I will not vote for Bernie Sanders

She was a Republican during that time.

Bernie Sanders himself is quite impressed with Elizabeth Warren. You will see him endorse her before this primary is over.

Immaterial to the fact that she was a Republican through most of her life, she’s a “capitalist to [her] bones”, she applauded trump when he criticized M4A, and she’s an opportunistic liar.

I won’t vote for her.

Better vote Bern.

Excerpt from ghionjournal:

Frankly, there are too many reasons to be suspicious of Warren’s intent. Not to sound like a paranoiac accusing her of being a Manchurian candidate, but we don’t really know what’s credible in her agenda. What she calls “plans” are, in actuality, just blog posts and white papers. She’s currently addressing a number of issues for which she has no history of advocacy, including maternal mortality and prison reform. Despite her carefully managed reputation as an economic progressive intent on challenging monopoly, for some reason Warren didn’t co-sponsor Sanders bill to direct the Federal Reserve Board to break up financial institutions. She also didn’t join any of his three attempts to raise the estate tax. If her intent to challenge monopoly and wealth inequality were genuine, why didn’t she do that? Or, at the very least, write and promote her own legislation? Her inaction calls into question her progressive commitments.

In Closing
Considering Warren fully, including her seeming contradictions, places her mission in a specific context. She supported the neoliberal policies and deregulation used in the effort by both parties to deconstruct the remaining pieces of the New Deal. Indeed, she only became a Democrat after the party had adopted those neoliberal policies in Bill Clinton’s first term. The current economic environment, featuring Gilded Age levels of wealth disparity, is the result of policies and frameworks that she advocated for. Additionally, her suggestions for addressing these negative effects start and end with markets. In a sense, she’s offering a sort of trickle-down economic populism as a slight variation on the elite-favoring Reagan-era trickle down economics she promoted earlier in her career.

Really? Do you think they would try that exact same trick again? I.e. using Sanders to corral all the farther-left voters into giving their votes to the female 'glass-ceiling breaker' in order to make history with a 'first woman president?'

What really amazes me is that people are satisfied with the idea of artificially achieving such historical firsts. Doesn't it sort of ruin it if you strategically manipulate such firsts instead of them emerging organically from an electoral 'free market?'

It's like bribing your kid's way through college and then celebrating having a first-generation college graduate.

Overcoming racism, sexism, and other biases among voters is a good thing, but manipulating them to channel votes to certain candidates is bad politics, imo.

It would be better, imo, to educate the public how sexist bias, bias against Warren as someone who claimed minority identity based on ancestry, etc. how those biases distract voters from whatever leadership qualities she might have instead of using Sanders to rally votes for himself, and then redirecting those votes to her.

Of course if Democrats are really team players who support each other in leadership positions regardless of who ultimately serves in the actual leadership position, great; but then why bother so much with the identity of the leader?

It's like they are sending a mixed message: 1) be humble enough to support others in leadership positions and 2) it's good for minority candidates to be leaders instead of humbling themselves to support others in leadership positions.

Don't these two perspectives on leadership contradict each other? Is it right to teach some children to aspire to leadership because they are historically under-represented, while teaching others to humble themselves to support others, because they are historically over-represented? Doesn't this just reproduce/perpetuate differential treatment of historical majorities v. minorities?

Even worse, doesn't it seduce minorities into greater vulnerability by subjecting them to greater personal scrutiny and judgment, while non-minority 'supporters' get to just do their work and avoid the burden of public scrutiny?

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat. He flip flops so he can earn a spot on the platform though. But that's not gong to stop me from voting for him if he is the party's nominee.

I predict that by the end of April it will be Biden versus Warren. You are going to have to make a choice, not I.

Sanders has already fallen in the polls. We will see in the next few weeks if this trend continues.

What are the odds that Warren will eventually defer and channel her votes to Biden instead of vice-versa?

I don't see the Democratic party orchestrating a situation where a female candidate defers to a (white) male candidate. Do you?

It's interesting that they are so mired in identity politics that they may never be able to transcend them, even if such politics become increasingly distasteful to voters of various identities.

Sure. Kamala Harris.

According to several polls, Bernie’s walking away with the whole thing.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/2020-primary-polls-is-sanders-or-warren-in-second-place.html

Excerpt:

Bernie Sanders is in a virtual tie for first place in Iowa and California, leads the pack in Nevada, boasts a nearly double-digit advantage over his rivals in New Hampshire, and lays claim to second place in South Carolina.

Unless he has actually plummeted to fourth place in the Hawkeye State, trails Biden by 15 points in Nevada, and can’t even keep pace with Warren in New Hampshire — which is arguably, for Bernie, the “win here or die” state.
—————————————

You have msm polls, trying to snuff out Bernie’s candidacy— and then, you have facts on the ground. He’s being mobbed by blacks, whites, boomers, and millennials in every state. I’m watching.

She doesn’t need to defer. Stick a fork in her.

You have the right to vote for whomever you choose for whatever reason you choose.

As do I.

I only believe one of the candidates. That’s the only one I’ll vote for.

I assume you mean Sanders? Warren and Biden represent opposite sides of this contest.

Warren would only defer to Sanders if Sanders took off in the polls. The opposite is happening. I don't think that anything is being orchestrated this time.

That's like stomping the floor and holding your breath if you don't get your way. It's childish and irresponsible if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. Again.

Biden is shriveling, but the DNC has tricks up its sleeve. They have Colbert whitewashing Biden, paid groups of people standing around him while he sputters and lies his way through racist stories. No one holds that old doddering racist/sexist buffoon accountable for any of his horseshit.

This smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader fascism to me. It’s a puppet show. Who’s pulling the strings.

Thank you Lash. You are demonstrating what I talk about in my OP.

This is why I will not support Sanders.

I’m not going to be lured into manufactured consent. I don’t consent.

I demand healthcare as a human right. I demand immediate action against climate change. I demand an end to false imprisonments and private for profit plantation prisons.

I will not lend anything to the status quo.

Stop murdering innocent people with your vote.

Stop murdering innocent people with your vote.

One would someone who professes to love irony so much not to keep inadvertently posting irony of epic proportions.

You and Lash are two sides of the same coin, a couple of prima donnas more concerned with making a rather childish point than voting Trump out of office.

You voted for Dubya after the illegal invasion of Iraq, your vote murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents.

And, I stopped murdering people with my vote.