Rude Pundit: Our Stupid Clinton/Sanders Battle Is Gonna Lose Us the War with Trump
The Rude Pundit is done arguing about whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton will be a stronger candidate against Donald Trump. He'll vote for whichever one is the nominee, but he's done fighting the idiotically vicious battle between them any further. He's seen both sides attack, having supported each one at different times. He's watched the overdramatic rhetoric get hotter and hotter. He's received death wishes and insults and, really, everyone who sent them can just go fuck themselves with a Trump butt plug.
Back in May 2008, when Hillary Clinton was continuing her obviously doomed campaign, having her surrogates fighting over delegate rules, trying to convince superdelegates to come to her side, this blog was resolutely against what she was doing and attacked her savagely for refusing to face the reality of her defeat. It would be the height of hypocrisy to not think the same about Bernie Sanders, clearly in a worse situation than Clinton was eight years ago. The Rude Pundit may not like the outcome, but there it is. And if there is one thing he despises more than anything, it's goddamned hypocrisy.
In June 2008, he wrote this about trying to understand angry Clinton supporters (and they were mighty fucking angry): "The Rude Pundit would like to think that if he was in the position of Clinton's voters, that his candidate was actually losing the nomination, he'd have the sense to toss in the towel, as many previous Clinton supporters are doing. He'd like to think that, well, shit, the rules sometimes suck, but so be it. And instead work to change the rules for the future. Yes, he'd like to think he'd be so gracious. Indeed, when it seemed that Clinton was the inevitable nominee back last year, the Rude Pundit was ready to go all in to defeat the real enemy, and that was never Hillary Clinton. And he certainly knows that he wouldn't keep fighting if Clinton got the number of delegates needed to win the nomination."
In a Kumbaya moment, he continued, "As Democrats, one of the things we have to figure out is how to respect the rage of the hardcore Clinton voters...We who support Obama cannot take this rage for granted. Surely, Obama has his work cut out for him in reaching out to Clinton supporters, when he secures the majority of the delegates. When that moment comes, though, it's incumbent upon us, the Obama supporters in Left Blogsylvania, to offer comfort to Clinton's most rabid acolytes and give them another place to call home."
Change names and the fight is the same. You want to think it isn't. You want to think that this fight is special, like you always want to believe that that guy you fucked last night is the one, that you can find happiness together. Sorry, but chances are that he's just another fuck. He might have been a good fuck, but you'll fuck again. The Rude Pundit wasn't dumb and deluded in 2008. He ain't dumb and deluded now.
There is a fuckin' brawl coming, Democrats. You think you've seen fights? You think you've been through Atwater and Rove and nothing can be as bad as Willie Horton or Swift Boats or Arkansas murders. Karl Rove didn't have Twitter or Instagram in 2000. You don't know the dirty fight that's about to happen. That's like saying you've been through a fight if you've just been punched in the face or had a bottle broken over your head. You don't know what a fight is until you've been on the ground, getting stomped and kicked and desperately hoping your hands don't break from covering your face, hoping you aren't killed, that your skull doesn't crack, that you can come out of it with a few teeth, flailing and trying to grab someone's leg or fist to try to stop them, hoping you can walk when it's done, wanting so badly to rip the nuts off the fuckers beating you down. Until you've gotten up from that, busted up, bleeding, sore, ribs fucked, nose broken, and wondered if it's even worth fighting on, you haven't been through what's about to hit our candidate.
<snip>
http://rudepundit.blogspot.de/2016/05/our-stupid-clintonsanders-battle-is.html#sthash.NTf2Mx2l.uxfs&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)going to elect Drumpf.
Millions will suffer
villager
(26,001 posts)...and whether we throw/post them, eh?
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm not a big fan of the cult of bipartisanship, especially sicne "the other side" keeps spiralling ever-farther into fascist extremism.
You can compromise with that if you want.
WatchWhatISay
(3,426 posts)But the extremists in this country are about to blow this place up and were sitting around too proud of our own positioning to fight back against this insanity.
He wants $15 hr. minimum wage, she wants $12 hr. They dont believe in any minimum wage standard at all, and would love to keep a permanent underclass of people to do their dirty work cheaply.
Do you see the insanity here? Or will you have to win the battle and lose the war before you get it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)have you ever negotiated anything, WWIS? When you start a negotiation, it's important to set your initial position high. The reason is, during the process of negotiating, your starting position is going to be talked down. So the higher your starting point, generally the better-able you'll be to get more of it, the more you'll have to offer to cut in exchange for soemthing else. It puts you in a better position.
Sanders joined in the call for a $15 minimum - it was started by workers and unions, not candidates. He supported it, showed solidarity with the people asking for it. Clinton could have done the same, a good "we are together" moment for Democrats, right, say "hey unions, we're all with you on $15!"
She didn't do that. Instead, Clinton under-cut working people, and announced that $12 was the max she would consider. She looked at all these working people, people scraping by - or trying to and failing. She looked at all these unions, largely Democratic-supporting through the ranks, and she said to them, "No, you're not worth that much."
Thanks to her, and exclusively thanks to her, what was a broad-based movement with solidarity all over is now a fractured mess - SEIU's leadership, eager to keep Clinton's ear, ditched their calls for $15, leaving their membership in the lurch, and actually forbidding SEIU activism for $15. other union leaders did so as well. Some other unions didn't. And of course, most of the workers themselves, who had literally put their livelihoods on the line for this cause, suddenly found they had little support from people they had thought were on their side.
Because Hillary Clinton wanted to look more "business friendly" than her opponent.
And what will happen now, if she gets in office? Well, maybe she'll bring $12 to the negotiating table. With the Republicans. And because she loves compromising so much, and since she clearly wants to look business friendly, and she clearly doesn't give a flying fuck about working people (at least, not if it conflicts with her looking good) what do you think will happen? Best case scenario, nothing changes. The Republicans drag it down to the current minimum, and a President Clinton calls the whole thing off, and we stay where we are. Hooray, victory.
And the whole time, you and other clinton supporters will still be making smugly derogatory remarks about "purity." It's not like many of you are trying to make it by on $7.25 an hour, after all. Hillary Clinton sure as fuck isn't; she makes ninety-thousand times that much money, in one-third of the time.
WatchWhatISay
(3,426 posts)Yes I will be able to support Clinton against trump, but I voted for Bernie in the primary.
You, on the other hand will only learn from your mistake when President trump and the Republican Congress abolish all minimum-wage
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)investigation, no matter what. I won't list my many others, because I just can't see myself crossing that bridge- just say for now that she damn well better "clear this up" before I get to that bridge.
My other standards I will save for later, since they are completely moot in light of the first.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Clinton supporters really only have hte one trick up their sleeves, don't they?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)and also saying they will go Bernie or Bust.
It is a horrible decision but they have earned the right to do whatever they want.
The only satisfaction (wrong word, there will be no satisfaction) I will have if you are successful in preventing liberals from the WH is the damage will be immediate and horrific and pointing at the guilty BoB will be some , very little, satisfaction.
There is no question, AT ALL, that the liberals CANT lose the election if all Bernie supporters vote for the nominee.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)are behaving like a bag of dicks.
You got Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and claiming he isnt a "real" Democrat because he wasnt an official member of the party till recently and treating Bernie supporters like shit and you got some Bernie supporters trashing Hillary claiming she is a Republican and treating Hillary supporters like shit.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)That's very red herringish
If "not an agent of corporate dominance" is a purity test, then you have no standards at all.
Response to villager (Original post)
Turbineguy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)I saw this coming months ago. The fools who sit out because their preferred candidate isn't nominated, will by their short sighted and dimwitted inaction, elect drumf and probably also fail to flip the Senate. In the aftermath, they'll also be the ones crying and whining the loudest, failing to accept that they caused what they'll be moaning about.
GCP
(8,166 posts)The more I despair of people ever learning from past mistakes.
villager
(26,001 posts)Perhaps?
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Neither presumptive candidate will slow the death spiral of climate change.
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)which, among other things, affects its victims with a marked stubborn selfishness and lack of awareness of any common good that doesn't directly and immediately benefit them. The remarkable ability to to delude themselves into believing that non participation in a crucial civic duty makes some valiant statement that others should take some lesson from. Failure to recognize that the lesser of two evils, which this election will be more than any previous ones have been, can actually be a good thing.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)We need to remember that a 'party' means you work together.
phazed0
(745 posts)Bow your heads. Exhibit #1, Nevada convention.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)violence, no flinging of chairs, etc.
Go Bernie!!!
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...is documented in the tweets she received and the voice mail messages that were left.
So it's all okay? In the spirit of "nothing wrong was done" I and you should take up that kind of "discourse"? That should be the standard for DU because .... passion? That should be the standard for political discourse because ... what?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)... Being abused by the party, then, Fuck that ...
The party destroyed the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of Democratic Party members (millions?)
They did so fraudulently and intentionally ..
What is to be done about this? ... Nothing?
Bullshit ... There is a price to pay, and, that price might be a tRump presidency ...
DWS and Hillary have made their bed ... Now they get to sleep in it ...
It's certainly not MY Fault that nobody wants to vote for Hillary ... Ask her why ...
caraher
(6,278 posts)But the Rude One has a point.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I guess DWS and the Democratic establishment trying to limit debates, and bubblewrap their candidate are going to backfire by dismissing the loud calls for major change in Washington and hard-selling an incremental change candidate.
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)The let Trump become the mad idiot with the worlds most powerful army at his beck and call.
Just honestly imagine what will happen if the idiot does become President. Maybe watch a movie about Germany in the 1930s (even " The Sound of Music" would work.)
Say goodbye to millions of Mexicans that work with you, send their kids to school with yours. Tell your daughters that Roe V Wade is history. Pay a little more in taxes so Trump can cheat on his a little more. Tell your black friends their civil rights are history too.
Ah yes, it will be lovely
Thank you Rude for being the crazy voice of sanity in here.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)he's never going to do any of those things, he just played to a crowd of angry idiots, unthinking Foxheads and a horde of anti-everything complainers.
Unfortunately in a general-election, American voters tend to only tune in on a personality level at the end of the day, and even Bernie would have a hard time against him in that regard, but I trust having an instinctively issues-honest candidate who is fighting for everyday Americans, not taking corporate money, and without a swamp to drain over the Clintons.
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)that Bernie will save the world.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I'm eternally grateful Obama won in '08 - so maybe that's the one bright spot I can keep focusing on for the time being.
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I guess labels are more important than what's in the jar
Duval
(4,280 posts)afertal
(148 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)To her, Its Their Turn.
Bernie of Trump would start a trade war, by torpedoing those 20 years of plans.
"Progressive liberalisation" starts now. One world, ready or not.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)Democratic Socialist running in the Democratic Presidential Primaries with Democrats approval
In fact he's been the most Progressive member in the Democratic caucus in Congress, both in the House and in the Senate.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)that are much more important to me than what is currently offered.
When people close their mind to ideas simply because they aren't the norm nothing changes.
I would rather the Democrat Party have a little Democratic Socialism than go further down the path it is currently going (crony capitalism mixed with a socially progressive adgenda to pacify people AKA the lesser of two evils).
If the system wasn't so messed up, convincing people that there are only two acceptable parties from which to choose from, society would be a much better place. Instead we seem to be stuck with two choices, admittedly one better than the other. This is heightened by the two parties holding all of the power and refusing to allow a other parties a seat at the table. You won't see green party candidates, socialists, etc. Invited to major debates. That's give them a voice and possible legitimacy.
That's what is so great. Sanders has used his platform to awaken a segment of the population to a more liberal financial plank. In the future perhaps we won't be stuck voting between two fiscally conservative groups, both struggling with corruption to some extent.
That's where the passion comes from. A desire to make to have the Democratic party better represent more liberal views (coming from a life-long democrat).
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)People who vote for Democrats without thought aren't much different than religious folks who discriminate due to religious dogma.
A lack of critical thinking is apparent in both instances. Similarly, both make me sad.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)If people don't vote for Democrats, Republicans win. There is no other viable option.
If people discriminate based on religion, it's just them being dicks. It's not like we face a dichotomy where the economy collapses and people die if we don't hate gays. If we don't vote against Republicans however...
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)If conservatives start saying they are liberal, and running as democrats, and people support them anyway because "Hey, they are democrats so they are getting MY vote!," then they aren't voting for the politics so much as for a label. Worse, it changes what it means to be a democrat over time. Labels don't seem to mean much anymore.
That's where using reasoning and logic come into play. Don't throw out Sanders' ideas just because he's not a traditional Dem, just as you shouldn't necessarily support a democratic candidate solely based on the fact that they call themselves a democrat.
People actually have to start thinking about these things. What do you want your party to be in the coming years?
As an aside, I'm thrilled that Sanders has awoken some true liberal politicos to run for office.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)But the very worst Dems - The Millers, Nelsons, Liebermans et. al, vote with the party at a rate approx 3 times that of the very best (from a Dem point of view) Reps, so only when that difference disappears will there be no benefit to voting for the letter D. Come to think of it, even then there will be some benefit because the makeup of Congress by party ID, rather than by ideology, determines crucial things like the make up and chairmanship of committees. I will gladly take any Dem, from frankly dangerous radical leftist ideologues to frankly DINO CofC stooges, over any Republican on that basis alone. It may be, hell it IS, a shame that US politics is a two-team sport, but we must deal with the reality in which we live, and any Republican elected over any Democrat gives the former party more power.
Wher do I want the party to be? I want some of Sanders' ideas in it for sure. I want us to move towards a more Northern European style of society to put it in a nutshell, while recognizing cultural differences between the two places. But we get there by winning, and by nominating people who will move us in that direction whenever possible. We don't get there by cutting off noses to spite faces and moving the starting point back decades by allowing Republicans to hold any more power than we can possibly resist. Even if I were fool enough to believe every single bloviating fantasy on DU about the evils of Clinton, she would still do far less harm to that goal than Trump, and those are the only two choices we realistically have.
And before people cavalierly mouth cliches about lesser evils, can anyone tell me why unavoidable evil should not be lessened?
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)It's a long process. Republicans and Democrats will always be trading seats to some degree. The parties have started to look a little bit too similar. As Republicans have moved further right, Democrats have moved further center/center right.
I'd rather the old guard of democrats fade away and are replaced by a newer generation, because honestly the world is changing rapidly and a lot of the politicians who have been in congress for ages legislate on things they might not understand so well (speaking particularly on internet law, but there are a lot of other issues too).
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Dems further to the left than they would otherwise would be. And he has. He is an FDR progressive, and I sure embrace Bernie's view on this.
Aren't you for FDR's views too? Helping the average person? Expanding the social safety net? Helping the average worker and the average family avoiding the tyranny of the rich?
Of course you are!
Go Bernie!!!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)because, no matter how many times you say it, the natural and TRUE response is that Bernie has been more of a real D/democrat than HRC ever was or will be.
The Goldwater girl is now the Goldman-Sachs water carrier. She's wholly owned by big money, Big Pharma, big blood-sucking Health Insurance behemoths, and the earth destroying fossil fuel and fracking industry. She favors regime change for the benefit of her MIC corporatist buddies and everything she touches (think SoS) goes from sugar to shit.
She has rising unfavorable ratings because she is such a liar, panderer and position waffler. But she has D beside her name 
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)It has lost its way with all the temptations in the dark forest of money trees. Bernie is the shepherd showing the lost souls back home.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Go Bernie!!!
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)People have realized in every election that she's a terrible candidate.
If she isn't, then why does she poll worse the further you get in every election cycle that she's ever been in?
You have to wonder.....
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)People want a fighter...no one likes to just pretend everything is all rosy anymore. That didnt work for us. If Clinton didnt act like a republican on so many issues this wouldnt be a problem. But she does and her intimate ties to the Bush Family make those of us without blinders on question her ability to serve the People.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Hillary offered Bernie the finger! That is the difference between then and now, Hillary is not trying to unify shit, we are just supposed to fall in line. That's not how it works and she knows it.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)it used to. It's the same ol' line I have been hearing for the last dozen years. Frankly it’s getting old and I am not the only one who thinks so.
Perhaps it's time for the DLC style Democrats, like Hillary and DWS, to start thinking on how they need to really start moving left. That's if they really care about this country and this party so much rather than just their pockets and desire for power.
Now, I will say, kudos to Hillary, she has been moving left, calling herself "as progressive as Bernie" (yeah, that was pretty jaw-dropping), but she is trying. The problem is do people really believe she will stay there if she becomes the nominee and wins? Is her sincerity coming through? That’s a problem, let’s face it. That's why it is so important Bernie stays in to the end, and keeps on pushing his ideas even afterward. To help push this party of corporate toads back left and away from the trough. To clear out some of the corporate crap in it and get better, more progressive, Democrats in office.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.... how fucking tone deaf can this person be?!? The DNC Chair courting payday lenders, an insidious affliction on the poor and desperate. Caging the primaries to blatantly support Hillary. Stymieing Bernie wherever she can. Doing nothing at all about all the voting issues the R's have been injecting into out society for years. Ridiculous. Hillary should demand she resign, if only to help her cred with the independents Bernie has gathered behind him.
Let’s face it. I do not think Hillary will win this election on base Democrats alone. Her negatives and hatred with the R’s will drive them to the polls, especially as Trump pivots and becomes more a mainstream R for a broader appeal. The MSM will not help, either. Hell, they helped Trump secure the nomination! Hillary will need these independents and young people, 40% of the electorate, if she is to have a chance in hell.
The Democratic Party needs to start proving that it is for the people. Obama and his TPP, TPIP, extreme whistleblower crackdowns, kid gloves with bankers, “Grand Bargain” attempts, is not helping. For every good thing he does like the Recovery, ACA, Gay/Trans rights, OT pay, and his general calm level headiness in dealing with the world and the Republicans, he pushes this other obnoxious crap. TPP may well make it through in the Lame Duck session. I like to think he might be pushing these things, knowing they will not make it, so he can secure his place with the Oligarchs and still live with himself, but I do not know.
All I know is “we’re less shitty than the other guy” is really wearing thin and the Democratic Party leaders better start waking up lest they fracture the party and pave the way for the current crazy-ass Republicans. It’s not Bernie doing it, it’s the Democratic Party Leadership and its years corporatist kowtowing and noxious dealing that’s damaging the party and may well lose this election!
phazed0
(745 posts)afertal
(148 posts)Some recent quotes heard among Hispanics in New Mexico...
"Democrats and Republicans and are like two wings on the same bird."
"I'm tired of choosing the shiniest of two turds!"
Duval
(4,280 posts)I seriously doubt it will do any good, but one thing they did notice was I didn't donate.
elljay
(1,178 posts)Well said!
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)of where the institutional party has placed itself it is gd obvious it is marching under the River Rubicon holding its breath waiting for Bernie to go away. They have made fundamental decisions that have flouted the primary system itself, made their bi-partisan wonderfulness impossible to compromise with their own traditional identity and the voters, flubbed it almost nearly as badly as the entire GOP that tried to get rid of their pesky insurgent- and both parties want to get out of this intransigent mess they hardcore created.
The answer is simple as it always has been. If the lead candidate, "winner" or squeaker finds a huge chunk of the votes and states not on her side she has to compromise or offer something that works. Or else complete the failure of the two corporate party system altogether at the true donnybrook of a historical political change.
Every 30 or forty years historians have identified a sea change in American politics. We are looooong overdue thanks to the hand in glove obfuscation of the Tweedledee and Tweedledum effect. There is some argument whether we are in the Fifth or Sixth Political period because of Reagan and the Third Way killing the New Deal alignment as the fatted calf for the Doomed Last Age of Mammon.
There will be no argument after this June if both parties blow it. And blow it they can in several directions. I am thinking they are forced in their present state to preserve the illusion of a united party by the institution alone asserting itself, damn the membership and damn the November risk and of course, as has been done a lot, passively or aggressively, damn the democratic process altogether.
Bernie has largely accomplished his goals and is not an obstacle because of his ticket aspiration. The soul of the party and the hearts of the voters can be won without fear or ambition wrecking the Republic. Evolution, revolution. it is happening seemingly outside of the establishment's control.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)This is the problem as you summarized so eloquently. We are on a precipice, delayed from the election thefts and compromised voting systems over the last 15+ years; also the shenanigans that got Regan elected (ie. October Surprise). So real evolution has been stymied, but it will not be denied. The problem is we are coming to a reckoning, like the ‘30’s. Will we get a FDR or will we get a Hitler? The Dems have made the obvious FDR near impossible to ascend. So we have Hillary as the likley alternative to the R's offering.
She will not be able to do business as usual because too much instability is present. So what can she do? To keep on pushing the corporate and oligarchic agenda may well doom the Democratic Party and perhaps this country as a Democracy. She could tack much more left, and I feel it might be in her to do so, given her roots and the right pressure and circumstances, but I do not know. I think she is a decent person. An anecdote: she babysat a friend of mine on occasion when he was young. She was very good, engaged, caring with them, as he related to me. He had good memories from that experience. This knowledge, and when she got into politics (back in the 70’s) when the party was different; the witch hunt she endured in the 90's by "the vast right wing conspiracy"; these are things that give me hope about her as a person. Still, she is a product of the current system, so it's hard to say how she will be, and as much as any one person may want to be a certain way, they are surrounded by the coils of the current system. It takes a lot of commitment, focus and will to break through, like Bernie has been able to do.
This is assuming she has the nom, and wins the presidency. Nothing is for certain these days!
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)in the world might not escape the money box that really cemented the drive to power, the type of power and its maintenance. No one really surmounts their worst failings by the entitlement of being president. Disappointment in this regard cannot be prepared for enough. The reality will suck mightily. Even if certain manners or "increments" would be enough to carry on with the good will of people they either will not happen or be counterbalanced by savage attacks on democracy, law and life. Such has been the nature of the continuous strengthening of presidential power and national policy more and more as paid for not voted for. I could care less about the wonderful character or potential or inner rebel that can turn things around against "the system". They are writing this fatuous script for Trump of all people! Even if you start out a rebel the chances are good that becoming the president you are becoming the system. Too much power. You free to get worse. You are shut down when you try better.
As for corruption the touch of money or power(their is something the same about both of course) is like an acid bath for the moral soul. You are gilded like a golden god and out of touch pretty much with the rest of the universe, the human World taking on its own false definition. Even a little bit of either can bring dismaying changes in the character of decent, friendly people. A common mode for the unexamined morally weak person is to hold onto money and power as a sociopath. And many morally weak people are considered "great" using the completely stupid benchmarks of a self entitled elitist upper crust. Human interests disappear into non existent and certainly underfunded fantasies and fig leafs.
None of us humans are immune. Few see poverty as a blessing. We all fawn over heroes that barely do their duty but do it in a friendly impressive fashion. And we all do immensely destructive and stupid things, waste time and resources as if we think our permanent rooms are already booked in the earthly paradise. Stupidity is only the misapplication of intelligence and action, the weighing of emotion as superior both to the real experience which precedes or the critical thoughts that follow(but often don't).
All candidates are showing either by wise warning or unwitting example that we are screwed.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)that not so lesser of two evils is falling on deaf ears because we now know all too well that voting such, voting out of fear has gotten us ZIP.
We need an FDR and Bernie is the one.
The Clintons need to take their money and be gone. That all their questionably begotten wealth is not enough for them tells you all need to know. They need power, power and more power. And it sure ain't to help everyday Americans. Just look at the 2-for-1 Clinton legacy of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the Crime and Welfare Deform bills, and the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act which overturned FDR's Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Then look what HRC did in the Senate and as SoS: aye on IWR, the Bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Acts I & II; devastating regime change in Honduras, Libya, Syria; arms deals with the Saudis that benefitted the Clinton Slush Fund (aka Foundation), worldwide fracking promotion, and the private server to avert scrutiny of all!
As Bill said of Bush-Quayle in 1992: It's time for them to go
In 2016, let's tell Bill and Hill: It's time for them to go
CarrieLynne
(497 posts)Only way to unite the party....we Bernie supporters...our concerns are real and must be addressed...
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)SANDERS: ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT supporting legislation to lift the cap on taxable income and expand Social Security for 58 years and increase benefits...
CLINTON: I am...
SANDERS: -- YES OR NO!
wallyworld2
(375 posts)from your link
BLITZER: Secretary, let's talk about Social Security, another critically important issue. Senator Sanders has challenged you to give a clear answer when it comes to extending the life of Social Security and expanding benefits. Are you prepared to lift the cap on taxable income, which currently stands at $118,500? Yes or no, would you lift the cap?
CLINTON: I have said repeatedly, Wolf, I am going to make the wealthy pay into Social Security to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. That is one way. If that is the way that we pursue, I will follow that. (as you can see, she did not say yes and why would Senator Sanders ask her this question if he wasn't proposing it himself?)
...SANDERS: Now, we've got -- here is the issue. Your answer has been the same year after year. In fact, the idea that I'm bringing forth, I have to admit it, you know, it wasn't my idea. It was Barack Obama's idea in 2008, the exact same idea.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: He called for lifting the cap, which is now higher -- it's at 118 -- and starting at 250 and going on up. If you do that, you're going to extend the life of Social Security for 58 years. You will significantly expand benefits by 1,300 bucks a year for seniors and disabled vets under $16,000 a year.
....SANDERS: -- campaign of challenging, if I hear you correctly, Madam Secretary, you are now coming out finally in favor of lifting the cap on taxable income...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: -- and extending and expanding Social Security. If that is the case, welcome on board. I'm glad you're here.
See you can now calm down and be reassured that Senator Sanders is in favor of lifting the cap and has been in favor of it for years
He isn't the ogre the M$M and hill supporters are making him out to be
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)she had a chance to fully explain that she supports BOTH raising the lid and EXTENDING the tax to non-salary income, and will sign any bill using one or both of those approaches, that Congress will pass.
Bernie knew FULL WELL that she has a two-pronged approach, because she has explained it MANY times, but he wanted to cut her off before she could go through it again.
Her plan -- to raise the lid and also consider extending it to non-salary investment income -- is just as progressive as his. He just wants to pretend that his is the only acceptable plan.
And he clearly savored the chance to interrupt her after he asked "Are you are are you not" and she answered "I am" --and to thunder his "YES OR NO" at her.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)He should never compromise his principles and lifetime consistency in support of them by standing with HER. She's anything but consistent and her growing unfavorable ratings are because she is such a liar. Aiding and abetting her only serves to undermine and destroy him and show that in the end, they're all sellouts. Better to stand for SOMETHING and lose!
Besides, Bernie needs to stay in the Senate IF she is the nominee, because that is where he will be needed.
Rafale
(291 posts)Despite all the drama the Dem Party will likely survive, but I hope it does not if the party continues to be captured and controlled by neo-conservatives, multinational banks & hedge funds (some of you call Wall Street), and foreign interests/money from places like China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Israel, et al. It's a fraud to support candidates with those interests. It's bull@#$% to support fraudster Liberals and aver that you believe in Liberal values. Don't care how much I would love to have a woman President as women are the better half of our species, there's no way I'm able to stomach more BS (bank fraud de facto legalized, warmongering, small business wrecked, corporate welfare, and healthcare system run amok, while Congress enacts a full-on kleptocracy) at this age. Enjoy your super PAC candidates Clinton and Trump. Want no part of the farce.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)spanzini
(17 posts)Wow, his use of obscenities is so rad and cutting edge.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Martin Eden
(12,871 posts)We all need to wake up to how many real people will be really hurt if the reality show fascist becomes president. Yes, I know, people will be hurt under a Clinton presidency as well, but Trump is orders of magnitude more dangerous.
As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton and despise what the corporate Third Way DLC'ers have done to the Democratic Party, if my state of Illinois has the slightest chance of turning red I will hold my nose and vote for HRC if she is the nominee.
In any event, I will go to the polls to vote D in all the down ticket races, as I certainly hope all my fellow Bernie supporters will do regardless of who heads the ticket.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)The wealthy and privileged Democrats and Republicans will bail when it looks like they may lose what they have.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)" He'd like to think that, well, shit, the rules sometimes suck, but so be it. And instead work to change the rules for the future. "
Clinton and the DNC did an admirable job changing the rules in her favor.
But now they have to live with it.
I don't expect this to happen:
In a Kumbaya moment, he continued, "As Democrats, one of the things we have to figure out is how to respect the rage of the hardcore Clinton voters...We who support Obama cannot take this rage for granted. Surely, Obama has his work cut out for him in reaching out to Clinton supporters, when he secures the majority of the delegates. When that moment comes, though, it's incumbent upon us, the Obama supporters in Left Blogsylvania, to offer comfort to Clinton's most rabid acolytes and give them another place to call home."
Clinton and her supporters have made clear that this will not happen.
Apparently we are to reach out to her campaign not the other way around.
Response to villager (Original post)
Post removed
Skink
(10,122 posts)They definitely didn't rally around O'Mally.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The battle between Sanders and Clinton is far, far from "stupid." It's a fight to settle the question of whether the Democratic Party will move forward with the People to build a better America, or continue to take the path of least resistance and sell our future to the highest bidder.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)IMO
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)All he can see is the Republican menace, and his fear blinds him to the Democratic menace.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)captainarizona
(363 posts)it is for the soul of the democratic party. (yes it actually has one!)
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)The DNC has shown no wisdom in this cycle.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)
roody
(10,849 posts)does not take it to the convention.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Well, after a decade it was bound to happen.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)Aka Rude Pundit.
Done fighting i hope she picks Sanders
As VP.
We need to focus on the orangutan..
Our main focus
Everything else is secondary
Everything.
nolabear
(41,987 posts)I cried with joy when he was elected, with relief when he was re-elected, and have stood by him. As I would Bernie. We have one real power, and it is vital. We can keep that fascist nightmare out of office and try to work for change, fast, slow or in between. To give it up would be my definition of a sin.
Perseus
(4,341 posts)This time I also agree with the fact that no matter which candidate in the Democratic party wins, they must have 100% of our support, the alternative is horrific.
Now, my disagreement has to do with the fact that the DNC has created this controversial situation, they have rigged the process to help their preferred candidate, and that is wrong, the impotence from the electorate to do anything about it and to see that those who can do not do anything to correct the problem creates anger, and that anger is what is creating this division. I disagree about 99% with anything Joe Scarborough says, but he is correct, it is the DNC and DWS who has created this division, and the results could be the horror story that a Trump presidency could bring.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)(using the totals just for her and Bernie, not including O'Malley etc.)
In what way is that 'rigged' in her favour? It's remarkably proportional for an election across several areas, and she's not got quite as many delegates from it as a strictly proportional allocation would give.
To beat her in pledged delegates, Bernie has to win 67.5% of the ones remaining. He won his home state by well above that, and some caucuses, and the 'Democrats Abroad' primary just, but not primaries in general. It looks extremely likely that Hillary is the more popular candidate, unless a radical change happens.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
RP doesn't realize he's become part of the old politics--that the Dems' conservative moves aren't sops to the GOP in order to prevent some worse fate (if only we shortsighted and abstention-happy libs could understand), their massive losses aren't caused by lefty dissatisfaction, and it's Clinton, not opposition to her, that's weakening her against Trump (presumably RP thinks they can pump her up enough between August and November)
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)He drove out Bush, Rubio, Cruz, and I am not going to waste any time thinking that Trump is going to be the Republican candidate.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)when all you've got is fear, you've already lost
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Sanders can't.
All she has to do is decide that ending it is more important to her than her personal ambitions and withdraw from the race.
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)I remember that happening was the shocking LBJ withdrawal from the race. Shocking in that his bum ticker was not all that well known among the population, also that he accepted he was probably road kill between Nixon and the anti-war liberals. For most candidates it always has been about personal ambitions and grudging reality. The main way out seems to be to understand Sanders' movement appeal and finding a way to absorb it. Since Sanders is not about ambition; this is the way the water flows.
As far as giving advice to Clinton and others in like fixed traps of their own enthusiastic design you have to be a prophet and expect to be treated accordingly.
