Nader and Sanders

Sanders beats Trump, and Sanders and Nader are not the same thing.

For the record I was never big on Nader btw. And said so in these forums.

1. Supreme Court nominations, Clinton benefits from the Citizens United ruling daily,she will not change a thing there and Roe vs Wade is not in danger so yes the exact same on nominations.
2.Clinton’s record on climate change is abysmal, she’s sold fracking around the world supported Keystone XL among her largest campaign donor bundlers are fossil fuel lobbyists.
3. Her gay marriage stance is whatever brings more votes not a good issue for her at all.
4. Guns I am with Bernie on this issue , Clinton has taken lots of cash from the gun lobby and rewarded gun manufacturers with many huge contracts.
5. Voting rights ? are you serious ? http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/hillary-america-steal-bernies-voter-database/2016/04/23
6. I think climate change and the environment are the same issue and she has been absolutely horrible on this issue.
7. Her claim to fame on the Iran deal are sanctions that starve children as they did in Iraq. If you listened to her speech at AIPAC and managed to avoid vomiting you know exactly the direction her foreign policy is headed.
8. Healthcare? she is so far in bed with the insurance companies and big Pharma, there is zero evidence she would be better than Trump on this issue.
9.Food stamps ? The Clinton’s first with AR and later in the WH with both welfare “reform” and sanctions in the Middle East created more starving children than any President in this nations history.
10. And she is under investigation by the FBI. Kindly explain how she’s ever allowed a security clearance again ?

The Democratic establishment party is a sham.

It doesn’t represent the working class anymore. They make very little pretense about that too–since they’ve been exposed. It’s more of an attitude of: this is how the world works children–what can we do? Or..YOU are too radical for this country–too far to the left.

I don’t know what will happen 2016 A.S. (After Sanders)but I truly hope the movement that he started can stay active in the face of this frustration. It is a movement that needs more apathetic voters involved(people who either have never cared about the process or have given up on it). If that happens there can be some serious changes. If it doesn’t it will continue to be marginalized and frustrated by the political machine in Washington.

The standard of living for the poor and middle class will continue to decline.

The gap between rich and poor will continue to widen.

And the wider it gets, the less that class will care.

wv wrote:

I don’t think i can vote for another Clinton.
Can’t do it. I hear what yer say’in, but I’m done
with the lesser-of-2-evils voting.

It’ll be Jill Stein, for me. And I’ll sleep
just fine if a Rep gets elected.

Bernie has done way better than i expected, btw.
I mean his policies are exactly the same as Naders.
So why did so many more support Bernie? I’ve been
wondering a lot about this.

w
v

I think as more people see how the machine works–as people watch their standard of living decline, they are searching more for answers and solutions and the usual stuff offered by the establishment just doesn’t sell as well anymore.

The internet helps with this–finding other sources beyond MSM is important. Peering outside the propaganda machine has opened some eyes.

But there is a long long way to go. And the wealthy owners of this society are always evolving to more tactics and finding ways around obstacles to get what they want.

waterfield wrote:

Well I pretty much disagree with every thing you wrote-and I have no inclination to debate the issue point by point. So I give you that. However, following both her and her husband throughout their careers it is my belief that these issues have a far better chance of moving forward in a progressive manner with her than the lockstep republican naysayers based solely on ideology. IMO Sanders and Trump are from the same cloth-bluster w/o any sort of road map.

And for the life of my I truly do not understand one saying they can sleep well at night with either Trump or Cruz as president. Oh well-I’m done here-I do not do well in never-never land.

I don’t know what Clinton supporters are thinking of when you say she will move forward in a progressive manner. You mean she may support letting transgender people go pee in a public restroom?

She is a neo-con in foreign policy. She supported the assassination of Qadaffi, creating yet another vacuum for ISIS to fill, and she wants to keep spending trillions on dropping bombs all over the Middle East – which we have a good 13 years of recent evidence of proving does not result in anything good. And that is all money taken away from Universal Health Care which she says in unrealistic even though plenty of countries much poorer than ours can afford it.

This entire primary season has proven that she is all about consolidating her power, not about the principle of democracy. There is no reason to believe she will work to reform our decidedly undemocratic democracy which disenfranchises voters (even when it is working properly which it isn’t), or lift a finger to roll back the influence of big money in politics.

I could go on. I mean…name one issue she is progressive on.

And the argument that Sanders is all bluster without a plan is plan old crap. The man has a long, accomplished record of getting things done. A better record than Hillary.

Finally, the condescending attitude of Clinton to Sanders supporters – echoed in your classification of us as being children in “never-never land,” just goes to show how completely out of touch with Main Street she and her supporters within the establishment are.

I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. It is not acceptable to me to be limited by that choice any longer. For 36 years we have been told to be patient, and our turn will come. It’s obviously not going to come until the Democrat establishment is blown the hell up, and people take over the party, and insist on progressive policies.

As horrendous as the possibility of 4 Trump years is, the prospect of 8 years of Hillary is potentially worse for progressives because she won’t do anything, and the natural pendulum swing in the White House suggests Hillary’s successor will be a Republican. A vote for Hillary is a vote to punt with only a minute left in the game, and no timeouts left.

The seas are rising, the bombs keep falling, we have a worse child mortality rate than CUBA, and the corporations are not going to stop trying to strangle net neutrality precisely because the free net allowed Sanders to make as much headway as he did. Without a neutral net, the game will be over.

Hillary will have to pardon herself to not be president in federal prison.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Hillary will have to pardon herself to not be president in federal prison.

Well, if they are going to indict her, I hope it’s sooner than later. Like in the next couple of weeks. And I hope they DO indict her because we are past the two minute warning on the environment, wealth disparity, and democracy.

There’s slam dunk evidence against her and it is all Gov. 101 stuff.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Hillary will have to pardon herself to not be president in federal prison.

Well, if they are going to indict her, I hope it’s sooner than later. Like in the next couple of weeks. And I hope they DO indict her because we are past the two minute warning on the environment, wealth disparity, and democracy.

There’s slam dunk evidence against her and it is all Gov. 101 stuff.

I’ll just wait for the FBI, if you don’t mind. There are people who believe Benghazi and Vince Foster etc were all slam dunk crimes, too.

I don’t mind. The email stuff is slam dunk. You can’t conduct government business on a private server. You can’t send classified materials in an unsecured manner. You can’t instruct someone to cut off a classification header and then send it whether by secure or unsecured means. That is three slam dunks and I know I’m missing some others. Like I said this is Gov. 101 stuff.

Zooey wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Well I pretty much disagree with every thing you wrote-and I have no inclination to debate the issue point by point. So I give you that. However, following both her and her husband throughout their careers it is my belief that these issues have a far better chance of moving forward in a progressive manner with her than the lockstep republican naysayers based solely on ideology. IMO Sanders and Trump are from the same cloth-bluster w/o any sort of road map.

And for the life of my I truly do not understand one saying they can sleep well at night with either Trump or Cruz as president. Oh well-I’m done here-I do not do well in never-never land.

I don’t know what Clinton supporters are thinking of when you say she will move forward in a progressive manner. You mean she may support letting transgender people go pee in a public restroom?

She is a neo-con in foreign policy. She supported the assassination of Qadaffi, creating yet another vacuum for ISIS to fill, and she wants to keep spending trillions on dropping bombs all over the Middle East – which we have a good 13 years of recent evidence of proving does not result in anything good. And that is all money taken away from Universal Health Care which she says in unrealistic even though plenty of countries much poorer than ours can afford it.

This entire primary season has proven that she is all about consolidating her power, not about the principle of democracy. There is no reason to believe she will work to reform our decidedly undemocratic democracy which disenfranchises voters (even when it is working properly which it isn’t), or lift a finger to roll back the influence of big money in politics.

I could go on. I mean…name one issue she is progressive on.

And the argument that Sanders is all bluster without a plan is plan old crap. The man has a long, accomplished record of getting things done. A better record than Hillary.

Finally, the condescending attitude of Clinton to Sanders supporters – echoed in your classification of us as being children in “never-never land,” just goes to show how completely out of touch with Main Street she and her supporters within the establishment are.

I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. It is not acceptable to me to be limited by that choice any longer. For 36 years we have been told to be patient, and our turn will come. It’s obviously not going to come until the Democrat establishment is blown the hell up, and people take over the party, and insist on progressive policies.

As horrendous as the possibility of 4 Trump years is, the prospect of 8 years of Hillary is potentially worse for progressives because she won’t do anything, and the natural pendulum swing in the White House suggests Hillary’s successor will be a Republican. A vote for Hillary is a vote to punt with only a minute left in the game, and no timeouts left.

The seas are rising, the bombs keep falling, we have a worse child mortality rate than CUBA, and the corporations are not going to stop trying to strangle net neutrality precisely because the free net allowed Sanders to make as much headway as he did. Without a neutral net, the game will be over.

That’s a fantastic reply.

I don’t understand Clinton supporters. Why are they so in love with the status quo? Why do they accept all this money in politics with a wink and a nod? I just don’t get them at all.

This is an incredibly tough choice for me–and honestly–not 100 percent sure what I’ll do. If I vote for Clinton in the GE I just become another enabler of the whole thing. I can’t tell you how sick I am of that. My only motivation is fear of a Trump Presidency. I probably won’t know for certain which way I’ll go until I step in the voting booth in November. I won’t feel good either way when I come out.

PA Ram wrote:

That’s a fantastic reply.

I don’t understand Clinton supporters. Why are they so in love with the status quo? Why do they accept all this money in politics with a wink and a nod? I just don’t get them at all.

This is an incredibly tough choice for me–and honestly–not 100 percent sure what I’ll do. If I vote for Clinton in the GE I just become another enabler of the whole thing. I can’t tell you how sick I am of that. My only motivation is fear of a Trump Presidency. I probably won’t know for certain which way I’ll go until I step in the voting booth in November. I won’t feel good either way when I come out.

Clinton supporters tend to be older, and affluent. Like Waterfield. Affluent people are more likely to think the system basically works – and why wouldn’t they? They worked hard, and got rewarded – and have a conscience. They understand the system disenfranchises people, and they don’t feel good about that. But they conclude that the solution is to just tilt things a little bit this way and that, and things will get better. That’s who they are. They don’t see the systemic problems, and don’t really want to. Things are pretty good, and a few fundraisers for blankets and food are the right thing to do.

So…maybe there is too much corporate money around…but it all amounts to the same thing anyway because corporate people are people, not monsters, and they have to make a profit, but they are basically also help all boats to rise. Sure, occasionally there are renegades, but the system corrects for that.

That is your Clinton supporter.

I share your conflict. I cannot possibly pull the lever for Trump, either. Cannot do that. The guy is a racist, a chauvinist, a narcissist, and has little grasp of facts. He is rash. He is impetuous. He has no understanding of diplomacy.

I dunno. I can’t vote for either candidate, and there is no other choice.

I was watching Bill Maher last night–they had on Thomas Frank, author of a great book called, “Listen, Liberal”. He also wrote “What’s The Matter With Kansas” which was about the Republican Party. “Listen Liberal” is about the Democratic one–the story they tell, who they pretend to be and who they really represent. Anyway–it was amazing to watch. Thomas Frank tried to explain how the Democratic party has let the working class voters down–how the DLC basically abandoned labor for the “professional” class and how it is really a party for the best and the brightest and not so much the average working Joe. The book goes into great detail on this but the point about last night is how quickly Bill Maher and Rob Reiner(two famous liberals) were cutting him off if he strayed from the narrative they wanted to push.

Basically it was–hey–Clinton is still the good guy but what about Trump? Let’s talk about him.

At one point Rob Reiner screamed about how we have to be ready for the new jobs in a green economy because the old jobs aren’t coming back–nothing we could do about that. Had to have NAFTA, etc.

Frank tried to correct him but they wouldn’t let him speak. He tried to explain that NAFTA was not handed down by God. It was written and that his years of research show that these deals can be written to destroy any class. They did not have to be written the way they were. In fact NAFTA does have protections for the professional class. It doesn’t have to–but it does have them.

Many wealthy liberals have their own story about all of this and they don’t want to let that go. They feel comfortable with it. yes–by all means attack the Republicans–but not their own Democratic party–that’s out of bounds.

Sad to watch.

http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

Here is a better review than I could have written:

“Betrayals of the highest order
By David Wineberg TOP 1000 REVIEWER on March 15, 2016
Format: Hardcover
There is one (horrifying) theme in Listen Liberal. It is that the Democratic Party has betrayed its natural constituency of labor, and is constantly trying (and succeeding) to outrun Republicans by doing more damage to the social structure than Republicans profess, thus stealing their thunder. “It has become Democratic thinking that the common people are at last being treated as they deserve to be.” They do it with “professionals”. Frank has filled this entire book with evidence of this one point.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats ain’t what it used to be, according to Frank. The Democrats have decided to put all their eggs in one basket: professionals. They staff their offices with them, just like the Republicans use only lawyers from the Federalist Society. Their backers are Wall Streeters, because the Democrats are at least as generous to Wall Street as the Republicans when in power. For the wealthy, it’s a win-win. Doesn’t matter who gets in. So while Republicans consider their base the uneducated, bootstrap entrepreneurs who create jobs, the Democrats consider their base the highly educated, networked professionals who create jobs. Two sides of the same coin. And neither one can be bothered with the rest of the population except when vote-gathering. Then, for a brief period, it’s all about inequality and jobs.

Frank focuses on the last two Democratic presidents, Clinton and Obama, and the upcoming contender – Hillary Clinton. He autopsies their administrations (and Hillary’s part in them) and finds them all the same – mouthing platitudes to gain votes from the electorate, then reverting to type and removing any and all support for them so they can to deliver on promises made to the rich. It was Bill Clinton who dismantled welfare and Glass-Steagle, not either Bush.

I particularly appreciated Frank’s discussion of glass ceilings – in terms of floors. While the Hillary Clintons of the world rail about glass ceilings, it was her Democrat husband president who removed the floor for mothers on welfare, creating extreme poverty where once there was a safety net. While Hillary grandly supports microloans for women (which do not work, other than to create more debtors and richer bankers), when in power, it’s all about supporting the rich at the expense of the poor. Garden variety hypocrisy, but coming from a Democrat, and about Democrats, it’s supposedly shocking.

Frank is overwhelmed by the Democrats’ adoption of professionals. Democrats think professionals can solve any problem, and every position is filled with one. Every event showcases them. Doesn’t matter that they have no real world experience; the fact they are professionals means they are highly educated creatives. That’s all that matters in a Democratic government. So to be disappointed in the Obama Administration is to show yourself as not being a professional.

It wasn’t always so. Frank shows that FDR’s Democratic cabinet had poorly educated secretaries who had street smarts, real life experience, and ideals. They could propose innovative programs that addressed real problems. And if they didn’t work, they had another idea waiting. His VP Harry Truman never went to college. Truman couldn’t even get an interview today. The Democrats’ solution to every problem is go back to school, preferably Harvard, Yale or Stanford, and every door will open for you. All you laborers – you’re fooling yourselves. Get an education and become professionals, because America doesn’t need or want anyone else.

Listen Liberal is a damning, upsetting polemic from a passionate, experienced insider. You might think it would make excellent fodder for a Republican. But it is actually a sad reflection of what has become of the country and its politics. Two sides of the same coin is not healthy. Someone needs to represent the 99%.”

I didn’t realize mind reading was a thing…

Carry on…

Cal wrote:

And IF you can say the electorate in NY 40 years ago was mainly white like Washington now, then can’t you say what has largely changed the democratic party is the black voice?

This should be helpful.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/