Jump to content
Renegade

Don't Waste your Vote on Bernie Sanders

Recommended Posts

This is in response to the fanaticism of Sanders supporters who would rather have Trump for 4 more years than vote for any other candidate.  You may have noticed this opinion here on Liberal Forum in posts like the "Lying Joe Biden" thread, for example.  I'm rather tired of the Bernie supporters' bomb-throwing attitude of "to hell with the moderates".   Moderates tend to be the 'nice guys' who make reasoned arguments, seek common ground, and avoid incendiary emotional statements.  But, I'm tired of holding my tongue in the interest of anti-Trump unity.   Bernie is not the candidate we should nominate in 2020.

 

Some blame Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss.  Now, they're at it again with Biden.  Many are too hateful and fanatical for their own good, or for the good of the party or the country.  

 

NBC News: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks

 

It's my intention to make a list of Bernie's losing positions ('losing' in the sense that they will lead to November election defeats for the Presidency as well ass down-ballot offices) in this thread.   I should be able to add a book's worth by November, if Bernie keeps talking and I don't lose interest.  Feel free to add anything you think I might have overlooked.

 

These aren't coming in any particular order.  

 

 

#1, Bernie supported Chavez in Venezuela.  "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

 

From a purely mathematical standpoint, he is correct.  When everyone's income is near zero, everyone is equal.  And, to be fair, Bernie disavows Maduro's violence...if not the ruinous economic policies.  But, in a general election, his past support for Venezuela's leftists will bite him big time.

 

 

#2, Bernie wants to forgive all student loans, even for the children of 1%'ers

 

Cost = $1.6 trillion.  Maybe that doesn't look like much when your climate change proposal costs $16 trillion and your healthcare plan costs $34 trillion (I'm sure I'll have more on those in future posts) but, consider that the whole federal budget (including entitlements and defense) is only about $4 trillion!  Can you read those numbers and really believe Bernie has the slightest clue about economics?   Plus, it's a regressive policy to give unearned free money to people who have college degrees and high-paying jobs.  This is an issue that will help Republicans pull away blue-collar Democrats.

 

 

The sad thing is, Bernie's supporters won't see any of this as a problem.  They'll read numbers 1 and 2 (and all the rest) and say "So what?  If you're not on board with that, you're not a true liberal/democrat/progressive".   News flash...general elections aren't restricted to 'true progressives'.  Bernie's losing positions will hurt the whole party with swing voters in swing states in November.  Voters in the Democratic primaries should take this into consideration before casting their vote for Bernie.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade said:

Cost = $1.6 trillion.  Maybe that doesn't look like much when your climate change proposal costs $16 trillion and your healthcare plan costs $34 trillion (I'm sure I'll have more on those in future posts) but, consider that the whole federal budget (including entitlements and defense) is only about $4 trillion!  Can you read those numbers and really believe Bernie has the slightest clue about economics?   Plus, it's a regressive policy to give unearned free money to people who have college degrees and high-paying jobs.  This is an issue that will help Republicans pull away blue-collar Democrats

 

I doubt that increasing the tax rate on the upper 1% would cover the above. The math just doesn't add up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bernie didn't get railroaded by the DNC to anoint Hillary as candidate in 2016 he would be president right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden = Hillary 2.0

 

The Progressive wing will not show up for another Corporate Democrat, who promises that nothing will change.

 

According to the polls in 2016, Bernie would have crushed Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#3  Bernie's plan to fix the 'housing crisis' is expensive and unhelpful

 

Here are the basics from the Politico site:  

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ $2.5 trillion "housing for all" plan would use federal funds to build nearly 10 million homes and boost funding for Section 8 rental assistance, which would become an entitlement not subject to annual appropriations haggling.

The plan would also impose national rent control, capping rent increases at no more than 3 percent or 1.5 times the rate of inflation, whichever is higher, and allow states and cities to impose more stringent rent control standards.

Sanders would levy a 25 percent "house flipping tax" on people selling a non-owner-occupied property within five years of buying it for more than the purchase price. And he would impose a 2 percent "empty homes" tax on the property value of vacant, owned homes to "bring more units into the market and curb the use of housing as speculative investment."

 

Bernie says there's a housing affordability crisis because "In America today, there is virtually no city or town where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a decent, two-bedroom apartment".   It's not a housing crisis just because a 19 year-old high-school dropout can't provide nice housing for a whole family on one minimum-wage income.  

 

To the extent that there are housing affordability issues, the problems are mostly concentrated in the largest cities, many of which feature rent control.  So, of course Bernie wants to apply rent control to every property in America!  That's a sure-fire way to ensure that we do get a national housing crisis.   National rent control virtually guarantees fewer homes will be built which guarantees a housing shortage.  Rent control has failed so spectacularly, why would anyone think it should be applied nation-wide?

 

Besides rent control, another factor leading to housing affordability issues is restrictive zoning laws.  The NIMBY crowd doesn't want any new housing built because it destroys the 'character' of their neighborhood.  So, how would Bernie deal with that?  He plans to: "Use federal preemption laws to ensure these new units are not segregated or excluded by local zoning ordinances".   How popular do you think that would be...anywhere?   Who wants the federal government to override local laws and build low-income housing next door?  Be prepared for countless legal battles.

 

Then, there's the cost.  Just another $2.5 trillion...if you consider this to be an accurate estimate.  The norm for all politicians is to low-ball cost in their campaign proposals.  If $2.5 trillion is the low-ball, what might the actual be?   But, $2.5 trillion should be scary enough.  That cost represents about $20,000 from every household in the US.   

 

Bernie says he'll get it all from the top 0.1%.  But, he says that about all his multi-trillion dollar plans.  I probably need to devote a whole post to why that doesn't add up.  Bernie is trying to spending the same dollars over and over.

 

The only way to construct all this housing is to hire <gasp> private contractors.  They will, for a price, stop what they're doing (building housing) so they can do what Bernie wants them to do (build housing).  Several aspects of his plan would reduce privately construction and attempt to replace it with publicly funded construction.  In the end, we don't get more houses, we just get more centralized government control. 

 

Does anyone want their local housing issues decided in Washington?    Does anyone think the government can mange a program of this magnitude efficiently?  

 

Political analysis:   Low income, inner-city folks will see this as an attempt to make their lives better.  But, these people are already hard-left.  A proposal like this might help Bernie pull primary voters from Warren.   But, more votes in San Francisco and New York aren't going to help the Democratic candidate in November.  How does something like this play in Ohio?  What would people think of this it Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Minnesota?  That's where the battle with Trump will be fought.  Moderate/independent/undecided voters in those states will be repelled by Bernie's losing proposals, like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the programs that Bernie is proposing are already in place in most of the Developed Countries.

 

They are doing just fine providing these programs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Renegade said:

It's not a housing crisis just because a 19 year-old high-school dropout can't provide nice housing for a whole family on one minimum-wage income.  

 

Right.

 

At 19 I shared an apartment with two other students. Later with a third, the last one in a couch in the living room. That one (couch guy) is a poet, lyricist, and novelist. One is a lawyer, head of a human rights commission for a Canadian province. I lost touch with the other one.

 

At 19, a person should be overcoming difficulties and trying to make something if themselves. If you've already stopped striving and learning at 19, you're going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you the one who threatened not to vote for one of the progressive candidates? So why exactly should we listen to someone who's okay giving Trump the Presidency talk about what others are or aren't going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cecelia said:

Aren't you the one who threatened not to vote for one of the progressive candidates? So why exactly should we listen to someone who's okay giving Trump the Presidency talk about what others are or aren't going to do?

 

I'm not sure whether you're talking to me, but I'm on record many times of saying that I'll donate to and vote for the eventual Democratic candidate no matter who that is. Trump is a disaster.

 

The person that says he'll leave his ballot blank if Bernie Sanders is not the nominee - that's WillFranklin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Renegade said:

#3  Bernie's plan to fix the 'housing crisis' is expensive and unhelpful

 

Here are the basics from the Politico site:  

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ $2.5 trillion "housing for all" plan would use federal funds to build nearly 10 million homes and boost funding for Section 8 rental assistance, which would become an entitlement not subject to annual appropriations haggling.

The plan would also impose national rent control, capping rent increases at no more than 3 percent or 1.5 times the rate of inflation, whichever is higher, and allow states and cities to impose more stringent rent control standards.

Sanders would levy a 25 percent "house flipping tax" on people selling a non-owner-occupied property within five years of buying it for more than the purchase price. And he would impose a 2 percent "empty homes" tax on the property value of vacant, owned homes to "bring more units into the market and curb the use of housing as speculative investment."

 

Bernie says there's a housing affordability crisis because "In America today, there is virtually no city or town where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a decent, two-bedroom apartment".   It's not a housing crisis just because a 19 year-old high-school dropout can't provide nice housing for a whole family on one minimum-wage income.  

 

To the extent that there are housing affordability issues, the problems are mostly concentrated in the largest cities, many of which feature rent control.  So, of course Bernie wants to apply rent control to every property in America!  That's a sure-fire way to ensure that we do get a national housing crisis.   National rent control virtually guarantees fewer homes will be built which guarantees a housing shortage.  Rent control has failed so spectacularly, why would anyone think it should be applied nation-wide?

 

Besides rent control, another factor leading to housing affordability issues is restrictive zoning laws.  The NIMBY crowd doesn't want any new housing built because it destroys the 'character' of their neighborhood.  So, how would Bernie deal with that?  He plans to: "Use federal preemption laws to ensure these new units are not segregated or excluded by local zoning ordinances".   How popular do you think that would be...anywhere?   Who wants the federal government to override local laws and build low-income housing next door?  Be prepared for countless legal battles.

 

Then, there's the cost.  Just another $2.5 trillion...if you consider this to be an accurate estimate.  The norm for all politicians is to low-ball cost in their campaign proposals.  If $2.5 trillion is the low-ball, what might the actual be?   But, $2.5 trillion should be scary enough.  That cost represents about $20,000 from every household in the US.   

 

Bernie says he'll get it all from the top 0.1%.  But, he says that about all his multi-trillion dollar plans.  I probably need to devote a whole post to why that doesn't add up.  Bernie is trying to spending the same dollars over and over.

 

The only way to construct all this housing is to hire <gasp> private contractors.  They will, for a price, stop what they're doing (building housing) so they can do what Bernie wants them to do (build housing).  Several aspects of his plan would reduce privately construction and attempt to replace it with publicly funded construction.  In the end, we don't get more houses, we just get more centralized government control. 

 

Does anyone want their local housing issues decided in Washington?    Does anyone think the government can mange a program of this magnitude efficiently?  

 

Political analysis:   Low income, inner-city folks will see this as an attempt to make their lives better.  But, these people are already hard-left.  A proposal like this might help Bernie pull primary voters from Warren.   But, more votes in San Francisco and New York aren't going to help the Democratic candidate in November.  How does something like this play in Ohio?  What would people think of this it Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Minnesota?  That's where the battle with Trump will be fought.  Moderate/independent/undecided voters in those states will be repelled by Bernie's losing proposals, like this one.

 

November 03, 2017 - 09:40 AM EDT

Sanders would've beat Trump in 2016 — just ask Trump pollsters

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/358599-sanders-wouldve-beat-trump-in-2016-just-ask-trump-pollsters

 

As Democratic leaders and strategists consider how they should campaign in the crucial midterm elections of 2018, they would be wise to consider why so many polls throughout 2016 showed that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would have decisively defeated Donald Trump in a general election contest.

My view, stated throughout the 2016 campaign, was that whether one supported Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the presidential primaries, it was vital that all Democrats fully understand why Sanders ran so far ahead of Trump in polling — usually by double digits — and markedly stronger than Clinton in match-up polling against Trump.

 

As reported recently in The Hill, Trump’s own pollster, Tony Fabrizio, stated flatly at a recent Harvard University Institute of Politics event that Sanders would have beaten Trump. He said Sanders would have run stronger than Clinton with lower-educated and lower-income white voters. I could not agree more, on both counts.

 

The real working-class hero candidate was always Sanders, not Trump, who has always been a crony capitalist pretending to be a populist.

 

Watching Trump’s approval rating fall steadily throughout 2017 to numbers that are alarming to GOP leaders and strategists, it is increasingly obvious that the Trump base is locked into a number lower than 40 percent and that it has continued to decline as the voters Fabrizio spoke of began to peel away from Trump’s base.

 

There are two fundamental lessons from the strong Sanders performance throughout 2016 and his continuing favorable ratings in polls that tower over Trump’s. First, Sanders genuinely fights for the economic interests of poor and working-class voters with a sincerity and passion that voters know is real.  

 

If Trump bears false witness on a regular basis, Sanders tells the truth as a matter of habit. As Sanders fights for lower insurance premiums and better health care with passion and conviction, the various health-care plans from Trump and Republicans were an epic political disaster that were widely detested and disapproved by voters.

 

While Sanders fights for workers and consumers, Trump is seeking to systematically destroy the wise regulations of Wall Street that were created under President Obama after the great financial catastrophe that plagued the nation under the previous Republican president.

 

The second important lesson of the strong Sanders approval ratings is that the next realigning majority in American politics will be a progressive majority, with policies that will bear strong resemblance to the policies offered by Sanders — not the crony capitalist vision of government offered by Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

This is why Sanders leads Trump by large margins in public approval. This is why Democrats lead Republicans by large margins in generic polling ahead of the 2018 midterms.

 

Fabrizio was right that white voters with lower income and lower education, who were fooled into voting for Trump in 2016, would have voted for Sanders and will support Democrats for the House and Senate in 2018.

 

America is a far more progressive nation than most pundits understand. They are waiting for the next great progressive Democratic president, whoever he or she may be. That person will lift the nation after the Trump nightmare ends and the post-Trump America begins in earnest in 2018 and 2020.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cecelia said:

Aren't you the one who threatened not to vote for one of the progressive candidates? So why exactly should we listen to someone who's okay giving Trump the Presidency talk about what others are or aren't going to do?

 

It's true that I don't favor the Biden/Warren faction.  However, I'm definitely not "okay" with Trump as President.  Even among Republicans, he's one of the worst.   

 

The point I'm trying to make with this thread is that Bernie is not a good candidate for the general election.  If he is selected as the Democratic candidate, many of his positions/proposals are going to hurt him and other Democrats in the election.  That's an opinion and  I don't expect you to just take my word for it.  Just think for a moment how the positions I'm outlining here will be portrayed by the Republican campaign.  Consider how these positions will be viewed by swing voters in swing states. 

 

Trump won by converting a lot of moderate working class voters who used to vote for Democrats.  Bernie isn't the one to bring those voters back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoreD said:

Sanders would've beat Trump in 2016 — just ask Trump pollsters

 

Sanders ran so far ahead of Trump in polling — usually by double digits

 

There's some truth to this.  But, there are also problems.  Most obviously, it's not 2016 anymore.  

 

In 2016, all of the Trump/Republican political machine attacks were directed at Hillary Clinton.  They didn't think Bernie could win and, if he did, they thought he'd be easier to beat.  If anything, the Republicans (and Fox News) played up Bernie's grievances in an attempt to create division within the Democratic party.

 

Times have changed.  Bernie is much better known now.  His positions are familiar and people have had more time to consider them.  In 2016, Bernie led Trump by as much as 17%.  Today, that lead is down to 2.6%.   That's almost the same number Hillary had going into the election.  

 

In today's polls, Biden leads Trump by 4.5%.  That's important all by itself.  But, there's more to it.  We need to consider more than just the national total.  The value of a vote depends on where it's cast.  Biden has more support in swing states.  Bernie tends to have more support in Democratic strongholds.  I can't over stress the fact that swing states are everything when it comes to the Presidential election.  Trump knew that and exploited it last time.  Hillary didn't.

 

If you think the polls were right in 2016, why would you think they're wrong now?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the geezer has already had a heart attack.  Time for him to retire.

He's sincere, I'll give him that.  And that means that he'd probably work himself to death if he were in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut and bolded for emphasis.

 

You've said we're still doing okay.  That he hasn't done any personal harm to you.  I mean it's great that you're a member of the privileged class.  But don't expect us to count you as an ally when you say things like this.

 

 

On 12/10/2019 at 11:59 AM, Renegade said:

 

We've already seen Trump's worst and we're still doing OK.  Social Security is still intact.  He hasn't started a war.  Yes, I know he has done harm and missed opportunities to do good, but he hasn't destroyed the country (or done any harm to me personally) and, now that Democrats control the House, his power to do further harm is greatly diminished.  The "fear of Trump" issue is still strong, but it isn't as powerful as it was before the mid-terms.  

 

Finally, I don't necessarily have to actually choose only between Trump and a 'big change' Democrat.  I will definitely vote, but I always have the option to vote for a third-party candidate in protest against the choices I'm offered and and in protest against the current hyper-partisan political environment.    Please don't take that as any kind of threat or tantrum to try to get my way.  I just wanted to frankly share my thought process since I may not be the only one who thinks that way.   Of course, I could change my mind several times by election day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cecelia said:

Cut and bolded for emphasis.

 

You've said we're still doing okay.  That he hasn't done any personal harm to you.  I mean it's great that you're a member of the privileged class.  But don't expect us to count you as an ally when you say things like this.

 

 

 

The Progressive wing of the party will not vote for a Corporate Dem.  Biden-Buttering will guarantee a repeat of 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 10:19 AM, Renegade said:

This is in response to the fanaticism of Sanders supporters who would rather have Trump for 4 more years than vote for any other candidate.  You may have noticed this opinion here on Liberal Forum in posts like the "Lying Joe Biden" thread, for example.  


We certainly should not be guided by threats. 
 

On 1/5/2020 at 10:19 AM, Renegade said:

I'm rather tired of the Bernie supporters' bomb-throwing attitude of "to hell with the moderates"

 

Aren’t we all? It’s unproductive. 
 

12 hours ago, Renegade said:

The point I'm trying to make with this thread is that Bernie is not a good candidate for the general election. 


I’m not convinced that Bernie would have won in 2016. It is a declaration that was made without substantive proof.  For all we know, Bernie might well have lost the EC and the popular vote. 
 

Conversely, some Hillary supporters claim that she would have won the EC were it not for the sabotage committed by Bernie supporters. That’s equally unproven conjecture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LoreD said:

 

The Progressive wing of the party will not vote for a Corporate Dem.  Biden-Buttering will guarantee a repeat of 2016.


That’s a broad statement and there is no evidence to support it.

 

A few people may choose to stay home and sulk on election night 2020. Most won’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cecelia said:

Cut and bolded for emphasis.

 

You've said we're still doing okay.  That he hasn't done any personal harm to you.  I mean it's great that you're a member of the privileged class.  But don't expect us to count you as an ally when you say things like this.

 

I'm trying to explain why Trump still has a 42% job approval rating.  Think about that for a second.  More than 4 out of 10 Americans think the man is doing a good job.  That's a scary thought when you consider it's higher than Obama's was at this point in his first term.  Obama was reelected by a solid margin.  

 

It seems to me like many on Liberal Forum think they can nominate an extreme candidate and the extremism won't matter because they're running against Trump.  I believe it does matter.  In that previous post, I was trying to explain why it's not good enough to just nominate someone not named Trump.


I don't have a hidden agenda here.  I just want a normal President.  Not a Donald Trump and not a progressive socialist or whatever it's called.  Looking at all the candidates, I find Joe Biden the most 'normal' choice available.  Even though many of the others have great ideas and impressive personal characteristics, and I would support them ahead of Trump, I keep coming back to Joe as the best (not perfect) choice.   In this thread, I'm laying out why I didn't pick Bernie.

 

I understand that your views are farther left than mine.  If you decide to vote for Bernie because his views match yours, there's no shame in that.  I'd just like for you to consider that Bernie is not the most electable candidate.  If the Democrats select Bernie as their nominee, it could result in 4 more years of Trump.  In this thread, I'm explaining why I think that is the case.  

 

On a more positive note...

 

I came across this article in The New Republic.  It's long, but I think it does an good job of laying out the rationale for Biden's candidacy.  

 

Quote

Democrats, in the months ahead, should ask themselves whether America is ready to veer from a president who has trashed the Constitution to a leader who wants to overhaul the entire economy and health care system in a single four-year term. There is a pro-Biden case to inaugurate a long-overdue interval of national healing rather than a season of dramatic transformation.
   New Republic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cecelia said:

I mean it's great that you're a member of the privileged class. 

 

I really hate the term 'privileged', as it's used on the left today.  The dictionary definition is:  having special rights, advantages, or immunities.  But, in practice it's often used to denigrate anyone who has 'more', regardless of how they got it.  

 

JFK was born privileged.  I was not.  I was the son of a truck driver.  We went bankrupt when I was 8, a few months before my brother was born.   I lived on a dirt road 5 miles from the nearest town (pop < 2k) until I was 18.  In 1983, I finally got a real full-time job.   I was supporting my wife and 5 year-old daughter on $10k per year ($25k in today's dollars).   Where was our 'privilege'?

 

In some ways, my life is different now.  After four decades of hard work, saving, and good decisions, I'm probably a '5 percenter'.   I still don't have a big house, drive a German car, go on cruises, buy jewelry, have a boat, go to the theater, or any of the other things that rich folks do.  That's not how I grew up.  I'll never be that person.  But, I do have freedom now that I never had before.  Financial freedom certainly is a privilege that I have earned.

 

Does that make me bad?   If I had ended up poor, you'd like me better?  If I was stupid or unlucky or lazy, then I could be your ally?   If I was a felon, I could be your ally, right?  (Bernie wants voting rights for felons in prison).   But, you don't trust me...why?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LoreD said:

The Progressive wing of the party will not vote for a Corporate Dem.  Biden-Buttering will guarantee a repeat of 2016.

 

Then we are doomed.  On one end, there's the Progressive wing that won't vote for moderates.  On the other end, there are the independents and swing voters who won't vote for a progressive socialist.  

 

In 2016, the Republicans were as divided as the Democrats.  Cruz and Kasich and the never-Trump group fought Trump at least as hard as Bernie fought Hillary.  This year, the Republicans are united.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that you can't be my ally, it's that you aren't.  You care more about your 401k than about my reproductive rights, or the rights of gay couples, or the human rights of children being locked away in cages.  It's obvious that you are privileged when you can ignore those things and say that we're still doing okay.  YOU are doing okay.  A lot of us are NOT doing okay, and that you can ignore that makes you privileged.  Bernie Sanders is not poor, Elizabeth Warren is not poor.   But they are my allies because they do not ignore the issues that they do not personally face.  They do not get up there and say that we're doing okay because they have social security and they have health insurance.  They see the plight of the people, and they do not dismiss it.  And that's why I support them. 


You don't get to sit up there on your high horse and demand my support for your candidate because you are afraid of change, while saying you'll vote Third Party if Bernie gets the nomination.  THAT shows your privilege.  Because you can afford to vote 3rd party, and let Trump win.  Because if he wins, your life won't be any different.  You won't lose your reproductive rights.  You won't have to worry about being locked up, despite being an American citizen like so many American citizens already have been simply for being latinx.  You'll get to go on with your life.  The rest of us, won't.  Our lives will be ruined.  And you want to hold that over our heads?  I simply can't count you as an ally when you're willing to do that.  You might as well be a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 12:19 PM, Renegade said:

This is in response to the fanaticism of Sanders supporters who would rather have Trump for 4 more years than vote for any other candidate.  You may have noticed this opinion here on Liberal Forum in posts like the "Lying Joe Biden" thread, for example. 

I've been a Bernie supporter for decades.  I grew up in northern Vermont when Bernie was mayor of Burlington.  A kinder, harder-working man you will not find.  Bernie truly cares about the working class.   I will happily vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination.  That said, as long as the nominee is one of the people currently running, I will vote for them without hesitation.  I haven't seen many Sanders supporters who "who would rather have Trump for 4 more years than vote for any other candidate."  Are you certain these people are as plentiful as you say?  I don't believe they are.  

 

 

On 1/5/2020 at 12:19 PM, Renegade said:

I'm rather tired of the Bernie supporters' bomb-throwing attitude of "to hell with the moderates".   Moderates tend to be the 'nice guys' who make reasoned arguments, seek common ground, and avoid incendiary emotional statements.  But, I'm tired of holding my tongue in the interest of anti-Trump unity.   Bernie is not the candidate we should nominate in 2020.

I disagree.  Bernie would be an outstanding candidate as would Liz Warren.  I don't take a "to hell with moderates" stance.  All voters are important.  However I do feel that the progressive left has been neglected by most candidates in a misguided effort to always move to the middle.  There is a groundswell of progressive voters out there who are demanding Medicare-for-All, free/low-cost healthcare, an solution (or the start of a solution) to climate change, and a rational answer to the growing wage inequality in this country.  THAT'S what the public wants, at least in my observation.

 

On 1/5/2020 at 12:19 PM, Renegade said:

Some blame Bernie supporters for Hillary's loss.

Some do.  I see that as misguided as well.  Bernie and Hillary are two very different types of politicians.  Most things Bernie fought for in his campaign were things Hillary did not (and vice versa).  I did not like Hillary as a candidate at all.  

 

On 1/5/2020 at 12:19 PM, Renegade said:

Now, they're at it again with Biden. 

How so?  I will not vote for Biden in the primaries.  I will vote for Bernie, Liz Warren, Andrew Yang, or possibly Cory Booker.  However if Biden wins the nomination, I will vote for him without hesitation.

 

On 1/5/2020 at 12:19 PM, Renegade said:

Many are too hateful and fanatical for their own good, or for the good of the party or the country.  

I'm neither hateful or fanatical.  I'm tuned in (admittedly, almost solely) to the working poor, their needs, and their issues.   The working poor are my people.  I live among them and work with them every day.  I see their struggles and also see, with wide open eyes, how BOTH parties have neglected them for decades now. 

 

I firmly believe this country needs a true progressive to get this country on a hopeful path.....and not have people struggling paycheck-to-paycheck.   That is why I firmly support both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.        

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Moderate voters aren't the ones we should be appealing to.  Moderate voters are poor allies and cannot be counted on.  It's the non-voters we need to be going for.  And they are a different set entirely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cecelia said:

Also, Moderate voters aren't the ones we should be appealing to.  Moderate voters are poor allies and cannot be counted on.  It's the non-voters we need to be going for.  And they are a different set entirely.  

Agreed!  I'd much rather see non-voters out voting than pull a Republican over to vote Democrat because they disapprove of Trump.  Non-voters are people who have mostly given up on the political process.  I say let's give them a candidate they can get excited about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean when Joe Walsh, who's views I cannot agree with, says "I'd vote for a socialist over Donald Trump", while a self-proclaimed liberal says "I'd vote for third party if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination" it makes me shake my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...