democrat national committee shuts out bernie sanders for 2020 (party affiliation, generation, statistics)

[JustMike77]

This will simply serve to split the Leftist vote in 2020 between Bernie and whichever character the Democrats run. Works for me.

Trump 2020

[crone]

Had Bernie won the nomination, by the time the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November rolled around, the Republicans would have spent a fortune convincing people he was Stalin incarnate. Hell half the poster here do not understand the difference between socialist democrat and communism..

My whole family was Bernie supporters cause we couldn't stand Billary. But when she got the nomination we voted Democratic because we knew what a Trump Supreme Court would look like. He had already sold what soul he had to the religious right, Franklin Grahman, Falwell jr, etc.

Steve Schmidt for POTUS.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by crone

Had Bernie won the nomination, by the time the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November rolled around, the Republicans would have spent a fortune convincing people he was Stalin incarnate. Hell half the poster here do not understand the difference between socialist democrat and communism..

My whole family was Bernie supporters cause we couldn't stand Billary. But when she got the nomination we voted Democratic because we knew what a Trump Supreme Court would look like. He had already sold what soul he had to the religious right, Franklin Grahman, Falwell jr, etc.

Steve Schmidt for POTUS.

They would have tried and they would've failed. Just as Vermont Republicans tried and failed. And I write this as one who voted for and still supports President Trump.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by JAMS14

I like Bernie, but your last line pretty much says it all. He refuses to commit to the Democratic party. Why should the Democratic party hand their nomination over to a candidate who repeatedly claims he's not of their party?

?

yes there is a difference between the far left liberals and the democrats, why dont the liberals get their party established in all 50 states

there is a liberal party here in NY

in NY you have the democratic party, the liberal party, the republican party, and the conservative party.....


… now most times the two are combines as far as nominations...for example

when Obama ran, he had the democratic nomination, the liberal nomination, the green nomination, and even the socialist nomination


now to Bernie Sanders..... he is a leftwing new York(he is born and raised in NY) democrat, or to be exact he is a farther to the left liberal, he caucused with the Democratic Party ... A self-described democratic socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive,

While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America),....both Hillary and Obama had a very similar paths in college with the socialist path




so for the DNC to write off sanders... brings a few questions, one being is the DNC going back to their roots, or is this personal

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Nope, you just continue making assumptions/coming to conclusions that are false and ignore the context of my posts. But its not the first time you've done so and it won't be the last.

This thread is 16 pages long, and the conversation you commented on is 14 pages long. Your post isnt the context here, ours is.

From your very first post, you argued a fallacy based on you misunderstanding the context.

Do explain in detail how I contradicted myself (and objectively so), though, as you haven't done so now. I get that you may disagree with my analysis, and that's OK. But that hardly equates to what you claim it did.

I already did, but if you want me to, I can rephrase it so you better understand.

You defined "bidding" of the part based on something that isnt part of the discussion.

This is about backing the Nominee of the party, not how one votes in the senate.

either you didnt understand that(which is cool, that can be forgiven), but based on how standoffish you are, it looks more like you 100% new that and are weirdly trying to move the goal post instead of having a discussion about the topic at hand.

Again, you dropped in on this 16 page conversation, not the other way around. Your comment my infact be your own analysis, but it is based on the false premise that "senate votes" are the nexus of the discussion. It isnt.

And internal party fights are not inherently a bad thing and are happening with people who are "registered Democrats." Seriously, though, the internal party fighting wouldn't change if Sanders declared himself as a Democrat and registered to vote as a member of that party. This makes the proposed rule change even more loony and counterproductive to winning. But, again, I don't see that as a bad thing!

Internal party fights are a bad thing once you have a nominee. It divides the party.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

They would have tried and they would've failed. Just as Vermont Republicans tried and failed. And I write this as one who voted for and still supports President Trump.

You believe they would have failed, I believe they would have won.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

This thread is 16 pages long, and the conversation you commented on is 14 pages long. Your post isnt the context here, ours is.

From your very first post, you argued a fallacy based on you misunderstanding the context.







I already did, but if you want me to, I can rephrase it so you better understand.

You defined "bidding" of the part based on something that isnt part of the discussion.

This is about backing the Nominee of the party, not how one votes in the senate.

either you didnt understand that(which is cool, that can be forgiven), but based on how standoffish you are, it looks more like you 100% new that and are weirdly trying to move the goal post instead of having a discussion about the topic at hand.

Again, you dropped in on this 16 page conversation, not the other way around. Your comment my infact be your own analysis, but it is based on the false premise that "senate votes" are the nexus of the discussion. It isnt.



Internal party fights are a bad thing once you have a nominee. It divides the party.

Nope. You're not even close.

The post that I responded to from JAMS (its pretty telling that the poster I replied to isn't even making the wild claim about "contradiction" as you are...that should tell you something) read:

Originally Posted by JAMS14

It's the Sanders voters who crossed over or voted third party who gave us Donald Trump.

And for that, he should be rewarded with all of the benefits of the Democratic Party?

To which I replied:

Just so I'm clear: it appears that Democrats (or the DNC leadership) are more concerned with punishment than with having a president who has voted with them in the Senate and who would do their bidding in the White House. All because he and his supporters helped to derail the "chosen one" in Hillary Clinton

A contradiction is a combination of ideas/statements/etc. that are opposed to each other. https://www.google.com/search?q=cont...hrome&ie=UTF-8

In no way is my statement contradictory. But let's break it down:

JAMS comment implied that the Dem Party was punishing Sanders (or at least not "rewarding" Sanders) due to his voters crossing over or voting third party, which "gave us Donald Trump." Given that I could be wrong about this implication, though, I ensured that my statement started with "just so I'm clear," which invited clarification from the poster I replied to.

That aside, it is not contradictory to question whether Dems would want to punish a man who supports them over 90% of the time in the Senate (this goes to ideology/policy) and whose presidential platform was not out of line with the overwhelming majority of the official Democrat Party platform because he dared mount a challenge to the preferred party boss' candidate and because some of the man's supporters didn't end up supporting said preferred candidate. You clearly don't understand what a contradiction is if you think that I am contradicting myself.

Bernie's Senate votes are ONLY used support the notion that Sanders has--in actual practice--been true to the Democrat Party platform and ideas on the overwhelming majority of issues, NOT to merely bring up Senate votes in a presidential nominating rules conversation for the heck of it. This adds to my argument that the proposed rules change--which seeks party loyalty--is foolish and ultimately more harmful than not, especially because it makes it less likely that a strong candidate in Bernie Sanders would run as a Democrat in name in 2016. The pledge seeks something in name when actions speak louder than words. And, based on his actions, Bernie has been a Democrat in that he supports the Democrat Party on the overwhelming majority of issues (just as Hillary supports the Democrat Party on the overwhelming majority of issues). But that was clear. And, if it wasn't to you, you could've asked for clarification instead of making an assertion that was false.

To close, internal party conflict isn't even inherently a bad thing in a presidential year, which Donald Trump showed in 2016.

[SunGrins]

If Bernie wants to be a Democrat, what's stopping him? He already is in most situations...maybe more than some actual Democrats.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by SunGrins

If Bernie wants to be a Democrat, what's stopping him? He already is in most situations...maybe more than some actual Democrats.

Ain't that the truth.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Nope. You're not even close.

The post that I responded to from JAMS (its pretty telling that the poster I replied to isn't even making the wild claim about "contradiction" as you are...that should tell you something) read:

If by your own logic, Sanders derailed the Democratic nominee, then how is he doing the bidding of the party ?????


seems like a contradiction. You are simply arguing that his senate vote is more important for some reason or making the arbitrary argument that in your mind, it isnt a contradiction, which is actually irrelevant.

Your point was that Sanders is already loyal and that this is being used to block him out. The problem with your argument is pointing out that his team continued an internal debate and fractured the party shows the flaw in that logic.