It's Not Over | Bernie Sanders

sassy wrote:He won't take donations from big business and he's as straight as a dye, first one ever, and he won't be told to shut up by the financial giants.

sassy wrote:Well, he's not corrupt, paid for by big business like Clinton.  He's his own man and sticks by what he believes in.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:Well, he's not corrupt, paid for by big business like Clinton.  He's his own man and sticks by what he believes in.

I agree.  And I like Bernie Sanders too.

I'm just wondering how he'll fare in the general election, against a showman like Trump---who you know will exploit all of his visual liabilities, like he did with Jeb.  

This is a really important election, because the next president will appoint the Supreme Court majority for decades to come.

The present Supreme Court is embarked on a mission to redesign democracy as we know it.  Citizens United...undoing the Voting Rights provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act...there's a lot going on.  We need the majority on that Court, and to get that Democrats need the next president.

Sanders makes me nervous.

sassy wrote:Hillary doesn't have a solid foundation with the women's vote, especially since women turned against her when she tried to use the 'feminist' vote.  Women have been flocking to Bernie.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Another obstacle Sanders has is actually getting the young people who support him to go to the polls. They're not very good about doing that.

sassy wrote:It's not feminism that is the liability, it's the way Clinton used it, she really pissed off a lot of feminists.

Unlike in her first shot at the presidency, Hillary Clinton has centered her second White House run on the allure of electing the nation’s first woman president. It’s a pitch she makes often, usually ending her speeches by conjuring an image of America in which "a father can tell his daughter, ‘Yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.’"

It’s an immensely popular line with Clinton’s most ardent supporters – Democratic women in their 40s or older.


But over the course of this campaign, it’s become clear that young women don’t find the pitch quite as compelling.


Clinton and her chief rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders, have both made a point of appealing to women on issues like reproductive rights or equal pay, and to young voters with their plans to eliminate student debt. But so far, Sanders’s sweeping calls for a "political revolution" have overshadowed Clinton’s more pragmatic get-things-done approach — and young voters, who still value idealism in their candidates, have flocked to his campaign in droves. In Iowa, 84 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 sided with Sanders, propelling the Vermont senator to a near tie.
That has created an awkward conundrum for Clinton: She has made inspiring women the core draw of her campaign, but many young women – the ones who would gain the most from the example of a woman president – are more sympathetic to the proclivities of their age than their gender.


This rift, between older and younger women, has only been compounded by Sanders’s good standing in the polls – which, in turn, sent several of Clinton’s most prominent female surrogates to plead for young women to change their minds.


The most recent rebuke came from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the first woman to be appointed to that role. She told young women at a campaign event this weekend, "Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other."

But the line that really enraged women supporting Sanders came from Gloria Steinem, the 1960s feminist icon. In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem said, "When you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’"


She quickly apologized for her remarks, calling them a mistake. But she couldn’t soothe the tensions she’d inflamed.


This growing divide – between older women who see defeating sexism as a top cause, and younger women who think electing a woman eventually is inevitable, and don’t feel a rush – is not totally new. We saw similar arguments reverberating during the 2008 campaign, when Barack Obama’s youth overcame Clinton’s experience.


Still, judging by the larger divides in polling and the vitriol that has colored the debate, this fissure, among a key constituency of the Democratic Party, is only growing. Addressing it may well force the party as a whole to choose which direction to set its course.

What the older generation of Clinton supporters don’t understand about Bernie Sanders’s female supporters

Simply put, young women supporting Sanders would say they prefer him to Clinton because they prefer his approach to politics.

These women, like the rest of their age cohort, are very liberal: They came of age during the recession, when their ability to find jobs seemed stymied by a capitalist system gone badly awry. It makes sense, then, why calls to break up Wall Street banks and have government ensure debt-free college resonate.

Sanders’s Democratic Socialism seems like a worthwhile antidote to a radically broken system, and these young people, many of whom were born after the fall of the Soviet Union, associate "socialism" more with prosperous Scandinavian countries than with autocrats who assassinated political opponents. That’s why they make up the only generation that approves of the "socialist" label more than the "capitalist" one.
All that is compounded by Sanders's outsider-esque, give-no-shits presentation that matches their own mood. They love that he shouts in anger and doesn’t care how his hair looks. Especially compared with a well-coiffed, scripted Clinton, they see Sanders as the only candidate who can really own his stances – in a word, he’s "authentic."

Sure, these young women think electing a woman to the nation’s highest office is important – but many also think it’s inevitable. Why pick Clinton if another, more progressive woman comes along in the future?

Some voters express discomfort about the scandals dogging the candidate – her emails, her vote to invade Iraq. Others say they’re concerned about Clinton’s involvement in her husband’s dismissal of at least one credible accusation of sexual assault.


"I don't think she's the woman to be representative of women," one young woman told NPR.

To that end, what really riled up these Sanders supporters is that despite all their substantive reasons to pick him over Clinton, older women are still chiding them for not supporting the woman in the race. They view it as antithetical to everything the women’s movement fought for.

Women in the 1960s and '70s fought for women’s equality because they felt they were unable to determine the course of their own lives. For these same activists to suggest that young women don’t have a choice seemed hypocritical. To suggest – as Gloria Steinem did – that they were basing political opinions around their crushes on boys sounded downright sexist, the exact sort of attack feminists fought to silence.

"Because of you, we will never let anyone define our limitations based on our sex," Salon’s Allison Glennon wrote in an open letter to feminists. "Because of you, we will be strong in the face of those who’d seek to judge us by our gender alone and not by our minds and our hearts."

What Clinton supporters don’t think young women understand about sexism and running for president

For women like Steinem and Albright, Clinton's tangible shot at the presidency is the moment the feminist movement has been working toward for half a century.

Though her ascendance to the nation’s highest office would not represent full gender equality – women make up only a fifth of the Senate and 14.2 percent of top executives at S&P 500 companies – feminists see the value of role models, and there could perhaps be no better role model than a woman at the country’s helm. On that point, research backs them up: Young women tend to set higher goals for themselves when they have more visible women leaders.

"Fifteen or 20 years ago, no one would even think about a woman being president," a woman supporting Clinton, whose daughter was a Sanders supporter, told the New York Times. "Certainly, when I was 20 years old in the 1970s, I don’t think I would even have thought about it."

Many women of this mindset sincerely do not believe that Sanders’s younger supporters recognize the pervasive sexism coloring the race. They point to gendered descriptions of Clinton – that she’s not "likable"
enough, too scripted, too willing to "play the game."

But women, they’d argue, don’t have room not to "play the game." Clinton cannot yell, à la Sanders; she does not have the luxury of not caring how her hair looks. She appears scripted because to go off script, even momentarily, would expose her to an avalanche of criticisms from which most men are blissfully immune. And if young Democrats want to change that gender dynamic, it doesn’t help that they are attacking Clinton in the meantime.

They also believe, for the same reasons, that Sanders can get away with proposing more radical ideas.

"FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE AND A GODDAMN PONY," wrote Pajiba’s Courtney Enlow in what she called an "all-caps explOsion of feelings." "YES, THAT SOUNDS FUCKING WONDERFUL BUT DO YOU THINK HILLARY COULD EVEN SAY THOSE WORDS WITHOUT FOX NEWS LITERALLY BURYING HER ALIVE IN TAMPONS AND CRUCIFIXES?"

A lot of these women like Sanders, too. They appreciate his message of economic inequality – they just don’t think Clinton’s vision is all that much different.

This also happened when Obama ran against Clinton in '08

Steinem, the star in this latest saga, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times eight years ago, nearly to the month. Titled, "Women are never front-runners," the piece argued that Obama would not have been elected with his thin résumé if he were a woman:

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.

Steinem was certainly not alone in sensing sexism – as the nominating contest stretched on for months, numerous outlets documented sexism among some Obama supporters.

"I’ve been really bothered by what I perceive as sexism [among some male Obama supporters] and have spent hours defending [Clinton]," one female Obama supporter told Salon at the time. "A lot of guys just can’t stand Hillary, and it’s the intensity of their irritation with her that disturbs me more than their devotion to Obama."

The critique sounds eerily similar to one made by Clinton supporters of Sanders supporters, whom some have pejoratively nicknamed "Bernie Bros." Clinton’s supporters accuse people not supporting their candidate of sexism, and that, in turn, causes people in the other camp to respond with heightened contempt.

And the divide this go-around appears to be growing even starker. In 2008, Clinton lost the same demographic, young voters in Iowa, by "only" 46 points. And Sanders, unlike Obama, is not himself youthful – quite the opposite.

So the fact that an even larger percentage swung for Bernie should serve as a wake-up call for party elites. The rift is real, and it’s growing.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955042/hillary-clinton-feminists

sassy wrote:You don't know?   You don't know about Madeline Albright saying there was a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, Hillary agreeing with it and using it to try and make other women vote for her, and Gloria Steinem implying that women who vote for Bernie do so because the boys are.

Unlike in her first shot at the presidency, Hillary Clinton has centered her second White House run on the allure of electing the nation’s first woman president. It’s a pitch she makes often, usually ending her speeches by conjuring an image of America in which "a father can tell his daughter, ‘Yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.’"

It’s an immensely popular line with Clinton’s most ardent supporters – Democratic women in their 40s or older.


But over the course of this campaign, it’s become clear that young women don’t find the pitch quite as compelling.


Clinton and her chief rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders, have both made a point of appealing to women on issues like reproductive rights or equal pay, and to young voters with their plans to eliminate student debt. But so far, Sanders’s sweeping calls for a "political revolution" have overshadowed Clinton’s more pragmatic get-things-done approach — and young voters, who still value idealism in their candidates, have flocked to his campaign in droves. In Iowa, 84 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 sided with Sanders, propelling the Vermont senator to a near tie.
That has created an awkward conundrum for Clinton: She has made inspiring women the core draw of her campaign, but many young women – the ones who would gain the most from the example of a woman president – are more sympathetic to the proclivities of their age than their gender.


This rift, between older and younger women, has only been compounded by Sanders’s good standing in the polls – which, in turn, sent several of Clinton’s most prominent female surrogates to plead for young women to change their minds.


The most recent rebuke came from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the first woman to be appointed to that role. She told young women at a campaign event this weekend, "Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other."

But the line that really enraged women supporting Sanders came from Gloria Steinem, the 1960s feminist icon. In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem said, "When you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’"


She quickly apologized for her remarks, calling them a mistake. But she couldn’t soothe the tensions she’d inflamed.


This growing divide – between older women who see defeating sexism as a top cause, and younger women who think electing a woman eventually is inevitable, and don’t feel a rush – is not totally new. We saw similar arguments reverberating during the 2008 campaign, when Barack Obama’s youth overcame Clinton’s experience.


Still, judging by the larger divides in polling and the vitriol that has colored the debate, this fissure, among a key constituency of the Democratic Party, is only growing. Addressing it may well force the party as a whole to choose which direction to set its course.

What the older generation of Clinton supporters don’t understand about Bernie Sanders’s female supporters

Simply put, young women supporting Sanders would say they prefer him to Clinton because they prefer his approach to politics.

These women, like the rest of their age cohort, are very liberal: They came of age during the recession, when their ability to find jobs seemed stymied by a capitalist system gone badly awry. It makes sense, then, why calls to break up Wall Street banks and have government ensure debt-free college resonate.

Sanders’s Democratic Socialism seems like a worthwhile antidote to a radically broken system, and these young people, many of whom were born after the fall of the Soviet Union, associate "socialism" more with prosperous Scandinavian countries than with autocrats who assassinated political opponents. That’s why they make up the only generation that approves of the "socialist" label more than the "capitalist" one.
All that is compounded by Sanders's outsider-esque, give-no-shits presentation that matches their own mood. They love that he shouts in anger and doesn’t care how his hair looks. Especially compared with a well-coiffed, scripted Clinton, they see Sanders as the only candidate who can really own his stances – in a word, he’s "authentic."

Sure, these young women think electing a woman to the nation’s highest office is important – but many also think it’s inevitable. Why pick Clinton if another, more progressive woman comes along in the future?

Some voters express discomfort about the scandals dogging the candidate – her emails, her vote to invade Iraq. Others say they’re concerned about Clinton’s involvement in her husband’s dismissal of at least one credible accusation of sexual assault.


"I don't think she's the woman to be representative of women," one young woman told NPR.

To that end, what really riled up these Sanders supporters is that despite all their substantive reasons to pick him over Clinton, older women are still chiding them for not supporting the woman in the race. They view it as antithetical to everything the women’s movement fought for.

Women in the 1960s and '70s fought for women’s equality because they felt they were unable to determine the course of their own lives. For these same activists to suggest that young women don’t have a choice seemed hypocritical. To suggest – as Gloria Steinem did – that they were basing political opinions around their crushes on boys sounded downright sexist, the exact sort of attack feminists fought to silence.

"Because of you, we will never let anyone define our limitations based on our sex," Salon’s Allison Glennon wrote in an open letter to feminists. "Because of you, we will be strong in the face of those who’d seek to judge us by our gender alone and not by our minds and our hearts."

What Clinton supporters don’t think young women understand about sexism and running for president

For women like Steinem and Albright, Clinton's tangible shot at the presidency is the moment the feminist movement has been working toward for half a century.

Though her ascendance to the nation’s highest office would not represent full gender equality – women make up only a fifth of the Senate and 14.2 percent of top executives at S&P 500 companies – feminists see the value of role models, and there could perhaps be no better role model than a woman at the country’s helm. On that point, research backs them up: Young women tend to set higher goals for themselves when they have more visible women leaders.

"Fifteen or 20 years ago, no one would even think about a woman being president," a woman supporting Clinton, whose daughter was a Sanders supporter, told the New York Times. "Certainly, when I was 20 years old in the 1970s, I don’t think I would even have thought about it."

Many women of this mindset sincerely do not believe that Sanders’s younger supporters recognize the pervasive sexism coloring the race. They point to gendered descriptions of Clinton – that she’s not "likable"
enough, too scripted, too willing to "play the game."

But women, they’d argue, don’t have room not to "play the game." Clinton cannot yell, à la Sanders; she does not have the luxury of not caring how her hair looks. She appears scripted because to go off script, even momentarily, would expose her to an avalanche of criticisms from which most men are blissfully immune. And if young Democrats want to change that gender dynamic, it doesn’t help that they are attacking Clinton in the meantime.

They also believe, for the same reasons, that Sanders can get away with proposing more radical ideas.

"FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE AND A GODDAMN PONY," wrote Pajiba’s Courtney Enlow in what she called an "all-caps explOsion of feelings." "YES, THAT SOUNDS FUCKING WONDERFUL BUT DO YOU THINK HILLARY COULD EVEN SAY THOSE WORDS WITHOUT FOX NEWS LITERALLY BURYING HER ALIVE IN TAMPONS AND CRUCIFIXES?"

A lot of these women like Sanders, too. They appreciate his message of economic inequality – they just don’t think Clinton’s vision is all that much different.

This also happened when Obama ran against Clinton in '08

Steinem, the star in this latest saga, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times eight years ago, nearly to the month. Titled, "Women are never front-runners," the piece argued that Obama would not have been elected with his thin résumé if he were a woman:

Steinem was certainly not alone in sensing sexism – as the nominating contest stretched on for months, numerous outlets documented sexism among some Obama supporters.

"I’ve been really bothered by what I perceive as sexism [among some male Obama supporters] and have spent hours defending [Clinton]," one female Obama supporter told Salon at the time. "A lot of guys just can’t stand Hillary, and it’s the intensity of their irritation with her that disturbs me more than their devotion to Obama."

The critique sounds eerily similar to one made by Clinton supporters of Sanders supporters, whom some have pejoratively nicknamed "Bernie Bros." Clinton’s supporters accuse people not supporting their candidate of sexism, and that, in turn, causes people in the other camp to respond with heightened contempt.

And the divide this go-around appears to be growing even starker. In 2008, Clinton lost the same demographic, young voters in Iowa, by "only" 46 points. And Sanders, unlike Obama, is not himself youthful – quite the opposite.

So the fact that an even larger percentage swung for Bernie should serve as a wake-up call for party elites. The rift is real, and it’s growing.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955042/hillary-clinton-feminists

Feminists these days have the confidence not to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman, they have the confidence to vote for a candidate who will do the best job, and they don't think that is Hillary.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:He won't take donations from big business and he's as straight as a dye, first one ever, and he won't be told to shut up by the financial giants.

So far so good

Sanders in the past has vehemently opposed the deal and has sided with other members of the Senate’s progressive caucus in the past. In January of 2014 he stated he’s against it primarily because it will allow corporations to move jobs overseas.

Sanders obviously takes the side of the people in this case, being more worried about the economic impact of this deal.

Clinton’s position is a bit more complicated due to her time as secretary of state, and she’s been careful as a presidential candidate not to express a firm position.

There’s evidence to suggest Clinton was deeply involved in the deal’s formation and promotion as the country’s lead diplomat. In 2011, she told a congressional committee that even though the State Department was not in charge of the negotiations, “we work closely with the U.S. (Trade Representative).” Leaked diplomatic cables show Clinton’s deputies specifically discussed the TPP with foreign heads of state.”

veya_victaous wrote:better Trump than Hillary,
at least it will be funny on the decent to hell


Hillary represent a continuation of all the worlds’ current problems that are caused by the overreaching US corpocracy.

The Greens are the only party with effective ways to help thousands of Australians out of poverty:

• We're the only party that doesn't support Labor's cuts to vital single parent support, and we're working to effectively reverse them. 
  
• We've secured free dental care for 3.4 million kids, and we'll keep going until all dental care is covered by Medicare.
  
• We will join the community to increase Newstart by $50 / week and fix the job services network, so that jobseekers have the support they need to find work. 
  
• Every Australian needs a home. We'll house every rough sleeper, halve social housing waiting lists and double funding to homelessness services.
  
• A doctor's visit shouldn't cost you the earth. We'll keep health costs down by investing in Medicare rebates.
  
• We'll help farmers sell their produce directly, helping Australians on low incomes get affordable, fresh food.
  

Original Quill wrote:The TPP is the least of my concerns as between Hillary and Bernie.  My main concern, as one of the few members on this site who will actually cast a ballot in this election, is electability.  Right now Democrats have an edge in this race because of the parade of clowns that the Republicans are promoting.  

The only way we Democrats can lose this fight is if we put up a candidate less desirable than what the Republicans have.  If the voters view Sanders as a one-trick pony, and his one-trick doesn't motivate the voters, I fear for the outcome.

Original Quill wrote:The TPP is the least of my concerns as between Hillary and Bernie.  My main concern, as one of the few members on this site who will actually cast a ballot in this election, is electability.  Right now Democrats have an edge in this race because of the parade of clowns that the Republicans are promoting.  

The only way we Democrats can lose this fight is if we put up a candidate less desirable than what the Republicans have.  If the voters view Sanders as a one-trick pony, and his one-trick doesn't motivate the voters, I fear for the outcome.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The TPP is the least of my concerns as between Hillary and Bernie.  My main concern, as one of the few members on this site who will actually cast a ballot in this election, is electability.  Right now Democrats have an edge in this race because of the parade of clowns that the Republicans are promoting.  

The only way we Democrats can lose this fight is if we put up a candidate less desirable than what the Republicans have.  If the voters view Sanders as a one-trick pony, and his one-trick doesn't motivate the voters, I fear for the outcome.

So you admit they should NEVER put up hillary

Sanders has a trick Hillary has none..... that is where monica came in

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The TPP is the least of my concerns as between Hillary and Bernie.  My main concern, as one of the few members on this site who will actually cast a ballot in this election, is electability.  Right now Democrats have an edge in this race because of the parade of clowns that the Republicans are promoting.  

The only way we Democrats can lose this fight is if we put up a candidate less desirable than what the Republicans have.  If the voters view Sanders as a one-trick pony, and his one-trick doesn't motivate the voters, I fear for the outcome.

Hillary and Bernie ,one ticket ,would guarantee a win

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The TPP is the least of my concerns as between Hillary and Bernie.  My main concern, as one of the few members on this site who will actually cast a ballot in this election, is electability.  Right now Democrats have an edge in this race because of the parade of clowns that the Republicans are promoting.  

The only way we Democrats can lose this fight is if we put up a candidate less desirable than what the Republicans have.  If the voters view Sanders as a one-trick pony, and his one-trick doesn't motivate the voters, I fear for the outcome.

So you admit they should NEVER put up hillary

Sanders has a trick Hillary has none..... that is where monica came in

Well, I understand how you are thinking.  Sanders cannot win against a Republican.  But Hillary is so conservative that she is less desirable than a Republican.  

However mark my word, any Republican will have us right back at war in the Middle East.  He will impose a huge tax cut (Cruz wants a flat tax) and shrink national revenue.  He will build up the military and vastly overspend, creating the worldwide depression that Dr. Obama avoided at the beginning of his first term.  Knuckledraggers are genus apes, and the apes will be in charge of the zoo.

Ben wrote:I think Sanders would still beat a Republican, but when it came down to doing the work, he'd be less effective than Clinton. But I agree that now, as it's been the past 16 years, it's really about keeping the Republicans out of the White House, just to try to prevent World War III.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Hillary and Bernie ,one ticket ,would guarantee a win

I'd love to see that. I feel the way a lot of people have been saying, one has my head and the other my heart.

I want to vote for Sanders because I want a guy who will fight for the things he would fight for. On the other hand, I think Clinton's goals aren't that far removed from Sanders', and I think she'd be better at dealing with the Republicans. I think it's a matter of, do I want a president who'd fight the Republicans with great speeches (Sanders) or by kicking them in the balls (Clinton)?

With a Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton ticket, we could use the strategy of when words fail, kick them in the crotch

Original Quill wrote:

Ben wrote:I think Sanders would still beat a Republican, but when it came down to doing the work, he'd be less effective than Clinton. But I agree that now, as it's been the past 16 years, it's really about keeping the Republicans out of the White House, just to try to prevent World War III.

Not just to prevent WWIII, but to save democracy.  It's no secret that Republicans are elitists, and their elitist instincts lead them to try to destroy democracy.  What do you think voter suppression is all about?  Republicans wouldn't let women even govern their own bodies.  The Republican Supreme Court shot down the Voters Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.  The reason why Republicans are so against an immigration policy is they know that if Hispanics gain a path to citizenship, they will soon be the majority in the US...it's no secret that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Democratic, the party of fairness!  A Republican Supreme Court overruled democracy when they took the vote away from the entire population in Bush v. Gore.  Republicans stand for special interests and they  hate the notion that the people could govern themselves.

Well hell...Republicans just hate people, let's face it.  Why else would they not want them to have healthcare?  Day-Care?  Social Security?  They would spend us into poverty with their wars, but could they fix the infrastructure so common people could drive?  No.  They want to kill babies in wars, but won't support family planning and child care.  Wassup with all that, if not part of their elitist campaign to mold people into the Matrix and out of democracy?

I used to think racism was the biggest issue in the land.  But now--in the wake of Citizens United--I believe we are fighting a civil war to preserve democracy.  Fighting over rules will inevitably take place in the Supreme Court.  Therefore, who sits on the Supreme Court is of utmost importance.  The appointment power clause will surpass the war-making power clause as the most important power in the US Constitution.  We have to have people in office who believe in democracy, not plutocracy.  And that means edging out Republicans every chance we get.

I realize, with the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, Republicans are doing their best with the craziness, winning that battle for us.  But we need to be vigilant...we need to make sure that Democrats put up a credible, electable candidate.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not just to prevent WWIII, but to save democracy.  It's no secret that Republicans are elitists, and their elitist instincts lead them to try to destroy democracy.  What do you think voter suppression is all about?  Republicans wouldn't let women even govern their own bodies.  The Republican Supreme Court shot down the Voters Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.  The reason why Republicans are so against an immigration policy is they know that if Hispanics gain a path to citizenship, they will soon be the majority in the US...it's no secret that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Democratic, the party of fairness!  A Republican Supreme Court overruled democracy when they took the vote away from the entire population in Bush v. Gore.  Republicans stand for special interests and they  hate the notion that the people could govern themselves.

Well hell...Republicans just hate people, let's face it.  Why else would they not want them to have healthcare?  Day-Care?  Social Security?  They would spend us into poverty with their wars, but could they fix the infrastructure so common people could drive?  No.  They want to kill babies in wars, but won't support family planning and child care.  Wassup with all that, if not part of their elitist campaign to mold people into the Matrix and out of democracy?

I used to think racism was the biggest issue in the land.  But now--in the wake of Citizens United--I believe we are fighting a civil war to preserve democracy.  Fighting over rules will inevitably take place in the Supreme Court.  Therefore, who sits on the Supreme Court is of utmost importance.  The appointment power clause will surpass the war-making power clause as the most important power in the US Constitution.  We have to have people in office who believe in democracy, not plutocracy.  And that means edging out Republicans every chance we get.

I realize, with the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, Republicans are doing their best with the craziness, winning that battle for us.  But we need to be vigilant...we need to make sure that Democrats put up a credible, electable candidate.

you guys catch John Oliver last night on voter ID`s and how millions are excluded that would in all fairness more likely be democrat voting people
you need to fix that shite first
because democrats know the other side is rigging the game, but do next to nothing about it, fix that and you will never have a republican president again ,not without a major policy and attitude adjustment  by the whole party

This isn't just the random happenstance of a guy who looks eerily similar to Bernie Sanders being arrested in some random place that had nothing to do with his proven activism.

Sanders participates in a sit-in at the University of Chicago to protest housing segregation at the school.

Sanders waves to the crowd before he meets with the Rev. Al Sharpton Wednesday in Harlem.

Sanders has always cared deeply about justice and equality.