Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't say I "blame" Sanders anymore than I do Nader for helping Bush win instead of Gore, but the consequences are what they are regardless of blame, right?
Very cryptic. Are you saying Nader is responsible for Bush and Sanders is responsible if Hillary loses, is that what you are telling me? Have you thought about whether it is time for the Democratic party to become more attractive to more voters? Perhaps that is something to think about instead of pointing blame at people who are expanding democracy and giving a voice to the voiceless (and no, Nader supporters do not support Al Gore who are the one responsible for MILLIONS of democrats not bothering to vote in 2000).
Very cryptic. Are you saying Nader is responsible for Bush and Sanders is responsible if Hillary loses, is that what you are telling me? Have you thought about whether it is time for the Democratic party to become more attractive to more voters? Perhaps that is something to think about instead of pointing blame at people who are expanding democracy and giving a voice to the voiceless (and no, Nader supporters do not support Al Gore who are the one responsible for MILLIONS of democrats not bothering to vote in 2000).
I'm thinking not so much cryptic but simple...
You keep wanting to infuse this issue of "blame," now responsibility, but I am merely pointing out the consequences of candidates splitting voters from one another when otherwise there would be greater unity with those obvious results from a vote count standpoint, in fact what I have referred to as "unintended consequences" in the past.
Don't shoot the messenger! I am a Bernie supporter, and I admire his message and efforts. I am not happy about all the rest, certainly not responsible. Not sure where you get off as you do from my comments so far about any of this.
I've also thought plenty about how different and/or better the whole process might be, could be, but since I am not a policy maker or in politics, mostly I just observe and vote as appropriate, mostly wishing things could be better as it seems most Americans do.
Not sure that sentiment will change any over time either, no matter what we do, no matter what happens. We're never happy...
You keep wanting to infuse this issue of "blame," now responsibility, but I am merely pointing out the consequences of candidates splitting voters from one another when otherwise there would be greater unity with those obvious results from a vote count standpoint, in fact what I have referred to as "unintended consequences" in the past.
Don't shoot the messenger! I am a Bernie supporter, and I admire his message and efforts. I am not happy about all the rest, certainly not responsible. Not sure where you get off as you do from my comments so far about any of this.
I've also thought plenty about how different and/or better the whole process might be, could be, but since I am not a policy maker or in politics, mostly I just observe and vote as appropriate, mostly wishing things could be better as it seems most Americans do.
Not sure that sentiment will change any over time either, no matter what we do, no matter what happens. We're never happy...
The consequences of the Dem party dismissing a huge section of their voters is what should be front and center, and it is PRECISELY this enthusiasm that Bernie brings to the table. What happens next remains to be seen, but the Democratic party is much stronger now as a result of Bernie giving a voice to millions of people who dont feel represented and who are independents as well.
Regarding Nader, I think this is a good article about that:
The consequences of the Dem party dismissing a huge section of their voters is what should be front and center, and it is PRECISELY this enthusiasm that Bernie brings to the table. What happens next remains to be seen, but the Democratic party is much stronger now as a result of Bernie giving a voice to millions of people who dont feel represented and who are independents as well.
Regarding Nader, I think this is a good article about that:
I would like to share your optimism, that the Democratic party is "much stronger" for example, but not too long ago I thought the GOP was falling apart. Now they and Trump seem to be posing a serious threat vs Hillary and/or Sanders. True or not, the Democrats better be stronger...
RE: Nader, you need not waste your time on me, because I have read just about every take on whether or not Nader helped Bush win and/or helped defeat Gore as a result of "unintended consequences." Especially as we were still gasping at Bush's narrow win, counting those minuscule numbers that made all the difference in the end...
Needless to say there are those well versed on this subject that confirm of course Nader helped to siphon off voters, enough voters, that would have put Gore over the top. Others think that's a "myth."
All read and considered as I have over all this time since then, I am of the opinion that of course Nader helped Gore be defeated and/or Bush win as an "unintended consequence" of supporting another third option candidate that appealed to all those people back then much like Sanders does today.
I would like to share your optimism, that the Democratic party is "much stronger" for example, but not too long ago I thought the GOP was falling apart. Now they and Trump seem to be posing a serious threat vs Hillary and/or Sanders. True or not, the Democrats better be stronger...
The fact of the matter is that Clinton doesnt stand much of a chance if she and her campaign continue to dismiss the platform of Sanders and doesnt start a process of showing a credible plan to fight for the working class, and not just the rich, including a national health care system, public funding of elections and two weeks of paid vacation for all workers. She dismisses the idea of lifting the cap on income subject to payroll tax (currently $118k) to expand social security and give seniors a desperate hand so they dont need to focus on cat food. If she continues to steer the agenda further to the right to placate the donor class instead of towards the center where Bernie is, she'll lose.
The fact of the matter is that Clinton doesnt stand much of a chance if she and her campaign continue to dismiss the platform of Sanders and doesnt start a process of showing a credible plan to fight for the working class, and not just the rich, including a national health care system, public funding of elections and two weeks of paid vacation for all workers. She dismisses the idea of lifting the cap on income subject to payroll tax (currently $118k) to expand social security and give seniors a desperate hand so they dont need to focus on cat food. If she continues to steer the agenda further to the right to placate the donor class instead of towards the center where Bernie is, she'll lose.
You mean if Hillary doesn't move a little more toward the more liberal platform advocated by Sanders, voters will go all the more the other way and vote for Trump? Not sure how that works exactly, because if those "swing" voters can't make better sense of what to do in that case, I really have to wonder what sense people have about politics in general! Not sure any of that makes sense to me anyway...
You mean if Hillary doesn't move a little more toward the more liberal platform advocated by Sanders, voters will go all the more the other way and vote for Trump? Not sure how that works exactly, because if those "swing" voters can't make better sense of what to do in that case, I really have to wonder what sense people have about politics in general! Not sure any of that makes sense to me anyway...
People will not bother to vote or vote third party and yes, some will vote Trump as many in the white working class simply dont trust Hillary but do trust Sanders. What makes sense is to force Democrats to do the right thing and realize they will pay a prize for it if they dont. During Bill's term it was said that progressives could be ignored and laughed at and politics could be steered sharply to the right because progressives had no where to go anyway. Well, 40 years of Reaganomics and corporate democrats have been an utter disaster for the working class and this election clearly is an election for real change and not "no we can't" and the status quo. That already puts Hillary at a disadvantage.
The question is, can the sanders campaign deal with these facts with reason and evidence?
Thank you. Curious to see what such detail might include, I started reading until I started getting a little distracted with my own thoughts and began scrolling down, scanning, a little faster than I could read in detail, but that was the only way I could use what time I had to get to the end.
I read this observation that confirmed the "bottom line," for me anyway...
"And if you’ve gotten this far, I want to first thank you for taking the time to read this long attempt to make sense out of a confusing process. I also want to point out that, individually, I met several Sanders supporters who were very nice as individuals. I even saw obviously medically-trained Sanders supporters come to the aid of a Clinton supporter who had collapsed."
I mean, if we are to be impressed that medically-trained professionals "even" came to the assistance of someone in need of medical assistance regardless their political leaning, where are we today?
I kept thinking as I tried to read all you wrote that aside from the very "confusing process" that would cause even the widest eyes to gloss over a bit..., what is the answer to people who want to express their opinion by way of booing and yelling and heckling and all the other manner of "having their voice heard" including and/or all the way toward physical actions like throwing chairs and violence? You even see a bit of this in the presidential debates and lots of it makes for a reality TV show, a circus of sorts...
What is the answer or better alternative, since we all know people are becoming less and less civil in these regards, more divisive, more vocal, more aggressive? More and more we are hearing less of what we're suppose to hear, more and more the jeering and antics from the "peanut gallery."
At least we've had a little less incidents of assassination attempts and bombings and such -- knock on wood -- and maybe that's something, but I have to admit a bit of concern that the rise of Trump, even his antics as well, all suggest a rise in thirst for other than civil decorum. More and more we want the entertainment of shows like Jerry Springer, the louder the better!
What does this portend for America I wonder? I'm not sure, but didn't Springer become mayor?
Thank you. Curious to see what such detail might include, I started reading until I started getting a little distracted with my own thoughts and began scrolling down, scanning, a little faster than I could read in detail, but that was the only way I could use what time I had to get to the end.
I read this observation that confirmed the "bottom line," for me anyway...
"And if you’ve gotten this far, I want to first thank you for taking the time to read this long attempt to make sense out of a confusing process. I also want to point out that, individually, I met several Sanders supporters who were very nice as individuals. I even saw obviously medically-trained Sanders supporters come to the aid of a Clinton supporter who had collapsed."
I mean, if we are to be impressed that medically-trained professionals "even" came to the assistance of someone in need of medical assistance regardless their political leaning, where are we today?
I kept thinking as I tried to read all you wrote that aside from the very "confusing process" that would cause even the widest eyes to gloss over a bit..., what is the answer to people who want to express their opinion by way of booing and yelling and heckling and all the other manner of "having their voice heard" including and/or all the way toward physical actions like throwing chairs and violence? You even see a bit of this in the presidential debates and lots of it makes for a reality TV show, a circus of sorts...
What is the answer or better alternative, since we all know people are becoming less and less civil in these regards, more divisive, more vocal, more aggressive? More and more we are hearing less of what we're suppose to hear, more and more the jeering and antics from the "peanut gallery."
At least we've had a little less incidents of assassination attempts and bombings and such -- knock on wood -- and maybe that's something, but I have to admit a bit of concern that the rise of Trump, even his antics as well, all suggest a rise in thirst for other than civil decorum. More and more we want the entertainment of shows like Jerry Springer, the louder the better!
What does this portend for America I wonder? I'm not sure, but didn't Springer become mayor?
Well said. People behave with anger nowadays and easily lose their temper and don't bother to verify the allegations when people say something
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
