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.
He does the party's bidding on a daily basis in the Senate. His presidential platform was overwhelmingly in step with the Democrat Party platform. To this point, I mentioned that he would have done the party's bidding in the White House. That he mounted a challenge to win the Democrat Party nomination (this thing isn't supposed to be a coronation)--and weakened Hillary in the process--and demanded certain concessions at the convention doesn't change this fact. That you are misquoting me in this regard doesn't change things. He would've been happy to have been the party's standard bearer and to have taken the fight to Trump directly.
Presidential nominating contests are often nasty events. People pour their hearts and souls into the process to better their party and country; this is true even for those people we disagree with. What you see as not doing the bidding of during the presidential election (even though I didn't write that--yet it is still the basis of your contradiction claim--but I'll play), others see as working to strengthen the party and ensure that the party stays true to its values. But that's a judgement call and not something that is objectively one way or the other as you try to make it seem. And sometimes it takes losing a presidential election for some to see that. Acknowledging that hindsight is only 2020, my argument is that this rules change issue makes it more likely that the Dems will also lose 2020.
Put more simply: candidates duke it out during primary season. While one candidate's strengths may weaken another candidate from the same party, that has no inherent bearing on how said candidate will rule if elected as far as policy is concerned. My argument is merely that Sander's Senate votes give a great indication of how'd he would have governed.
This is not hard to understand.
We arent talking about the primary, but rather what happens once a nominee has been picked.
I like Bernie a lot and I agree with him on many things. But I don't think he would be a good president for this country with the political climate we are in. I wish it were otherwise but it's not. As a liberal, I feel like we need a Democratic candidate in 2020 that is just as combative as Trump is but with intelligence and maturity. That's a huge weakness for Trump. I don't think we should nominate a woman because women don't support women. Because we don't have as strong a bench as I would like to see at this time, I would be open to Howard Schultz if he could win the Democratic nomination but a lot of things can happen between now and then.
Trump does not appeal to the whole country!!! He's the first president in my lifetime that didn't remotely moderate after the election, he instead goes out of his way to provoke and insult the half of the country that pays the most in taxes. Trump won by 70,000 votes in three states and lost the popular vote by 3 million. If 35,000 voters had gone the other way in those three states, Trump would have lost. 35,000 is miniscule. Trump threaded the thinnest of needles and his supporters act like he has overwhelming support which he's never had.
And the dems dont appeal to the whole country either. Neither party represents the whole country. Neither party cares about the whole country. Both parties are tied to their rich donors and controllers. The peasants dont matter.
Bernie should run as the socialist party presidential candidate F the DNC.
He'll get the vote from the 41% of the democratic party that are really socialists; add the votes from the socialist and communist party voters and he'll give Trump a run for his money in 2020 MAGAKAGA
I like Bernie a lot and I agree with him on many things. But I don't think he would be a good president for this country with the political climate we are in. I wish it were otherwise but it's not. As a liberal, I feel like we need a Democratic candidate in 2020 that is just as combative as Trump is but with intelligence and maturity. That's a huge weakness for Trump. I don't think we should nominate a woman because women don't support women. Because we don't have as strong a bench as I would like to see at this time, I would be open to Howard Schultz if he could win the Democratic nomination but a lot of things can happen between now and then.
.
why should YOU a fascist liberal care what the Democratic party does...find your own party
Liberals are NOT democrats, they are left of center, but liberals are much farther to the left than democrats
liberals continue to push the fascist/socialist/communistic policies that will destroy this nation
In reality they just told MILLIONS of voters NO THANKS we don't want your votes...because that's WHO they would have voted for....bad bad move for democrats IMO but great move for Republicans and America IMO....
You remember that Bernie lost right ? You also understand that the Republican party technically already has the exact same rule ?????
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.
.
