That’s petty cash to a Walton. Are you seriously saying that they’d be impoverished if Walmart paid for health insurance for its employees?
All excellent points. Look, I can’t blame Sanders for staying in, and hoping to make points on the Platform. But he needs to stop the negative campaigning and needs to tell his Sandernistas & Bernie-bros to stop also.
Yes, Bernie, it’s over. It’s time for this shitbag to stop the Clinton bashing and cheap shot fundraising emails. Cut out the ‘take it to the convention’ crap or else Chuck Schumer should ask Bernie how he’d like to spend the next few years in the Senate sitting on committees for national park funding or post office operations.
I’ve heard the platform thing before, and I don’t quite understand it. Nobody actually reads the platform of either major party. The platforms are irrelevant documents that have little impact on the race after the convention and no impact on governing after the election.
It’s common knowledge that the die hards get sent off to write the platform while the adults in the room tend to the real convention business
I think Sanders realizes that he needs to keep his supporters from some combination of “What part of ‘Bernie or Trump’ / ‘Anybody But Clinton’ did you not understand the first time?” and “Why bother voting if there’s nobody to vote for?” mentality, if only to gain control of both houses of Congress (and if the Democrats do get 50, I wouldn’t put it past them to get rid of filibustering for their ‘pet projects’, only to bring it back - possibly back to the old 2/3 number - just before the the next time the Republicans are voted back in).
First problem: convincing them to vote for incumbents who voted for Clinton at the convention.
Second problem: convincing the Democrats in Congress to back at least some of his ideas, and then forcing President Clinton’s hand. Yes, this does have every chance of splitting the Democrats the way the Tea Party split the Republicans.
Then again, if Sanders plays his cards right, maybe he can talk his way into being elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate - and, what a coincidence, aren’t the three people who stand between him and the White House (President, VP, Speaker of the House) conveniently located right next to each other at the President’s “don’t call the first one the State of the Union” Address to Congress?
(You know, that does come across as implying that Sanders would want to kill those people, doesn’t it? I wasn’t thinking about Sanders - however, if one or more of the “Bernie Bros” happens to be in the vicinity…)
Excuse me for a moment…yes? Who are you? FBI, you say? Questioning, you say? I’ll go quietly…
Hah! I would love to see that.
Yeah, I have been wondering about that too. There was an old article from 1988 someone shared (not sure if it was here or Facebook) about Jesse Jackson’s fight to add planks in the platform. Even then, the article said that Dukakis was not bound to follow anything in the platform, but continued by saying something about “but they are still important in defining blah blah blah”. I obviously didn’t find it very persuasive, but it seems that thirty years ago, the elite political media actually believed they were important somehow. Now, I don’t think they believe it at all; but if Bernie wants to think he’s doing something important by fighting for his platform language, let him go at it if it keeps him from causing trouble. 
I wonder if the fact that Hillary has it nearly sewn up might hurt turnout by her supporters.
Hillary supporters don’t seem to get it. If Hillary wants to beat Trump, she probably is aware that having Sanders do his best to deliver his supporters as best he can will give her a better shot then if he chooses to Simply leave the race without comment.
That “shitbag” has a lot of power here. Hillary will need the support of those who supported those who supported Sanders. Maybe some of you think that’s a foregone conclusion, but it’s not.
If Hillary fucks this up, that’s on her.
Fortunately I think that Hillary is smarter then her supporters who are proving themselves to be just as naive and caustic as the loudest Bernie Bros.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
Yeah, I’ll thank you not to include me in your overgeneralizations.
Can you quote the portion where I indicted you?
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
Why do you continue to pretend that Clinton supporters are asking Sanders to leave the race?
Clinton is not saying that he should get out; no official Clinton surrogate is saying that he should get out; even this message board contains little recent support for the idea that he should get out. (Seriously: find quotes from posters saying he should stay in, and then find quotes from posters saying he should leave the race, and compare the numbers.)
This claim–that Clinton supporters are calling on Sanders to get out–is nearly universal among Sanders supporters, despite being demonstrably false. Why are you willing to associate yourself with a fake claim?
Of course what Clinton supporters are actually asking is that Sanders stop providing ammunition for Trump supporters, and instead talk about what he supposedly cares about–his issues and policy plans. But inexplicably, he goes on working for Trump’s election:
Etc., etc., etc.
Right, if sanders want to stay in to get move leverage on the platform, more power to him. But rein in your fans.
Well, if we even get a platform that states clearly and unambiguously that the Democratic Party stands for, e.g., single-payer health care, at least that’s something we didn’t have before.
Yeah, who cares?
This is the sort of litmus test voting that the Tea Party uses to define who’s a true conservative and who isn’t, and it’s apparently a tactic that a lot of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are using to define true progressives. Where do you draw the line? Should everyone just give up their 401Ks and donate the proceeds to Bernie Sanders’ campaign? I’m sure there’s a lot of tainted money in there somewhere that needs to be purified by St Bernie. :rolleyes:
The fact that Hillary Clinton sat on a board with Wal-Mart doesn’t mean she liked all of Wal-Mart’s policies. And even if she wanted to support a vote for unionization, she is put on the board to represent the interests of shareholders, and those interests are to achieve earnings. Now personally I think Wal-Mart could have been a corporate citizen - on that we can all agree. But to say that because Hillary served on a board or followed proper professional conduct by representing her clients to the standards required by the Arkansas and American Bar seems a bit ridiculous.
Hillary Clinton supported state laws that required Wal-Mart to provide more medical coverage for their employees. She’s supported union efforts more broadly and she has been supported by unions. I don’t think Hillary’s past precludes her from being more pro-union going forward. I don’t have a problem with Bernie pressuring her to take a more vigorous stance, and to that extent, I’m glad he’s still a factor in the race.
With ease.
Accepting campaign donations from rich people or corporations is bad. Therefore Democrats should universally reject them. I have no idea how Democrats with no funding are going to win elections so I’m rather confused as to how this new litmus test is going to further liberal causes… But what is clear is Clinton should have universally disarmed first so Sanders could have a chance.
Clinton does need to make sure that she doesn’t given the impression that she’s being lead around by the nose by Bernie. One of the many things that hurt Mondale and Dukakis was the constant interjection of Jesse Jackson. If Sanders plays nice, he can have a prime time speaking slot at the convention. If not, screw him. Sure, it might be nice to get those fickle unreliable millennial and independent voters of the far left. But pandering too much to Sanders will drive away reliable suburban voters who are repulsed by Trump but are educated enough to be frightened of Bernie’s idiotic economic policies of unicorns and fairy dust.
To add to the Wal-Mart issue, I think it would actually be good to have served on a corporate board, if for no other reason than to know how a corporation actually works and to know the challenges it faces and the thought processes of a Fortune 500 company. It’s clear that corporate America is creating problems – I’m with Sanders on that. But I don’t see him really providing realistic prescriptions other than saying he wishes he could just tear into these private institutions and dismantle them. That’s not particularly constructive.
It also hasn’t been historically very successful. Even successful Socialist countries like Sweden have big corporations - and they even have corporate scandals.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6bf9ec82-fbed-11e5-8f41-df5bda8beb40.html#axzz48XRO7ws6