Fordfairlanestl (1121 posts)September 9, 2017 at 4:20 am
Bernie Sanders Finally Comments On DNC Fraud Lawsuit
Is the party really changing?Stockholmer, tokenlib, mrdmk and 1 other7wo7rees like thisThere is no one like Bernie Sanders. NO ONE!!! The cause is right!! The time is NOW!!! Note: I ONLY vote for grass root progressive politicians that support: "Single Payer", "Tuition Free College", "15 bucks an hour". That is all.....
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
2 months ago #9
2 months ago #10
2 months ago #11
Ferd Berfel (5256 posts) (Reply to original post) September 9, 2017 at 5:24 am
1. Very disappointing response from Bernie
Bernie completely dodged the question.
JD hits the correct points, one is, does Bernie expect us to give money to the party AGAIN ? Not happening.
Bernie still dosent appear to accept that the Democratic party is dead to many of us. They arent going to let him run again as a dem.
If Bernie thinks hes going to build up our revolution only to swing it to the establishment dems down the road, hes making a mistake.
Very disappointing response.…and you think you’re going to stop this simply by ‘pulling a lever’, in a booth, behind a curtain, every 2 years? - Know yourself. And if you need help with that, call the FBI. - There is only ONE solution to this mess: New Party !
Fordfairlanestl (1121 posts) (Reply to Ferd Berfel - post #1) September 9, 2017 at 6:50 am
2. I was disappointed too
But the truth is the truth. And I cannot figure out for the life of me as to why he refuses to answer this simple question. I’ve been waiting for an answer for almost 2 years. I keep thinking its strategic. The question is WHY?There is no one like Bernie Sanders. NO ONE!!! The cause is right!! The time is NOW!!! Note: I ONLY vote for grass root progressive politicians that support: "Single Payer", "Tuition Free College", "15 bucks an hour". That is all.....
Ferd Berfel (5256 posts) (Reply to Fordfairlanestl - post #2) September 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
Thats what i keep thinking too!
So……why? Whats the plan?
He has to know he cant run as a Dem again, they wont allow it. So…..?…and you think you’re going to stop this simply by ‘pulling a lever’, in a booth, behind a curtain, every 2 years? - Know yourself. And if you need help with that, call the FBI. - There is only ONE solution to this mess: New Party !
SurrealAmerican (972 posts) (Reply to Ferd Berfel - post #3) September 9, 2017 at 8:00 am
4. He still needs the Democrats.
It’s not about running for President again. It’s about passing progressive legislation.
Right now, they need him more than he needs them, but he still can’t do this alone – or with a brand new party.
Benny (50 posts) (Reply to Ferd Berfel - post #1) September 9, 2017 at 8:51 pm
7. I've Not Given to the Party In Years
Only candidates via their e-mails or websites. The DNP only represents the billionaires and corporate interests. Until candidates follow Bernie’s model of accepting $2700 or less, the Dem Party is going to continue to lose elections, and won’t get a damned dime from me.
Ferd Berfel (5256 posts) (Reply to Benny - post #7) September 10, 2017 at 6:04 am
9. Like the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globe Trotters
The new DNC is supposed to lose and they will continue to. As we discovered with Obama, the Democrats do not want to govern and will find excuses not to if placed in to that position.
RealityCheck (966 posts) (Reply to Ferd Berfel - post #1) September 11, 2017 at 5:46 pm
13. DNC enabler
It’s becoming more and more apparent, that this is what Bernie has become even after the damn DNC stole victory from his campaign.
NJOCK (592 posts) (Reply to original post) September 9, 2017 at 3:32 pm
5. For all of the good things about Bernie
his answer is so frustrating. The look on JD’s face about why he won’t do third party is how millions feel too.
I have never seen a politician with the power Bernie holds to start a third party and he has some kind of mental roadblock.
He wants the change we all want and could end this corrupt two party hold on America but….. fuck it. I am getting myself aggravated and you all know what I’m gonna say anyway.“The first revolution is when you change your mind about how you look at things, and see there might be another way to look at it that you have not been shown. What you see later on is the results of that, but that revolution, that change that takes place will not be televised.” -Gil Scott-Heron
JimLane (1471 posts) (Reply to original post) September 9, 2017 at 8:06 pm
6. Bernie's strategic judgment is clear — and, IMO, correct.
I’ll just repost what I posted in the other thread about this clip.
Beginning around 7:13, Jimmy asks, “Why does Bernie stay inside the two-party system?” The question is then discussed, though not with any great insight.
Bernie answered the question before he even decided to run. In 2014 he gave a very informative interview to The Nation, in which he said he was thinking about running. Not surprisingly, he was asked whether he would run as an independent. He answered:
That’s an excellent question, and I haven’t reached a conclusion on that yet. Clearly, there are things to be said on both sides of that important question. Number one: there is today more and more alienation from the Republican and Democratic parties than we have seen in the modern history of this country. In fact, most people now consider themselves to be “independent,” whatever that may mean. And the number of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans is at a historically low point. In that sense, running outside the two-party system can be a positive politically.
On the other hand, given the nature of the political system, given the nature of media in America, it would be much more difficult to get adequate coverage from the mainstream media running outside of the two-party system. It would certainly be very hard if not impossible to get into debates. It would require building an entire political infrastructure outside of the two-party system: to get on the ballot, to do all the things that would be required for a serious campaign.
The interviewer followed up by asking him about his discomfort with the Democratic Party. Bernie answered:
Yes. It goes without saying. Since I’ve been in Congress, I have been a member of the Democratic caucus as an independent. [Senate majority leader] Harry Reid, especially, has been extremely kind to me and has treated me with enormous respect. I am now chairman of the Veterans Committee. But there is no question that the Democratic Party in general remains far too dependent on big-money interests, that it is not fighting vigorously for working-class families, and that there are some members of the Democratic Party whose views are not terribly different from some of the Republicans. That’s absolutely the case. But the dilemma is that, if you run outside of the Democratic Party, then what you’re doing—and you have to think hard about this—you’re not just running a race for president, you’re really running to build an entire political movement. In doing that, you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected—the [Ralph] Nader dilemma.
The interviewer was apparently surprised that Bernie would even consider running as a Democrat. Bernie explained:
I want to hear what progressives have to say about that. The more radical approach would be to run as an independent, and essentially when you’re doing that you’re not just running for president of the United States, you’re running to build a new political movement in America—which presumably would lead to other candidates running outside of the Democratic Party, essentially starting a third party. That idea has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward—without much success. And I say that as the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. In Vermont, I think we have had more success than in any other state in the country in terms of progressive third-party politics. During my tenure as mayor of Burlington, I defeated Democrats and Republicans and helped start a third-party movement. Today there is a statewide progressive party which now has three people in the state Senate, out of 30, and a number of representatives in the state Legislature. But that process has taken 30 years. So it is not easy.
Bernie also returned to the Nader theme, pointing out that Nader had hoped to create a strong third party, but that it had not happened. This fact supported Bernie’s conclusion that it’s not easy.
Jimmy Dore says in the clip that he’s more radical than Bernie. I think one reason is that Bernie knows a lot more than he does about third-party politics. Bernie has his own experience of 30 years in a very small state (one where personal contacts count for more and there are no hugely expensive media markets), plus his knowledge of the Nader campaigns and others. What I read from his answers, and from his subsequent decision to run for the Democratic nomination, is that, in Vermont, it took 30 years for a new party to have even some success, but that duplicating that result on the national scale wouldn’t work and would only help the Republicans.
Agree with him or disagree with him, but the man has earned the right to have his judgments considered.
Fordfairlanestl (1121 posts) (Reply to JimLane - post #6) September 10, 2017 at 5:07 am
8. Awesome analysis
Thank you so much for your input. And running inside the democratic party has a set of issues all on it’s own. We saw it in 2016. What scares me is that nothing is being done to correct the corruption. Which means it will happen again.
Stockholmer (2307 posts) (Reply to JimLane - post #6) September 10, 2017 at 11:38 am
10. "the Ralph Nader dilemma" I cannot believe he is spewing that utterly debunked
DEBUNKING THE MYTH: Ralph Nader didn’t cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000
Stop blaming Ralph Nader for Al Gore’s loss in 2000
The Ralph Nader Myth
No, Ralph Nader Did Not Hand the 2000 Presidential Election to George W. Bush
Don’t Fall for It: The Nader Myth and Your 2016 Vote
Who stole Election 2000? (Hint: Not Nader)
I am really starting to lose faith in Bernie. He is becoming more of a sheepdog as time rolls by.
JimLane (1471 posts) (Reply to Stockholmer - post #10) September 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm
11. I cannot believe we're going to have this argument yet again.
An event can have more than one cause.
You got that? An event can have more than one cause.
Florida illegally purged 50,000 likely Democratic voters from the rolls. The ensuing lawsuit got the purge reversed, but of course not in time to help Gore. If that purge had not occurred, Gore would have become President. Of course, all progressives condemn the purge. You never hear “300,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush” offered in defense of Katherine Harris. Everyone understands that her conduct is to be condemned. The 300,000 and all the other tired old arguments are dragged out only in defense of St. Ralph.
BTW, speaking of tired old arguments, I am not repeat not saying that Nader did not have a right to run. He had a right to run in the general, he had a right to run in the Democratic primaries, and he had the right not to run at all.
Bernie can’t control things like 300,000 Democrats and the Supreme Court and the Republicans’ voter purge and the rest of it. He controls his own choices, just as Nader controlled his. From that point of view, here’s the lesson Bernie (along with every unbiased person) draws from 2000: Nader chose to run in the general election, and Bush became President. If Nader had chosen to run in the Democratic primaries, or not to run at all, then Gore would have become President.
By the way, another thing I’m not saying is that, if Nader hadn’t run, all those voters would have voted for Gore. They would not have. But the preponderance of Gore voters over Bush voters would certainly have been enough to give Gore a cheatproof majority in Florida.
Of course, that Nader’s decision would have this effect couldn’t be known with certainty in advance. It was certainly seen as a real danger, though. When it actually happened, many voters on the left realized the error of their ways. From 2000 to 2004, Nader lost about three-fourths of his support, including even his 2000 running mate, Winona LaDuke. (She endorsed Kerry.)
Bernie has drawn the same conclusion from the 2000 results. He concluded, in 2014, that for him to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2016 would increase the chance that a Republican would become President. He didn’t want that to happen. He undertook what he knew would be a very uphill fight against the Democratic Party establishment because he also knew that a Republican victory would be a national disaster.
Stockholmer (2307 posts) (Reply to JimLane - post #11) September 11, 2017 at 12:18 am
12. Nader did NOT cause Gore to lose, there is zero way to spin it
Nader bashing is simply excuse making for yet another Clinton fuckup. In this case Bill’s sabotage of Al via his cock, which, whilst not a crime, kicked off the actual criminal activity of trying to obstruct justice and also the lying. It’s a Clinton thing.