Yeah. It’s dangerous to those who have jobs and savings. Not dangerous for those with no market value.
Can you be specific about these ‘dangers’ that you are so afraid of? In what way are employed people with savings endangered?
Without specifics its just chicken little running around screaming about the sky falling.
I have a job, and many employees I’m already paying more than $15/hr to all employees, even entry-level copy clerks. I even have some savings. I may or may not agree with all Bernie’s positions, but I don’t feel like I’d be in any danger if he won.
People used to say Obama would ruin the country, and he beat all of Romney’s optimistic projections of what could be accomplished.
This one is just for fun:
On the other hand promising things he knows damn well are not going to happen IS dangerous.
Can this thread not turn into a generic conservatives bashing liberals or vice versa thread? It’s completely irrelevant to the topic.
Not in other countries, it ain’t. Why here?
American Exceptionalism?
Well, we have pretty much dispensed with the notion that the Democrats blundered.
Yes Clinton vs Trump. Otherwise I stand by it. Not voting is way to prove you are not the group to win elections with. Likewise for Hispanics: they want more power and influence they need to get the turnout up. We are numerous and we don’t show? Not a recipe for power and influence.
I know I’m late to the party, but could somebody point me to specific actions of The Democratic Establishment designed to offend Bernie’s supporters? Democratic snarkers online generally don’t count as The Establishment.
I know some were offended by New York State’s primary rules–not allowing Independents to vote as Democrats (or Republicans). But weren’t those rules put in place before Bernie’s campaign?
What specific, official policies are objectionable?
Here’s an opinion piece from someone I agree with on this issue who writes 20x better than I can.
heavily weighted in her favor?:dubious: If it wasnt for those outmoded and outdated caucuses, Sander’s campaign would have been dead a long time ago. Hilary won 8 open states- which is more that Sanders has won in Primary states.
Popular vote 58 to 42%, delegate count 56 to 44% … really that’s not narrow, it is better than he was expected to do, true, but it was an overwhelming lead ever since SuperTuesday, despite media interests in continuing a horserace scenario ledes and spins to the contrary.
He lost almost all of the demographics that make up the coalition that delivers democratic victories.
Spin is one thing but calling that narrow is absurd.
Yes, but neither Clinton nor Obama in 2008 represented a movement greater than their campaigns. Sanders does, and it is a movement that is not going to quiet down and go away after Clinton is nominated or elected or inaugurated.
Personally I think rumors of the birth of a movement have been exaggerated.
We can talk after next mid terms.
Maybe I’m living under a rock or something, but I see no evidence of that. Sanders campaign is simply that, Sanders’ campaign. Future campaigns may build on what he’s done, but I hardly see a “movement.” To the extent he cam move the Dems and the entire nation in a slightly more progressive direction, I’m all for it. If you’re suggesting something else, I don’t see it.
Polls are not votes, which is something that Bernie Sanders supporters stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. It’s really insulting to have Bernie Sanders’ supporters basically suggest that our votes don’t really count. It speaks of an extremely arrogant and condescending strain of liberalism which seems to have permeated the Sanders campaign.
Yeah, that’s it. Vote for Jill Stein or Donald Trump out of spite and then blame it on Hillary Clinton.
Time will tell, but I for one am not holding my breath. Everyone said the same thing after Nader and Dean. Dean at least made some effort to build his campaign into a permanent movement — his organization Dean for America morphed into Democracy for America, ostensibly still a going concern though obviously not effective in keeping Democrats from getting shellacked in off-year elections.
:dubious: Perhaps polls are not votes, but Sanders outpolling Clinton as against both Trump and Cruz is an undeniably relevant and important fact, and there is nothing arrogant or condescending in calling attention to it.
In a sense, he does have a point. Bernie Sanders is probably the Ross Perot of the left. Perot talked about balancing the budget in 1992, which became a conservative talking point and political centerpiece for the next 20-25 years. Sanders is the left’s answer to that. Democrats will probably be talking about medicare for all or breaking up big banks for the next 10-15 years. I agree with that. But that’s probably as far as his influence goes, and just talking about policy isn’t bringing policies into effect.
It ought to be pointed out that Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton) were the first to attempt real healthcare reform, which they both paid a political price for. She’s arguably as much of a pioneer as Sanders, if not more so.