Sander's message on violence

Hillary can`t be bothered to make an appeal to her supporters for calm but she had plenty of time have a video conference today with her wall street backers.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Had he not been shafted by team Hillikileaks, we could very well have been calling him President-elect Bernie Sanders today - in my opinion, he would have beaten Trump in both EC and popular vote.

I disagree.

I think Bernie would have seen a better turnout than Hillary. However, his inability to address the violence coming from his supporters, his talk of democratic socialism, his pandering to BLM and the social justice agenda, and his empty idealist promises like free college for all, would have ultimately yielded a defeat by Trump.

It would have been close, though.

Yes, normal americans would never go for that drivel.

Neither would the house and senate.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The question should be raised: Why all of a sudden are you so vocal about your opinion now Bernie? Why only after the election is over?

I supported Sanders until he dropped/sold out. And I'm of the opinion that he pulled, for lack of better term, a bitch move by endorsing Hillary. After that, how can anyone give his input merit?

I was Green party until Sanders announced his run as a dem.

I pushed for Sanders since he announced he was going to run, and kept posting pro sanders until he lost the primary. After that ctr got rather thick and I went for Jill Stein, as I see both hilley and trump to be establishment politicians that will represent corporations, not the peoples needs.

I had many problems with what happened at the DNC convention, but sanders did what he said he would. I suspect there were provisions in his contract with the DNC that stipulate no third party run, and campaigning for the nominee.

Now I think some of those hilley dems, need to take time and think about where we are and realize it is because of their lying, cheating, sick, weak candidate and her chums at the DNC.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

As much as I wasn't a fan of Bernie's, he did get the royal screw.

Now maybe he wouldn't have gone as far without the DNC but I was surprised he rolled over for her, tho.

He really did have a chance to eat her in the primaries on the emails and finding out they were against him.

originally posted by: Nikola014
I think the important question is, where's Hillary Clinton, to settle her paid supporters?

For the scenes that we're seeing in America right now, the only ones responsible for them are the mainstream media. They will pay for it, sooner or later

EXACTLY!!! But how? How do we make them pay for what they've done? How do we cause them to stop and realize we've been awake for the past couple months, we've been calling them on their bull# for the past couple months, and we've been doing our own research and are disgusted by their complete lack of MORAL STRENGTH and their inability to do what they are called to do which is to "Inform the electorate" The Dems got rid of Bernie, then they paid folks to incite Violence at Trump Rallies, knowing that he'd see it way too late to stop it, then they pointed a hypocritical finger at him and blamed him for the violence, the same tactics are in use today! With of course, the mainstream media outlets fanning the flames of racism, hate and violence

Crap! I just flagged a BS thread! The logic on the left resides with Berne Sanders?

A reminder that this is NOT the Mud Pit.

Please keep the rhetoric and mudslinging in check as the T&C fully apply.

Any post removed as political trollery automatically counts as TWO warnings.

Consider this fair warning and as usual, do NOT reply to this post.

a reply to: onthedownlow

This post is as much about hilley and the fact she has not denounced the protests / riots and the fact that Sanders recently made a statement against violence.

I do have to say, from a liberal who did not vote for Clinton and has not been an Obama supporter, it is dismaying and disturbing to me that neither Clinton nor Obama have made public statements decrying the violence we're currently seeing.

Violent protest is morally hypocritical if you're a liberal. Violent protest harms any chance for constructive dialogue which is needed at this juncture more than ever before. Violent protest is not going to result in greater protections for those protesting or being advocated for by the protesters - it may indeed result in fewer. Violent protest does not encourage those who disagree with you to listen to you or indeed to care at all what you have to say. Violent protest harms not only others and property, but your own self interest. Violent protest also flies in the face of our ostensible national principles of peaceful disagreement, debate, and political discourse.

All of the above should be something any sitting president - regardless of party - should say out loud at a moment of national strife in my opinion. Yet President Obama has remained silent. And Secretary Clinton has to know her voice would be potentially instrumental at this juncture in dissuading such violence. Yet she too has remained silent, at least on this.

Instead, despite the fact that the lesson the left should be learning right now is that it has been blind and deaf to the real pain of working people in middle America and that its own policies have contributed to that pain and that that blindness is why they just lost the election, Clinton today in her first real public statement since her concession, is talking about how it was "the Comey letter" that hurt her chances. In my opinion that is the last thing she should be talking about right now, and the last thing those on the left should be taking up as a banner.

Both that, and those engaging in violent protest right now, constitute the left shooting itself in the face frankly. I know many of you might be thinking, "But you yourself are on the left. Why are you being so critical of the Democrats, Clinton, and these dynamics?" The answer is: not all liberals are Democrats, and some of us want to heal this (what I view as) insanity, not contribute to it. For whatever that's worth. Many on the right view progressives as their enemies. But try to understand: many of us you would paint with the progressive brush never supported the Clintons, NAFTA, Clintonomics, etc, disagreed strongly with how they detrimentally impacted workers in America, never saw Clinton or Obama's actions as "progressive," but in actuality corporatist in progressive clothes, and wanted to get big money out of politics just as many conservatives do.

It was that part of the left - which the Clintons and the rest of the DNC establishment saw as fringe and irrelevant and having no chance - that nearly nominated Bernie Sanders... and then (at least in part) stayed home or even switched on November 8.

I share many of the protesters' fears and concerns. But moral hypocrisy and failure to acknowledge our own shortsightedness are not sustainable in my opinion. This is a time to learn, to soul search, to change, and to build bridges. To talk to each other, not shout at each other. And that many on the left cannot or will not do so, is frustrating and disturbing in its implications for our future polity and unity as a nation, beyond description.

Peace.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Honestly, after that last wikileaks that showed their was some type of arrangement between the Devil herself and Bernie I can't think of him as anything else but a Fraud.

IMO , he made that arrangement with the Clintons folks before he ran . His job was to attract the young crowd and mimic a Ron Paul type revolution for the left. Then in the end, hand over his follower to the Devil for an easy win.

Luckily his movement was more important and sincere than him , and the people were smarter than to vote for her.

The problem was that he did it too well and he actually got a large following and a movement going. Enough so that it likely occurred to him that he could win this. Thats when the Clinton Campaign stepped in and reminded him of their arrangement.

Sadly its very likely the man was a fraud from the start.
It explains his BS from the start about nobody being interested in the email corruption scandal and how he didn't hammer her as much as he could have. Explains how he endorsed her despite being the perfect example of what is wrong in American politics which he preached against. Also explains why he endorsed her despite her and the DNC manipulating the DNC election against him.

I don't do Twitter or Facebook....BUT SOMEBODY REALLY NEEDS TO CONTACT SEAN HANNITY'S TWITTER ....TELL HIM TO CALL OUT HILLARY AND OBAMA ON AIR FOR NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY TO CALM HER VIOLENT PEOPLE.....He's the only one who'll do it

I always Wanted Ron Paul as your President because you could see he was an honest politician and cared about the people of the country.

I get the same feelings with Bernie and wished he got the nomination instead of Clinton, I believe he would have won.

Here's a great recent interview with him.

edit for T&C's...didn't notice the forum

Bernie is right.
I have followed Bernie for years. IMO I think what happened was this. Bernie did not belong to the Democratic Party, although he caucused with them. The only way he could realistically wage a campaign was to use the political power of the DP. (There is a structural reason third+ parties do not achieve at the federal level..... and not much elsewhere....and Bernie understands that.) He did not want to be a third+ party "vanity candidate". Campaigning through the DP gave his campaign gravitas.

Clinton had been vetted by the Republican Party opposition for decades. They let it loose on her. Go back to other times of GOP dirty tricks (and they're masters at it), such as Max Clelland's loss to Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, and the GOP's own John McCain in the GOP South Carolina primary. The GOP was blindsided by a Bernie primary run, but there is no way in hell that the GOP would not have dropped Clinton like a hot coal and attacked Sanders with dirty tricks if he had been the nominee (hell, the GOP eats its own!).

What Bernie tried to do when not nominated was to begin the difficult work of pushing the DP platform (which is what should be voted on, not the personality!) to adopt Progressive values. he succeeded in getting some in place. He wanted his supporters to begin the work to push back on the DP, to change it from within. He wanted them to vote for the Dem candidate, in order to give the Dems the power they would need to pass his Progressive agenda he got on their platform. And more push from his supporters in the 4 years of Dem power to move the party further left. But the Dems lost. And IMO they would have lost with Bernie; again, we did not witness the GOP dirty tricks and outcry that would have been done.

Bernie (and Warren) were correct to remain in the Senate to work in that branch for Progressive ideas. That is where legislative power resides. With a Dem win, they would have pushed in Congress for Progressive legislation. And now, their Congressional power has been diminished with a GOP sweep of all three branches. But, they will fight! And they need our support!!

Bernie is correct to disavow violence, but that does not mean "no opposition". There must be a fight against the rigged economic system, and against a political system so filled with money and billionaire influence, legal bribery, especially since Citizens United.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
Many on the right view progressives as their enemies. But try to understand: many of us you would paint with the progressive brush never supported the Clintons, NAFTA, Clintonomics, etc, disagreed strongly with how they detrimentally impacted workers in America, never saw Clinton or Obama's actions as "progressive," but in actuality corporatist in progressive clothes, and wanted to get big money out of politics just as many conservatives do.

It was that part of the left - which the Clintons and the rest of the DNC establishment saw as fringe and irrelevant and having no chance - that nearly nominated Bernie Sanders... and then (at least in part) stayed home or even switched on November 8.
...
Peace.

So true. Where the people used to be united to have their seat at the table, they began to be made to sit at different tables. And, as Liz Warren says, if you don't have a seat at the table then you're on the menu. The little people have been caught and served up as political food for the billionaires, the little people being used only for their vote to allow the oligarchy's pets to take their place at the table in Washington.

I have many differences of opinion with Bernie when it comes to issues. But so far as being genuine? No complaints whatsoever. I could sit across a table from Bernie and debate him. We probably wouldn't agree on most things, but we would probably (I hope) leave the debate respecting each other. The same debate situation with Obama or Clinton would likely not have that same outcome.

In the end, that's a large part of who I support in any race. Can I respect the person even if I disagree with them? My answer to Obama and Clinton is absolutely not. My answer to Trump and Bernie is probably so. That was why the issues weren't a major factor in this race: I never made it past the respect issue.

This all just reinforces my conclusions.

Trump has already made concessions on a few good provisions in Obamacare and a choice to not pursue present charges against Clinton.

Bernie has publicly denounced the violence and called for a peaceful transition.

Obama has said nothing.

Clinton is in hiding.

Good on you, Senator Sanders! You just reinforced my respect for you.

TheRedneck

I disagreed with a lot of his pie in the sky view points... but I never once felt he wanted to tear apart the country, He actually seemed to care, and this just re-enforces that.

If Sanders would have won and media would not have been in the DNC's pocket. Those smear accusations would have never happened.
It would have been a much more honest campaign and one about ideology. But like the past 50 years socialism would have lost as usual. Americans rejected socialism back in the 1960's so democrats tried to stuff the ballot with third world immigrants.
A vocal group of millenials does not speak for americans. Socialism always appeals to the young who have yet to acquire assets. America did not become a socialist hippy paradise in 1970 even though the media and biased history would tell you the counterculture was the mainstream culture then.
With either democrat candidate and their ideology, they were bound to bleed white blue collar union workers against trumps policies. I believe trump got 50% of the union vote in Ohio, unheard of for a republican.

i hope trump takes some advice from sanders. sanders is really the last sane person there