Captain Sanders: Civil War

:wtf::wtf::wtf:The Bern is just getting started!!!:wtf::wtf::wtf:

Of all the cringeworthy insta-narratives framed by horse-race journalists during the presidential campaign, the Bernie-Sanders-needs-to-fall-in-line meme easily takes the top spot.


This predictable, singular focus on electoral politics confirmed pundits and politicians still live in BBR—Before Bernie's Revolution-when a plurality of voters' predominant concern was the upcoming election.

Of course, voters and activists wanted Sanders to win the White House, but that goal never surpassed their burning desire for real change rather than political platitudes presidential candidates have long used to tantalize Americans. This, after all, is one of Sanders' historic campaign's major legacies.

And there's one man who's known this since April 29th, 2015: Bernie Sanders. Unlike most presidential candidates, when the wily Vermont Senator announced his presidential bid, he never thought in the microscopic terms of White House or bust.

Up against the entire national, state, and local Democratic establishment, Sanders knew toppling the Clinton machine would be a Herculean accomplishment that might not be reached.

Now he's ready for the real campaign—one that has nothing to do with becoming president.

In an online town hall two weeks ago and a subsequent rally in New York City June 23, Sanders spoke indignantly about the current political moment having to be about more than defeating Donald Trump, vowing to keep fighting for the progressive policies he's championed—as well as for state and local candidates who'll do the same.

Whether the Democrats adopt an uber-progressive convention platform or not, if anyone thinks Sanders' truly expects Hillary Clinton or the party to honor such a document, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Look no further than the 2012 Democratic platform, which said, "We believe we must take immediate action to curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests on our political institutions."

Here's the immediate action Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic Party took: continuing to bankroll themselves by Wall Street donors and special interest donors and reversing the eight-year ban on donations from lobbyists and Super Pacs to the DNC.

Platform power indeed!

"At an energetic 74, who can't envision Sanders traveling across the country to speak out loud and proud against whatever regressive 'bipartisan compromise' Clinton and Republicans have reached in front of crowds packed by the thousands."
Sanders isn't angling for his progressive policies to show up in the platform because he thinks a potential President Clinton will start aggressively trying to deliver on them on day one of her presidency.

No, this is about paving the road for the return of Senator Bernie Sanders, a much more influential—and potentially threatening—force who'll serve as a quasi-check and balance once Clinton shifts from the "progressive who gets things done" back to her natural neoliberal, neocon self.

Sure, Senator Sanders will initially strike the right note with a potential President Clinton, saying all the right things in Oval Office meetings about working together and imparting his wisdom from three decades in Congress.

But the moment Clinton starts her inevitable "pivot" to moderate governance—also known as lying about what you believe when you're a candidate—Sanders will engage in some familiar behavior that sprung him onto the national scene in the first place.

Get ready for the inevitable Sanders filibuster (circa 2010's Bush-tax cut extension barn burner) the moment President Clinton signals openness to "tweaking"—aka cutting—Social Security.

Or when President Clinton sends 1000 "special advisers"—aka as ground troops—to Syria or Iran.

Or when President Clinton appoints another corporate-friendly Supreme Court Justice with no concern over Citizens United.

Only this time, he'll have at his disposal millions of the troops he's inspired during the campaign at the ready; available to do everything from storm Capitol Hill in protest to apply pressure on the neoliberal Democratic establishment members representing them around the country.

Sanders won't stop at filibustering. He's the first politician to realize campaigning doesn't have to stop when an electoral campaign does.

At an energetic 74, who can't envision Sanders traveling across the country to speak out loud and proud against whatever regressive "bipartisan compromise" Clinton and Republicans have reached in front of crowds packed by the thousands.

And for a media void of the never-ending political news a presidential election provides, TV and digital outlets won't be able to ignore Sanders' ongoing movement if thousands, potentially millions, join him in person—and on social media.

The fate of the 2016 campaign is far from being known. A lot can happen from now until November that could stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president; hell, maybe even Donald Trump as well.

But, judging by his actions since the Democratic Primary officially ended, one thing is certain.

Bernie Sanders is just getting started.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/28/bernie-sanders-real-campaign-is-just-getting-started-commentary.html
 
:wtf::wtf::wtf:The Bern is just getting started!!!:wtf::wtf::wtf:

Of all the cringeworthy insta-narratives framed by horse-race journalists during the presidential campaign, the Bernie-Sanders-needs-to-fall-in-line meme easily takes the top spot.


This predictable, singular focus on electoral politics confirmed pundits and politicians still live in BBR—Before Bernie's Revolution-when a plurality of voters' predominant concern was the upcoming election.

Of course, voters and activists wanted Sanders to win the White House, but that goal never surpassed their burning desire for real change rather than political platitudes presidential candidates have long used to tantalize Americans. This, after all, is one of Sanders' historic campaign's major legacies.

And there's one man who's known this since April 29th, 2015: Bernie Sanders. Unlike most presidential candidates, when the wily Vermont Senator announced his presidential bid, he never thought in the microscopic terms of White House or bust.

Up against the entire national, state, and local Democratic establishment, Sanders knew toppling the Clinton machine would be a Herculean accomplishment that might not be reached.

Now he's ready for the real campaign—one that has nothing to do with becoming president.

In an online town hall two weeks ago and a subsequent rally in New York City June 23, Sanders spoke indignantly about the current political moment having to be about more than defeating Donald Trump, vowing to keep fighting for the progressive policies he's championed—as well as for state and local candidates who'll do the same.

Whether the Democrats adopt an uber-progressive convention platform or not, if anyone thinks Sanders' truly expects Hillary Clinton or the party to honor such a document, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Look no further than the 2012 Democratic platform, which said, "We believe we must take immediate action to curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests on our political institutions."

Here's the immediate action Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic Party took: continuing to bankroll themselves by Wall Street donors and special interest donors and reversing the eight-year ban on donations from lobbyists and Super Pacs to the DNC.

Platform power indeed!

"At an energetic 74, who can't envision Sanders traveling across the country to speak out loud and proud against whatever regressive 'bipartisan compromise' Clinton and Republicans have reached in front of crowds packed by the thousands."
Sanders isn't angling for his progressive policies to show up in the platform because he thinks a potential President Clinton will start aggressively trying to deliver on them on day one of her presidency.

No, this is about paving the road for the return of Senator Bernie Sanders, a much more influential—and potentially threatening—force who'll serve as a quasi-check and balance once Clinton shifts from the "progressive who gets things done" back to her natural neoliberal, neocon self.

Sure, Senator Sanders will initially strike the right note with a potential President Clinton, saying all the right things in Oval Office meetings about working together and imparting his wisdom from three decades in Congress.

But the moment Clinton starts her inevitable "pivot" to moderate governance—also known as lying about what you believe when you're a candidate—Sanders will engage in some familiar behavior that sprung him onto the national scene in the first place.

Get ready for the inevitable Sanders filibuster (circa 2010's Bush-tax cut extension barn burner) the moment President Clinton signals openness to "tweaking"—aka cutting—Social Security.

Or when President Clinton sends 1000 "special advisers"—aka as ground troops—to Syria or Iran.

Or when President Clinton appoints another corporate-friendly Supreme Court Justice with no concern over Citizens United.

Only this time, he'll have at his disposal millions of the troops he's inspired during the campaign at the ready; available to do everything from storm Capitol Hill in protest to apply pressure on the neoliberal Democratic establishment members representing them around the country.

Sanders won't stop at filibustering. He's the first politician to realize campaigning doesn't have to stop when an electoral campaign does.

At an energetic 74, who can't envision Sanders traveling across the country to speak out loud and proud against whatever regressive "bipartisan compromise" Clinton and Republicans have reached in front of crowds packed by the thousands.

And for a media void of the never-ending political news a presidential election provides, TV and digital outlets won't be able to ignore Sanders' ongoing movement if thousands, potentially millions, join him in person—and on social media.

The fate of the 2016 campaign is far from being known. A lot can happen from now until November that could stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president; hell, maybe even Donald Trump as well.

But, judging by his actions since the Democratic Primary officially ended, one thing is certain.

Bernie Sanders is just getting started.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/28/bernie-sanders-real-campaign-is-just-getting-started-commentary.html

Go Bernie!!!
 
Clinton and the establishment would love us to believe in false unity - that unity is just about beating Trump. So hey Bernie supporters, come and join the fight, right? "I stand with her".

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Trump is a distraction from the change that the Bern supporters want. If Trump wins, it might even further the debate that establishment politics and the current democratic party narrative is broken. Elizabeth Warren has taken this track of false unity, and I don't blame her - she probably sees that as more practical than the total revolution, not microscopic change, that the Bern is seeking. To say that EW is more progressive than the Bern is delusional and manipulative. Bernie wants outright revolution.

If Trump wins, maybe then these people will wake up that people are tired of being lied to and manipulated and made promises to that cannot be kept, repeatedly. Imo, the worst thing that can happen is Hilary wins, and the same old continues. That to me is even a worse result than Trump wins.

I am assuming she can meet the Bern somewhere for non-trivial change within the DNC. But who knows, maybe she is so entangled with these people there is no way out.
 
Last edited:
There is a 30 million vote swing possible.

  • Bern supporters stay home or vote Libertarian: That is -15M for Clinton 0 for Trump. She might be able to withstand that disaster.
  • Bern supporters vote for Clinton: That is +15M for Clinton 0 for Trump. Clinton wins.
  • Bern supporters vote for Trump: That is a monster swing of THIRTY MILLION VOTES for Trump! No way she survives this catastrophe.
 
It's an election, not a debate competition. All issues are not equal. If Hillary is elected, we will get four more years of open borders, amnesty and muslim invasion. She could well appoint three Supreme Court justices, with devastating effect on future generations. Those are reasons enough, but if you need more, she is promising a continuation of the disastrous Obama/Clinton foreign policy that has destabilized much of the middle east and created ISIS and the refugee problem.

Trump's tax proposals have to get through congress. The chances of any real change to the status quo doing that is small.
The number of deportations is way up since Obama took office, as is border enforcement. Your arguments can't be considered credible if they don't comport with facts.

Any fault with current U.S., Middle East foreign policy can be traced back to at least the end of WW II and arguably well before that. From one administration to the next the differences are largely matters of tactics rather than strategies. The Obama administration's foreign policy has been, for the most part, a continuation of U.S. foreign policy for the previous half-century, at least. For many years now our Middle East policy has been intimately tied to corporate defense industry interests and the Saudi-American hegemony in Middle Eastern Oil Fields. With regard to the latter, the fundamentals are changing, and it is only natural that changes in strategy will follow.

There is much to constructively criticize, but I am not seeing in your posts those issues where you might have facts on your side . Only since Kerry took over the State Department have we seen significant change in what might be considered strategy. I believe Kerry will go down in History as one of our most influential Statesman.

Truman Capote's final novel, the unfinished "Answered Prayers," is, among other things, about how one should be careful about what one wishes for, because ill considered prayers have a way of turning out badly. I'd think it unwise to wish for the Donald's success in November.
 
Bern supporters vote for Trump: That is a monster swing of THIRTY MILLION VOTES for Trump! No way she survives this catastrophe.
Why would they do this, though? Polling indicates they hate Drumpf more than the dems who support Clinton. So it's much more likely they'll stay home, or come out in droves to vote for Clinton.
 
The number of deportations is way up since Obama took office, as is border enforcement. Your arguments can't be considered credible if they don't comport with facts.

Do you seriously believe this? Obama just lost a Supreme Court case over refusing to deport illegals. Did you forget the tens of thousands of bogus refugees from Latin America he admitted then dispersed around the country, knowing that many were infected with diseases such as TB?

http://www.infowars.com/border-patr...-released-into-country-disease-or-no-disease/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/28/seven-refugees-active-tb-sent-idaho/
 
"Deportations under Obama plummet during second term

For the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. who otherwise stay out of trouble, the chances of being deported are less than 1 percent, according to new figures released by the Department of Homeland Security.

The new figures show a dramatic four-year decline in the number of deportations carried out by the Obama administration, from more than 409,000 in 2012 to just 235,000 in fiscal 2015.

The numbers represent the fewest deportations since 2006."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/24/deportations-under-obama-plummet-during-second-term.html


Obama made a big show of deporting people during his first term, but after the 2012 elections were safely past, he reversed course and basically opened the country's borders to a vast invasion of illegals and bogus refugees. Deportations effectively ceased.
 
The Obama administration's foreign policy has been, for the most part, a continuation of U.S. foreign policy for the previous half-century, at least.


Wrong again.

Obama/Clinton encouraged and supported the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, a US ally and partner in peace with Israel for over 30 years. In his place they welcomed the installation of a radical muslim brotherhood regime, and rushed aid and advanced weapons to them despite their threats to Israel. Of course, ti is well known that Clinton's top aid Huma Abedin is the daughter of longtime muslim brotherhood fanatics.

Obama/Clinton then did their best to stop a military uprising in Egypt that ultimately got rid of the radical muslim regime.

Fresh from destabilizing Egypt, Obama/Clinton turned to Libya, where they used bogus justification to intervene militarily on behalf of islamist radicals trying to seize the government. We are still dealing with the aftermaths, including Benghazi and the rise of ISIS.

Obama/Clinton reversed 40 years of US policy and agreed to a one-sided deal with Iran that put them on a clear path to nuclear weapons and additionally provided them with $150 odd billion dollars.

Interestingly, part of this money will be going to Boeing for a fleet of planes, ostensibly for Iran's national airline but also useful for ferrying troops or terrorists around.

It turns out that one of the leading figures supporting the Iran deal, former top diplomat Thomas Pickering, was on Boeing's payroll while he wrote articles and testified to congress in support of the deal, a fact he apparently did not deem relevant enough to disclose. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-on-boeings-payroll-but-didnt-disclose-it.php

In another twist, this is the same Pickering who chaired the State Department review committee that was set up to whitewash the Benghazi scandal and clear Hillary of any wrongdoing.

Of course, Clinton represented another major change in US foreign policy by basically auctioning it off. Former Secretaries of State were invariably well-respected senior figures, big thinkers like Henry Kissinger come to mind. Hillary by contrast used her position to advance the finances of her family slush fund, slurping up huge donations from odious foreign regimes and shady businessmen alike.
 
Why would they do this, though? Polling indicates they hate Drumpf more than the dems who support Clinton. So it's much more likely they'll stay home, or come out in droves to vote for Clinton.
I think the odds of it happening are slight. But anger will build if the Bern is frustrated with Clinton back-peddling so never say never.
 
Back
Top