Hence his preemptive whining about the election being rigged prior to actual vote.
Well, he has preemptively said that at every election: 2016, 2020, the 2016 primaries and in the campaigns for some of his acolytes this year.
There’s no way he could accept a loss, and he makes that known ahead of time.
Apart from maybe the 2018 primaries? I think he was too busy with other stuff that year to do his normal schtick.
He seems nice.
Hillary Clinton, in a new book by NBC News correspondent Ali Vitali, is again attacking Bernie Sanders, this time for allegedly lying in a debate with Elizabeth Warren about whether he’d said that a woman couldn’t be elected.
"Clinton, who was watching the altercation unfold, told Vitali: “I believed her [Warren], because I know Sanders, and I know the kind of things that he says about women and to women. So, I thought that she was telling an accurate version of the conversation they’d had.”
This, after trashing Sanders in a 2020 documentary:
“Hillary Clinton blasts Sen. Bernie Sanders…saying “nobody likes him” and declining in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter to say whether she would endorse and campaign for him if he’s the Democratic 2020 nominee.”
“He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done,” Clinton says in the film, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
While I’ve never been a Sanders fan, such comments illustrate a pattern of Hillary Clinton being far more interested in sustaining grudges and settling old scores than in helping Democrats win elections.*
The “Clinton hating Dems” may have a point.
*Hillary’s “career politician” and “baloney” remarks are quite irony meter-shattering.
That’s a nonsensical post as even if in some fantasy land it came true the results would be far worse than you can imagine for your party. For one, if the dems were the only path to power where do you think the most power hungry would end up? Aside from the ones who already exploit the dems the ones who utilize the right’s power structures would just migrate on over. You’d have a uniparty like the Soviets or the Chinese and the party name would be meaningless.
C’mon man! These posts are worse than the court packing posts your fellow nuts on the looney left make.
Without a major shake up like ranked choice voting and a somewhat educated populace two parties are stable in our system. The coalitions that make up the parties are less stable and a critical and disciplined member of one of those coalitions might be able to act as a kingmaker so to speak and force change but good luck with that being a lasting solution to what bothers you.
It’s adorable that you think the Democratic Party will remain intact in the absence of the fucking Republicans.
So you trade one two party system with another two party system made up of the same groups and expect a real difference?
The democrats could take their place as a relatively sane and moderately corrupt right wing party and a new party that might actually be a tiny bit left could form to recreate the two party system. That would certainly be a better situation for the country than what we have now.
That’s exactly how my preferred outcome would play out. I’m such a human rights noodge that the schema relies on the voluntary self-disenfranchisement of all the current Republicans and their voters, though. I still haven’t worked out that bit
We can either work on shaking up the two-corporate-lackey-party-system, or we can let that go for now and concentrate on winning in 2022 and '24.
This is the problem.
As true as it might be to claim that both major parties are right wing by international political standards, as true as it might be that both are beholden to corporate interests and large donors, the events of the past year have demonstrated unequivocally that there’s still a stark difference between the two.
If the Republicans would also like to split themselves up and reshape themselves into something different and more effective from their perspective, then I’d be all for Democrats doing the same thing. But we don’t live in that world. The Republicans will almost certainly nominate Trump, and he will almost certainly win in '24, unless Democrats pull together and vote for their candidate the way that Republicans can always be counted on to vote for theirs.
I won’t mince words; we are embattled, for a number of reasons I don’t need to repeat in this thread. All of the various Democratic party factions need to join forces the way Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin did to win World War II. I’m sure that Churchill , FDR, and Stalin had zero use for each other’s political visions, but they managed to team up and get the job done.
Apt analogy.
I’m just catching up on the thread, but for those who didn’t see you mention it earlier, you should probably be very clear about the fact that you voted for the Greens in another country, one where I assume they can actually be seated in parliament and play a meaningful role there even if they are only small minority.
I agree with what you’re really saying, but really… Pretty much everything in Europe and its colonies was run by white men back then. True, you had a powerful queen or empress, now and then, but when it came to things like writing constitutions and participating in legislative bodies, it was a total sausage fest, and not only in America.
You know those science fiction movies where there’s a computer running amok and taking over the starship or whatever, and it somehow plugs itself into the primary reactors so there’s no way it can be turned off? And it neutralizes any attempts to alter its processing?
Our Constitution is a lot like that. It gives instructions for amending it; that’s been done seventeen times so far. (Most sources will say twenty-seven, but I don’t count the first ten because they were more like an appendix to the original document than a series of separately proposed and confirmed amendments over a period of time.)
The problem with the amendment process is that it, like the Electoral College system favors the small conservative states, but even more so. It takes thirty-four states to call a constitutional convention, and thirty-eight states to ratify any amendments or a complete rewrite resulting from such a convention. You notice I said “states”, not “voters”. You guessed it, in this each state counts as much as any other state. Through their representation in the national government, the 750,000-odd residents of Wyoming have as much clout as the 39M residents of California.
As things stand, any amendments to the constitution, let alone a complete rewrite, will be moving the country even further to the right. AK47s will just about be written into that Second Amendment. The First Amendment currently enshrining the separation of church and state? Gone. Abortion? A national prohibition on that, further language enshrining fetal personhood, and the voiding of any language such as “natural born” to avoid the implication that citizenship rights begin at any time other than conception.
The far right is trying to get up a constitutional convention as we speak. The implications of this should horrify anyone who isn’t completely with them, and we don’t have any way of opposing it within the normal political framework. So, what then? Torches and pitchforks on Pennsylvania Avenue? What would be the point. I live on the heavily Democratic west coast (Oregon, to be precise), and I’m happy with the senators and member of congress who represent me in Washington. I voted for them all, as I did with Biden and Harris. But Washington, as a national capital that governs over me, can go to hell. The fact that Georgia may soon elect a senator who apparently has a room temperature IQ and that he would be voting on issues that affect the lives of all Americans, and ultimately the entire world, makes me boil with rage. How did we get to this place where blatant obtuseness and willful ignorance is so exalted as this? (To anyone here from Georgia, like @Sampiro if you’re still on here, you know I don’t mean you.)
No, I think in the end we’ll be looking at a “divorce”, and hopefully an amicable one. At the very least, I can’t see the three contiguous states on the west coast standing for what’s to come. I don’t know how ugly things will get, but I can’t imagine the federal government will want to bomb our ports, because they 'll still need them.
I thought Sampiro was from Alabama.
I stand corrected. He has taught at GA State so I mistakenly assumed he still lived there.
C’mon, Hillary isn’t that bad.
The processing however cannot be altered. 
I hadn’t known about that. He may very well be a Georgia resident at this time. All I’m really sure about is that I miss him around here.
Agreed! He wrote some great stuff back in the day; he may still be around here, but if so I don’t go into those forums much so I don’t see him. I do, however, know him on FB. Because I hadn’t seen @Sampiro here in at least a decade, it was quite some time before I realized the person I knew on FB was @Sampiro. In fact, I didn’t realize anything; I had to ask.
The job in Georgia was, if I recall correctly, working as a librarian at a university. It didn’t last long. I believe there was some, uhm, prejudice involved in his being let go. He’s mentioned something about lawyers a time or two. He’s back in Alabama, living in the Mamaleum. Ollie died a couple years or so ago. He now has two cats. His mother also died and he inherited the house. I know he is working, but I forget at what.