda.

 

You got a lot of chutzpah.

 

Bill

You thoroughly enjoy fighting with people on the internet, don't you?

 

You accuse Bernie and his supporters of being "angry," yet you run around this subforum spewing vitriol at everyone who isn't in 100% agreement with you about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Bill, the primary is over. The election is over. Why it all unfolded the way it did will remain debatable, but it's history.

 

Isn't it time to let it go, move on, and figure out how to win in 2018 and 2020?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have Trump because a vote for Hillary was a vote for Republican Lite,

Same policies, same ideas, same corruption, same corporate puppet masters.

SOSDD

 

We have Trump because she wasn't good enough to beat a third rate candidate.

Repeat the above,

 

Voting for the Lesser always has the result in getting a Lesser

EOS

 

2018 midterms coming soon, start early to find and support the better candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a completely inaccurate characterization of both mainstream Democrats and the agenda of socialists like Bernie Sanders.

 

They really amount to character assignations in the depth of the untruthfullness.

 

No Democrat is a champion of "monopoly capitalism." Not one. The charge is way over-the-top.

 

i'd challenge you to name a single such monopoly. As there are none,

 

I think most Democrats are concerned with the concentration of wealth and diminished competition that has come in some sectors due to mergers and acquisitions. These are not concerns of the so-called "Left" alone.

 

I happen to like Elizabeth Warren a great deal. She is whip smart andespecially in the areas of consumer protection and financeshe has the detail orientend mind to draft actual plans to tackle problems. Warren stands in marked contrast to Sanders in that she doesn't play the angry populist demagogue while advancing her ideas.

 

Sanders seems hell-bent on making enterprise and capitalism synomomus with greed and corruption, but when asked would also say the same folks he vilifies are going to pay for all the free stuff he promises to give away.

 

Social Democrats from Sweden to New Zealand do not play Bernie Sanders' game of rage and division. They are not populists who condem enterprise or seek to divide their societies by scapegoating people who build weath in those societies.

 

Social Democracies thrive on social harmony. Bernie Sanders is way the anthesis of the Social Democratic model. His "movement" is built on creating anger and division. He is another in a long-lline of nativist populist who vent their spleens, play Jerimiah, rabble-rouse, and get nothing accomplished other than undermining reason in the politicals sphere by creating rancor and enmity between people who ought to be allies.

 

Sanders represents a bad path on every front. He is a bad example to young people, who he demotivates by suggesting wealth-building is a dirty endeavor and that it is far preferable to be a mooch and a freeloader of the sort he was durning his young adulthood.

 

It is not a sustainable path.

 

Bill

 

Thanks for responding to my post,

 

I did not say that any Democrats are champions of monopoly capitalism. I did say certain liberals tolerate it. That's very different.

The term monopoly capitalism appropriately describes the growing lack of competition in the marketplace. Lynn Parramore in an online article for Al Jazeera notes how tech giants Intel, Adobe, Google, and Apple colluded to supress employee wages. Moreover Apple buying NeXT while Google acquired You Tube, Android, Motorola, Mobility, Zagat, and Nest Labs. Parramore also notes that people fail to recognize monopolies because of multiple brands and outlets. She used buying eyewear as an example. American retailers such as Pearl Vision, Sears Optical, and Sun Glass Hut are all owned by Italian manufacturer Luxottica.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/back-to-the-futurewithmonopolycapitalism.html

 

The fact of the matter is neither President Obama or his Justice Department worked to effectively address this problem in areas of mass media, banking, or finance. Neither he or Candidate Hillary Clinton talked about breaking up big banks or investment firms. The fact is certian liberals are close to big business and money because they think it's important for economic growth and support for social liberal causes among the wealthy and large corporations. They hope that Medicaid expansion, funding universal prekindergarten, requiring paid family leave, and more money for education will make it easier for people to live under an increasingly unequal economy rather than changing the system. The same thing is true about free trade and globalization. None of this makes them bad people and I don't see Clinton and Obama as neoliberals or corporatists. But they do not go far enough and that's a problem.

 

While you decry Sanders as an angry, devisive, populist Warren is in fact similar in her critique of Wall Street and the economic problems that impact working families. Consider the following quotes:

 

" People feel like the system is rigged against them, and here is the painful part, they're right. The system is rigged. "

 

" Wall Street's outsized influence in our nation's capitol is something I've talk about for a long time - long before I even thought about running for office. But where I can see a problem- an infestation, really a lot of others in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans seem to see government working just fine. "

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/elizabeth_warren.html

 

Furthermore Sanders is no totalitarian Marxist who seeking to get rid of capitalism :

 

" I don't believe government should takeover, you know, the grocery store down the street or own the means of production. "

 

http://www.azquotes.com/author/12951-Bernie_Sanders?p=23

 

Sanders like many traditional liberals since the New Deal and Postwar eras wants an economy that works as well for working people as the wealthy. To say he is against the wealthy is or capitalism isn't true.

 

His campaign didn't foment anger or division it spoke to the issues behind it and along the way inspired millions of young people to get involved. Our democracy needs their passion and energy. If it can shake liberalism to act more forecefully against economic and social inquality fine.

 

I haven't said anything untrue or denigrated anybody we have to be clear and honest about the problems faced by liberalism to fix it and make our country better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the last comment, I think we(Democrats/Liberals), can still win if we can still have fair elections after four years of Trump. As for a previous point, it seems that the great orange troll doll might have had help from Russia getting to the top of the Republican ticket. It seems Putin didn't just want a Republican in the Whitehouse, he wanted THIS republican running the Whitehouse, for what's starting to seem, very obvious reasons! Also, to the argument some republicans are making, that he would of won without Putin's help(Not that I believe that for a second). This was an act of cyber warfare! This isn't something they did or tried to do FOR us, this is something they did, or tried to do TO us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you 999. The big question will be if the elections will be fair after four years of Trump. Right now, I have some doubts the elections will be fair, if we do in fact have elections in four years. I suspect he sees himself as President for life and he and his minions are working toward that goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for responding to my post,

 

I did not say that any Democrats are champions of monopoly capitalism. I did say certain liberals tolerate it. That's very different.

The term monopoly capitalism appropriately describes the growing lack of competition in the marketplace. Lynn Parramore in an online article for Al Jazeera notes how tech giants Intel, Adobe, Google, and Apple colluded to supress employee wages. Moreover Apple buying NeXT while Google acquired You Tube, Android, Motorola, Mobility, Zagat, and Nest Labs. Parramore also notes that people fail to recognize monopolies because of multiple brands and outlets. She used buying eyewear as an example. American retailers such as Pearl Vision, Sears Optical, and Sun Glass Hut are all owned by Italian manufacturer Luxottica.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/back-to-the-futurewithmonopolycapitalism.html

 

The fact of the matter is neither President Obama or his Justice Department worked to effectively address this problem in areas of mass media, banking, or finance. Neither he or Candidate Hillary Clinton talked about breaking up big banks or investment firms. The fact is certian liberals are close to big business and money because they think it's important for economic growth and support for social liberal causes among the wealthy and large corporations. They hope that Medicaid expansion, funding universal prekindergarten, requiring paid family leave, and more money for education will make it easier for people to live under an increasingly unequal economy rather than changing the system. The same thing is true about free trade and globalization. None of this makes them bad people and I don't see Clinton and Obama as neoliberals or corporatists. But they do not go far enough and that's a problem.

 

While you decry Sanders as an angry, devisive, populist Warren is in fact similar in her critique of Wall Street and the economic problems that impact working families. Consider the following quotes:

 

" People feel like the system is rigged against them, and here is the painful part, they're right. The system is rigged. "

 

" Wall Street's outsized influence in our nation's capitol is something I've talk about for a long time - long before I even thought about running for office. But where I can see a problem- an infestation, really a lot of others in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans seem to see government working just fine. "

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/elizabeth_warren.html

 

Furthermore Sanders is no totalitarian Marxist who seeking to get rid of capitalism :

 

" I don't believe government should takeover, you know, the grocery store down the street or own the means of production. "

 

http://www.azquotes.com/author/12951-Bernie_Sanders?p=23

 

Sanders like many traditional liberals since the New Deal and Postwar eras wants an economy that works as well for working people as the wealthy. To say he is against the wealthy is or capitalism isn't true.

 

His campaign didn't foment anger or division it spoke to the issues behind it and along the way inspired millions of young people to get involved. Our democracy needs their passion and energy. If it can shake liberalism to act more forecefully against economic and social inquality fine.

 

I haven't said anything untrue or denigrated anybody we have to be clear and honest about the problems faced by liberalism to fix it and make our country better.

 

It is my pleasure to have a reasoned discussion with someone on this sub-form. It is a nice change of pace.

 

To have fruitful debate people need to agree on terms. To my mind, "monopoly capitalism" requires the existence of monopolies (which I take it you concede don't exist) and is therefore not an accurate term.

 

If your point is that there is a smaller concentration of corporations (and thus less competition) in certain sectors of the economy than you'd prefer then we have found common ground.

 

I'm sure banking and the financial sectors are of particular concerns to many of us (they are to me), and that most of us could get behind some sort of 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall that would reduce the risk of government bank guarantees going to back up risky investment bank-type failures.

 

Like many, I'm also concerned with the concentration of media ownership.

 

I think these are common concerns to many (including mainstream liberal Democrats).

 

I don't know the details of the alleged collusion among tech giants (and, if it is illegal, it should be punished), but must also recognize that the tech sphere has been one of the most creative and remunerative sectors of the economy for American workers. Innovation and enterprise should—from my perspective—be championed and not vilified.

 

Successful Social Democracies do not attack the businesses that create the wealth that pays for their generous social programs. Not do they create social divisions by engaging in populist rhetoric.

 

I do think your correct in asserting many mainstream Democrats believe it is important for businesses to thrive in order to spur economic growth as a way to support American families and as a way to support liberal causes. That, to me, is a sane approach.

 

I hope the Democratic party has leaders that inspire young people (and future generations) to innovate, to create, to build wealth, and to go good things with that wealth including meeting the social and health needs of our people.

 

While Warren can be tough when it's warranted, I think she operates very differently from the angry populism of Bernie Sanders. I've yet to hear Warren call for a "revolution," for example. Nor have I heard her constantly lambasting "millionaires and billionaires." When Warren has a target for criticism she hits the mark directly, rather than demagoguing entire classes of people who have nothing to do with a specific problem. That is a huge difference in approaches.

 

No one (certainly not I) is asking Democratic leaders not to do after those criminally abusing the system. Or to not have them push for reforms when corporate policies are "legal" but predatory. In this later case, we need new laws and regulations. Which means getting people elected who reflect similar views. Destroying Democrats because they are not socialists is counter-productive to progress.

 

On Bernie Sanders Marxism we will need to agree to disagree. I'm not comforted by him saying he's not interested in the government taking over the corner grocery store. He has too long a record supporting totalitarian Marxist movements for me to warm to his calls for a socialist revolution.

 

Sanders himself calls his movement a populist one. I challenge you (or anyone else) to name once in human history a populist movement has come to power and things have gone well for those who appreciate freedom.

 

The fact is populism has been a scourge on humanity that has brought human misery and mass murder on an unprecedented scale around the globe. So Bernie Sanders explicit embrace of populist demagoguery sends chills down my spine.

 

Thanks for the reasoned discussion,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have Trump because a vote for Hillary was a vote for Republican Lite,

Same policies, same ideas, same corruption, same corporate puppet masters.

SOSDD

 

We have Trump because she wasn't good enough to beat a third rate candidate.

Repeat the above,

 

Voting for the Lesser always has the result in getting a Lesser

EOS

 

2018 midterms coming soon, start early to find and support the better candidates.

 

These are exactly the sorts of posts (that are never moderated) that exude a lack of respect for mainstream Democrats and the legitimate Democratic nominee, and that rely on nothing but name calling (such as "Republican Lite") and false claims.

 

HRC was good enough to soundly beat BS. So Sanders, by your argument, must have been about the worst candidate in human history to lose to someone like her.

 

The fact is Democrats voted for the better nominee and she won the nomination by millions of votes. Too bad on the so-called "left" sat on their hands and helped Donald Trump win. We are paying for that error in judgment as a nation.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are getting closer. You can try to turn the tables but until they make you moderator, it won't work. On you rebuttal (post 219), you didn't miss a beat in accusing the author of lying. You refuse to acknowledge anything or change anything. That's the way to go for a suspension.

 

???

 

Post 219? As of now, there is no Post 219.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are exactly the sorts of posts (that are never moderated)

 

Exactly? Name the rule he broke that needs to be moderated.

 

Rules for LO

Welcome to Liberals only forum

 

No conservatives allowed

Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated

No more than five new threads a day

No trash talking about members and their kids

No porn, or links to porn

No gore pictures

No cursing in thread titles

No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.

No linking to other political forums

No solicitations

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These are exactly the sorts of posts (that are never moderated) that exude a lack of respect for mainstream Democrats and the legitimate Democratic nominee, and that rely on nothing but name calling (such as "Republican Lite") and false claims.

 

HRC was good enough to soundly beat BS. So Sanders, by your argument, must have been about the worst candidate in human history to lose to someone like her.

 

The fact is Democrats voted for the better nominee and she won the nomination by millions of votes. Too bad on the so-called "left" sat on their hands and helped Donald Trump win. We are paying for that error in judgment as a nation.

 

Bill

 

LOL your ignorance of the rest of the democratic party is just completely sad in all reality you need to face the fact that Bernie did push for the future of this party and he got that you can't stop a revolution and if you try you will completly fail. Lets just move on from the Hillary Clinton''s of the party and take the party in a more progressive route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL your ignorance of the rest of the democratic party is just completely sad in all reality you need to face the fact that Bernie did push for the future of this party and he got that you can't stop a revolution and if you try you will completly fail. Lets just move on from the Hillary Clinton''s of the party and take the party in a more progressive route.

 

I guess suggesting I'm "ignorant" won't be moderated as a personal attack, eh BD?

 

Bernie lied about becoming a Democrat and did nothing but cause rancor and dissension in our party.

 

And he lost the primaries by millions of votes.

 

He damaged the future of the country by helping enable the election of Donald J Trump.

 

His demagogic populist path is not a progressive one, it is the most regressive type of ideology ever unleashed on humanity.

 

Name once time a populist movement taking power worked out well in human history. No one has answered that challenge.

 

HRC was the progressive choice, not Bernie Sanders.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in this case SpyCar.

 

=============================================================================================================

 

 

 

LOL your ignorance of the rest of the democratic party is just completely sad in all reality you need to face the fact that Bernie did push for the future of this party and he got that you can't stop a revolution and if you try you will completly fail. Lets just move on from the Hillary Clinton''s of the party and take the party in a more progressive route.

 

zkyllonen8 - Please show respect to other members in the LO Rm. You may be used to posting mostly in NHB but the rules for LO are different.

 

Rules for LO

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie lied about becoming a Democrat and did nothing but cause rancor and dissension in our party.

Bernie didn't lie at all. Bernie registered as a Democrat for the primaries. You also omit the fact that Bernie has caucused with the Democrats as well as raised money for DNC causes for decades now.

 

You're correct that Bernie didn't REMAIN a Democrat (due to his treatment by the DNC). But he was one briefly.

 

And he lost the primaries by millions of votes.

About three million, by the "official" tally. However that doesn't include the votes in caucus states (most of which Bernie won with lopsided totals). There were also many, many incidents of Independents-turned-Democrats being purged from the voter rolls in closed primary states. MSNBC and CNN openly donated to Hillary's campaign (no favoritism there) :rolleyes:. Over 400 "superdelegates" pledged to support Clinton before Bernie even announced his candidacy.

 

Yes, she won. However, for many Sanders supporters, there are asterisks galore. In the process, the DNC has succeeded in alienating approximately 10-12 million voters in their insistence to prop up a flawed candidate who lacked the trustworthiness and/or likability to even defeat Donald J. Trump.

 

 

He damaged the future of the country by helping enable the election of Donald J Trump.

He didn't enable the election of Trump. If Bernie had done what his supporters (myself included) were BEGGING him to do (concede the Democratic nomination and run as a third party candidate), then you might have a point with the "enabling" accusation. But that's not what happened. Bernie followed through on his promise and, after exhausting all efforts to win, conceded and endorsed Clinton.

 

HRC was the progressive choice, not Bernie Sanders.

I strongly disagree. Imo, there's very little progressive about Hillary. By her own admission, she's a centrist. By her experience she's proven to be pro-corporation, pro-establishment, and pro-military intervention. That doesn't add up to "progressive" within any definition I'm acquainted with.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact is Democrats voted for the better nominee

Bill

 

'Better' being a judgemental call on your part, right?

 

You seem to think she was better, but other's didn't.

 

I asked before and you never bothered to answer.

So again; Are you a member of the DNC establishment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

'Better' being a judgemental call on your part, right?

 

You seem to think she was better, but other's didn't.

 

I asked before and you never bothered to answer.

So again; Are you a member of the DNC establishment?

 

Yes, better is a judgment call on my part.

 

Of course, millions more Democrats reached the same conclusion I did than voted for the other guy, so it wasn't a minority opinion.

 

I did not see your earlier query (forgive me) as to whether I'm a member of the DNC. The answer is no.

 

I have worked to help elect Democrats since 1968, when I was 10 years old and volunteered in the local headquarters of Bobby Kennedy's campaign.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, better is a judgment call on my part.

 

Of course, millions more Democrats reached the same conclusion I did than voted for the other guy, so it wasn't a minority opinion.

 

I did not see your earlier query (forgive me) as to whether I'm a member of the DNC. The answer is no.

 

I have worked to help elect Democrats since 1968, when I was 10 years old and volunteered in the local headquarters of Bobby Kennedy's campaign.

 

Bill

 

Okay, we now have your opinion, judgement

 

I have my opinion, judgement Hillary was a poor candidate, and looks like the majority of voters agree with me and others like me.

Agreed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Okay, we now have your opinion, judgement

 

I have my opinion, judgement Hillary was a poor candidate, and looks like the majority of voters agree with me and others like me.

Agreed?

 

Given she got 3 million votes more than Trump, I think it is very clear your premise is incorrect.

 

HRC got the clear majority of votes in both the primaries and the general election.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given she got 3 million votes more than Trump, I think it is very clear your premise is incorrect.

 

HRC got the clear majority of votes in both the primaries and the general election.

 

Bill

 

She didn't win the EC, enough states,

Finished 2nd where it counted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...