Bernie's In

But not Trump!

Sanders appeals to those Americans, who love the "New York"style.However, many Americans ( consider Boston) do not like that specific type of style.

I think the timing is the problem.

Work on developing a third/fourth party between election cycles. Bring on difference and choice. I think it would do the US good to have more legitimate political choices. I also think the two big parties should not accept independents as candidates - make them go out and run as independents, and develop their own good (young) candidates base.

I think there is a legitimate concern (from the liberal, Democratic, progressive side) that the Supreme Court could be lost for some time if there is too big a schism between fans of Bernie and the Democratic party. I think that the Supreme Court loss is potentially more dangerous than loss of the Presidency.

I think it is naive to discount that danger with an ''oh, it'll be fine'' attitude that I see from hard-core fans of Bernie. I don't think they're looking at the bigger picture.

No, but I do have one for you:

So do I. And I would like to see Elizabeth Warren as VP.

What's the difference, voting in Hillary. She helps, by degrees, to solidify oligarchy if she is in. The Republicans do it in a session. Hillary finesses it so many don't notice. The Republicans outrage a bunch of people right away.

I would say that ANY Republican, even Donald Trump...would easily trounce Bernie Sanders.

I hate saying that, because it says something I consider disgusting about my country, but that, in my opinion, is the way things are.

MY GUESS: The Republican Party would rejoice at being able to face Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton next November.

I've read things from Bernie Sanders to Teapublican friends without letting them know who's words they are. And most of them agree with most of it.

Most people I talk to who say they support Trump - when you get them alone with a beer or bourbon or a bomber most will admit they're probably not voting for him once they get in the voting booth.

Either there will the most write in votes of any other election.

I've considered your issues, but I don't think you've considered mine. Both of our views are representative of a lot of Dems and the Indies who vote with them when they consider breaking away from the larger party and casting around for a new way.

My overriding concern is that this country is no longer operating as it was designed. Voting is almost a joke. Oligarchs have found a way to control the laws in this country to increase their wealth and screw the average person in this country. The average American is a serf being manipulated by the ultra wealthy and the crooked politicians who have sold us out. Even though this sounds crazy, and you may be de-sensitized to it because you've heard it a lot during this campaign season - it is true. It's absolutely true. Think about it being true in the country you live. You're a pawn whose life is formatted by those who want the wealth of your country, so your healthcare, law enforcement, infrastructure, cable access quality and cost, reasons for incarceration etc are moved around on a Monopoly board with the goal of accruing more wealth - for them.

Your timing comment is sort of jarring. Tell the kids in Tiannenmen Square about their timing. Revolution is an organic thing. Most revolutions begin with an inciting incident, some event that mobilizes a lot of people behind the same idea, an idea that is already boiling inside each of them.

With Egypt, it was the murder of Khaled Saeed. Something happens. The reason that this revolution must happen now is Bernie Sanders' entry into the race. Had it been Elizabeth Warren, the same thing might possibly be happening - depending on whether or not she were to have been brave enough to speak the raw truth Bernie is speaking.

Bernie is an insider, or better - a witness, who has the courage to say what we've suspected for decades is true. When I say insider, I mean he has spent 20 or so years, walking the halls of Congress seeing and hearing first hand what people like me have suspected but had no proof of for a long time. He's seen the deals, heard the lies, and rejected being a part of the graft that runs the USA. They laughed at him. Clinton was thrilled she had a laughable old Jewish curmudgeon to pretend to run against, so she could deny a coronation... Her billionaire financiers and the media establishment that propagandizes for them have fought him openly. It is undeniable. I feel like I'm at war in my own country for my rights as written in its founding documents.

So, Bernie's candidacy is a clarion call to all of us. LOL, it's a dog whistle to all of us to arm up and come with everything we have because this is the last chance we have to take our country back from those who would run it in the ground for their own profit. For us, it is now or never.

This is our best chance to make big changes lawfully. I hope this is the way the changes will be made.

I don't want to lose. But my biggest loss won't be to a gaggle of idiot Republicans. THAT is the little picture. I feel that YOU don't see the big picture.

I don't want idiots to pack the court with more idiots. But I tell you, a losing Bernie candidacy will not be the end of the push to change the status quo. You want to see how many Baby Boomers and their Millennial grandkids and kids it takes to force change, keep watching. Will you submit to arcane laws about abortion? C'Mon. I can't be the only person here with warm blood.

I think the timing will always be the problem, it's only in elections where any of this will be measured or matter.



That is already done, the dilemma is when it comes to the elections. If you vote for them it has the problems we outlines.



I can sympathize with this but this is never not going to be the case. Whenever a third party breaks in into the mainstream it will come at the cost of harm to the party most similar to it.

This is just an unavoidable part of the way this first-past-the-post system works.



Maybe they are, and know that it will NOT be fine, but prefer to try to change the system. The system will never change without those kinds of people but yes for the most part those kinds of people are going to be wasting their votes and hurting their political interests in the meantime.

I agree with this, but revolutionary change is only achieved by the irrational people who don't care and go for the moonshot.



Most of the time this is true, every now and then it is not. That's why the people who change the world are typically being "naive" or "delusional" to try.



Sure, I get it. But you also get that all revolutionary progress depends on unreasonable men who see an "impossible" challenge and are not daunted by it right?

Society needs both types of people, even if the dreamers are going to fail the overwhelming majority of the time.

So we depend on "naive" (or unreasonable) people to change this. All progress depends on the unreasonable.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Yes it's absolutely true that people voting third party in this system are acting in a way that can be described as "irrational", "unreasonable" or "naive". They are dreamers who are hoping for a result that is incredibly unlikely.

But mankind's progress depends on having people do this and fail but every now and then succeed.



You don't need to convince me, I'm not going to bother voting because of how pointless it is (I'd be registered in TX or CA unless I decide to be tricky and a vote in these places is completely useless given the winner-take-all electoral college crap) and I'd certainly not waste my time voting for a third party in an even more pointless gesture.

I'm acting reasonably, but that is also why I'll not be the guy who ever helps change this system. Those people are being "naive", yes, if you want to think of it that way. But so were the first people who decided they wanted to fly, or to go to the moon etc. At the time they attempted this they were very likely to be wasting their time on something incredibly unlikely to succeed.

These dreamers (of which I am typically one) ARE naive, they ARE irrational. And they happen also to be the people who occasionally change the world.

You are saying it here better than I am so I'd like to quote you and leave it at that.

A couple of questions. Are you recommending that if under a conservative regime the SCOTUS guts women's health care rights, that women just ignore the laws and get their care on the black market? If not, what was the "warm blood" comment about? If so, do you also recommend we
ignore changes in voting rights, gutting of general healthcare, increased police oppression?

Also, do you see yourself as a revolutionary similar in some way to the 1989 student protesters in Tiananmen
square? That reference seems a bit of an overreach.

I was just a few posts ago telling Frank to acknowledge that no one knows the true consequences of a Dem defeat in 2016; and certainly no one has foreknowledge that would give them the right to be cocksure. I was appealing to everyone for less pugilism and more collaboration. Especially in light of the fact that everyone on the Dem side is ultimately arguing for the greater good of the (sane) American future.

But, I have to tell you, after reading that last post of yours to ehBeth, I almost feel like you are beyond that kind of appeal. Does it phase you at all that Bernie HIMSELF advocates for support of whoever the Dem candidate
turns out to be? Is Bernie not committed enough to the cause?

You can be sure that people will fight rollbacks on rights such as the ones you mention. I foresee insurmountable civil disobedience.


I knew this would be cited as you have. I understand your opinion.


I respect Bernie's statements on this point. I'd say the same if I were him. I couldn't bear the personal responsibility of leading others to revolt. Each person needs to make that choice for herself.

As he and many others have said, this is much bigger than Bernie Sanders.

I lied. While showering I thought of something that would make voting third party rational within our systems:

1) most of our votes are symbolic and due to the voting system are disposable except in swing states
2) a symbolic vote for a third party in a non-swing state can serve as a rational voting act within this current system, it would not change any outcome but would send a small symbolic message of displeasure with the two main parties.

Ok, now I think I'm back to being Forrest Gump and that being all I have to say about that.

My guess is his chances in the general election are about as good as Hillary's. She's got baggage and an unlikable personality going against her. He's got the "#socialist" tag and being Jewish.

Bernie Sanders can easily beat Trump. The Donald is a paper tiger.

I'm sorry, but every time I've heard Bernie make reference to this movement being bigger than Bernie Sanders, it was in answer to someone asking about how he would implement his agenda in the face of tremendous opposition. He talks about it will take hard work at the grassroots to try to take back Congress. He's not talking about some kind of nebulous resistance guerrillas. Your passion is laudable but you're hinting at chaos as if it's a plan.

If you think the chances of Hillary Clinton carrying the election are no better than the chances of Bernie Sanders carrying it...

...you are kidding yourself, Olivier.

It is not even close.

No self-identified socialist can win the presidency in this country.

I am not happy with that...I am disappointed in my fellow citizens about that.

It's like, "No self-identified atheist can win the presidency in this country."

That causes me chagrin...but it is so.

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton, despite the hatred some people have for her...CAN WIN THIS THING./b]

Is occasional change enough? We need to agitate to change our election system to allow for a meaningfull third party challenge.

For example: a candidate needs 51% to win. Run offs required for the top two winners if no one gets 51%.

An option of 'non of the above' will be on all ballots. If non of the above takes 51%, another election is held.

Something has to change to make third party runs viable and meaningful.