General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders: To Defeat Oligarchy, I Would Run for President
Senator Bernie Sanders, for the second time in as many weeks, is indicating serious contemplation for a presidential run in 2016 if none of the potential Democratic candidates show the proper urgency when it comes to addressing a key set of issues that he thinks now face the country and the world.
Stressing the overarching crisis of out-of-control income and wealth inequality coupled with the planetary emergencies of global warming and climate change, Sanders' message has been that unless these problems are put at the forefront of the domestic policy agenda he will feel compelled to run.
In an extended interview with Salon journalist Josh Eidelson published Wednesday, Sanders admitted he does not "wake up every morning with a huge desire to be president of the United States... I dont."
However, he continued, "I do wake up believing [that] this country is facing more serious crises than we have faced since the Great Depression. And if you include the planetary crisis of global warming, the situation today may even be worse. And given that reality, what distresses me enormously is that there is very little discussion about these major crises, and even less discussion about ideas that can resolve these issues."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/27-4
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)AZ Mike
(468 posts)....hope to have that chance.
Sanders would be my ALL in POTUS politics....
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)the last thing we need is Nader 2.0. Third-Party Bernie would probably siphon off even more Dem votes than Nader did.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)to actually represent people.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)What would the Supreme Court look like after that one term?
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not that thrilled with Kagan or Breyer and I fear a Sunstein nomination.
On the other hand, two out of the three most liberal Justices in the entire history of the Court were appointed by Republicans, namely Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Stevens.
So, there are no guarantees, either way.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Their recent appointments have all been hard-line far-right ideologues.
Also, who is this Sunstein of whom you speak?
merrily
(45,251 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)They don't get attention in any of the debates. Even if he just ran in the primary, he could do a world of good. No matter who else was in the race, it would be an exciting primary!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)As an independent he would just be a spoiler helping the Republicans and wasting his own time.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Hillary, er, I mean "the other candidates", would actually have to respond to his questions!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hey, love ya, Bernie, but you'd be better off as a support guy in '16.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)If we ALL vote for Bernie Sanders the dlc candidate would attempt to be the "spoiler."
We ALWAYS wonder how the repugs can consistently vote against their interests.
How can WE vote against our interests?
Senator Bernie Sanders has been a consistent voice of reason for decades. He has PROVEN his willingness to fight for sanity, wealth equality, IOW, average Americans.
How can ANYONE put party first when our world is at stake? If we UNITE against oligarchy and vote in our own interests, instead
of the top 10% of the elite, we will vote for Sanders.
I am sick of being told (by the elite) who I can vote for. I will vote for the best qualified, most people first and world first
candidate. One who has consistently shown their support for a fair America and world.
There is so much more, this is an opportunity of a lifetime, one that will change our current wealth oriented, planet destroying
paradigm.
Can you imagine the SCOTUS appointments that Bernie Sanders would make? WOW.... a peaceful revolution.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)If he runs, especially if he runs as a Democratic Socialist, I will vote for him and campaign for him to the ends of the earth and that is in direct conflict with the rules here. Don't worry, if the time comes, I will step aside gracefully.
I won't need to be kicked off. I am a Democratic Socialist who caucuses with the Dems, but I won't in this case.
It hasn't happened yet, so I'm not off the reservation yet, but I'm giving notice that I will be off the res at that point.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)If it comes to supporting Bernie over Hillary, I already know what I will do.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)We can stop the DLC in its tracks if we only want it bad enough.
democrank
(11,112 posts)Bernie consistently speaks for citizens who aren`t able to purchase a member of Congress to represent them. He has lived the same principles for years. And you can bet that he would never, ever say one thing in public and do the exact opposite behind the scenes.
I hope he runs and I hope he really, really shakes things up. That would be real change I could believe in.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Very well said.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)not even being discussed.
Run Bernie, Run!
Cha
(297,720 posts)In the Senate or as a 3rd party?
polichick
(37,152 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Independents cannot win a Presidential race. All they can do is tip the scales in favor of the party they are the least like.
In Sanders' case, that would mean electing a Repube. And to Hell with that.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Sanders would be even better.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)someone progressive. If the Democratic Party nominates HRC, they will be giving the race to Christie. It's completely in the Democrat's hands.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Not going down that road again.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Old Republican/New Democratic votes making it a close race for HRC. She might need the left to defeat him. I doubt she will make any concessions or even promises to the left. The Powers To Be are arrogant and they will see a Clinton vs. Christie contest as a win-win for conservatives.
If we dont want Christie to win in 2016, we must not nominate Clinton. Just sayin.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But after 8 years of an illegal Bush occupation, I will do whatever I can to defeat any and every Repube candidate I can.
For the powers that be, there might not be a difference: but for the poor, the sick, and the powerless, there is a huge difference between R and D.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The Powers To Be manipulate us into that situation. They will back both Clinton and Christie. The frog is boiling slowly.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I dig what you're saying, but working in food pantries and shelters from the Clinton years, through Bush and into Obama's tenure; that greater evil took a huge toll on those least able to defend themselves. I and other volunteers saw that evil emerge and do its worst. And when Obama won, we saw the evil weaken, and were able to beat it back.
It was not a small difference, not a minor philosophical quibble, not a "no real difference" as some have said. Not out on the sharp end, not in the Midwest, not where the Repub economic policies destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives in a few short years.
Nope. I'll hold my nose if I have to, before I have to witness such a cataclysm of misery caused by Repube control of the White House again. I have to look at the victims in the eye, and tell them "I voted as best I could to keep you safe."
Because they do not have the luxury of political debates: they are trying to keep warm and dry and not starve to death. There is (in my opinion), nothing more noble and no cause more just than to feed a hungry family, when their government has turned its back on them.
And if we vote in such a way as to help enable another Repube to take over the Presidency, then all who voted thus bear some degree of responsibility for that misery, no matter the excellence of their reasoning or purity of their cause. Repubs in office are a far greater evil.
Try thinking this way: instead of "choosing the lesser evil", try "fighting the greater evil". It is closer to the truth.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)It'll be hard enough to keep the WH with a moderate and some of you are offering options that could maybe get elected in Europe, but not in the USA.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)My point is simple, if you want Christie to be president, nominate Clinton.
If you nominate Clinton and we lose to Christie, DONT BLAME ANYONE BUT YOURSELF. Dont blame the left, dont blame Ralph Nader. Democrats have the responsibility to run someone against Christie that is progressive.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Why do you keep insisting that if Hillary were to be the nominee that she would lose to Christie, when there's plenty of polling evidence to the contrary.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)On the West Coast, it is hard to ascertain how people elsewhere think.
But for those of us who are familiar with the gerrymandering issue, the 2016 election will go down as rigged.
The gerrymandering issue has already helped the RW in six states back east, where more than a million popular votes should have insured that Democratic candidates got into office, but the popular vote didn't matter.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)That's Democracy. What I don't get is people insisting that their favorite LW candidate has a valid chance to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, when there's plenty of evidence that it's wishful thinking on their part.
This place more and more is becoming the mirror image of Free Republic. People who seem to be living in some utopia where a Socialist, and a MA senator who's been in politics for less than a year, have a realistic chance of becoming president. It's crazy........
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Perspective, the Democratic Party was once a real party, with vast differences between them and the Republicans.
Those of us old enough to understand what it means to be a FDR Democrat, and who realize that FDR's legacy is vastly different than what the New Age "Liberal" Democrats are forging, know that a Hilary Clinton Presidency is more of the same ol' same ol, Corporate-run state. (The definition of fascism, is after all, a place and time when Corporations run the government for their own purposes. Fascism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with swastikas or goose stepping soldiers.).
Thirty years of New Age Libs and we have a party far, far, FAR to the right of Richard Nixon.
With people like Obama supporting a Totalitarian NDAA Spy State, and the complete collapse of our civil liberties, with Endless wars for profit, with total support for the Nuclear Industry, with total support for Fracking and Pipelines (Obama approved a pipeline similar to Keystone XL over the Thanksgiving vacation,) what do people do if they want to have a decent environment? And to stop the military/surveillance state? Or to ensure that we have a decent safety net? And remember to arrive at such a militaristic, surveillance society, we have to insist on Austerity, including eliminating Social security and seizing that Fund, which currently has a damn Surplus of over 2 trillion bucks.
Right now due to Obama's Big Banking Appointments, 49 cents out of every dollar of profit generated in the USA goes DIRECTLY into the coffers of Big Businesses. Mainly the Four Biggest Banks.
To give you an idea of how out of whack that is, consider that under Reagan, only 8 cents out of every dollar went to banks.
How do we have a middle class if we continue along these lines? Of course, some here would argue we should just re-define "middle class" to mean people who make
$ 300K to $ 600K a year!
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Bravo!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to support Rmoney will support Christie. And I dont think the left will support Clinton. She refused to stand up to Boy-George the Dim-Son on Iraq.
Of course you are correct that as of this date, Clinton is the leading Democrat. That's why the left has to start now to get someone progressive. We have to try. Eight more years of the status quo will kill the lower classes. Wall Street is having a hay-day and there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change that.
Will you support Clinton if she gets the backing of The Third Way?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I think Sanders would stand a good chance as an independent in that race as the only true alternative.
As for me? No more lesser of two evils, I vote for the candidate that will best serve the Country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)valid progressive against him. We must fight hard to win the nomination.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)There's a hell of a lot of difference between Christie and Hillary. Do some research on the guy.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Response to riqster (Reply #30)
RoccoR5955 This message was self-deleted by its author.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Please run Bernie
WillyT
(72,631 posts)& Rec !!!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)blue14u
(575 posts)the issues killing this Nation. He would be a force to be reckoned with if he runs..
I hope we can find a Progressive to run and win in 2016...
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Sanders/Warren 2016!
Demeter
(85,373 posts)albino65
(484 posts)We don't need to split the vote. What are all you people with Warren 2016 doing supporting Sanders?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Everyone is telling us Warren isn't running.
Anyway, for most of us, this has noting to do with a Cult of Warren. She just happens to be the the most visible and dynamic face of Progressivism in the Democratic Party at the moment.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)transparency and honesty in government. Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would bring the changes we need in this country.
Get rid of the stupid government by propaganda and get some staight-talkers into the White House.
Obama was a drastic improvement over Bush, but we need much more transparency and honesty than even Obama has delivered.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Sanders is the male version of Warren, and she's the female version of him.
Not much of a reach.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and runs in the Democratic primaries (both of which I doubt), he will have my primary vote; but only after I hear from him on foreign relations issues and non-economic domestic issues.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
LittleGirl
(8,291 posts)need to look to Bernie as a Mentor. I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat but I'm a raving lefty and don't think anybody else could match him. But his age bothers me. I am worried that youngsters might not go for him. I love Bernie and wish he was President right now!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie is very appealing.
LittleGirl
(8,291 posts)and that's why the GOP hates him and calls him a socialist. I love that he is that way.
tblue37
(65,490 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)It's the same descriptor I use for myself.
LittleGirl
(8,291 posts)tardybar
(22 posts)I Would vote for him. Please run!
calimary
(81,507 posts)Glad you're here! We LOVE Bernie Sanders. I sure wish there were a way to clone him. I think every state should have at least one like him in the Senate. And multiples of him in the House. We need that mindset leading the way, helping the pendulum swing back in our direction. It's been way too far to the so-called "right" - heck, I don't even like using the word "right" because the bad guys have completely perverted its meaning.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Catkin
(9 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Cool name btw
niyad
(113,582 posts)looking at your screen name and avatar, you might enjoy checking out "sunday lolcats" in the DU lounge, posted every sunday morning by our own salmon chanted evening. it is an absolute sunday must for many of us.
calimary
(81,507 posts)Good to have you with us! I love this guy! He's one of the rare consciences of the Senate. I'm happy to say we in California have Barbara Boxer thinking along similar lines, and Massachusetts bats 1000 with Ed Markey and the top of the ziggurat - Elizabeth Warren. There are a few true good guys in the Senate, thank goodness. Wish we had more!
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Bernie would be vilified as a ''socialist commie'' no doubt by the right. People in this country are so ignorant and completely out of touch with reality. And the right loves it that way .. it's all part of the plan.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)if only to force other candidates to address issues that are off their Party "talking points" -- Kuch and Sharpton played this important role in the past, as did Perot.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren run, but I would also like to see Bernie Sanders run.
It's important to get these issues on the table. The only realistic candidates who can do that are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Grayson is also great, but I think Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would make more viable candidates.
I think more Americans need to hear Bernie Sanders' message. If they did, his chances of winning would rise considerably. I think that Sanders and Warren are saying and thinking what Americans want and need to hear, and that either of them, just with their appointments to the Fed, Commerce, the SEC and the Treasury Dept. could change the country.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ananda
(28,877 posts)I love that man.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)nominee, at all costs.
Once again, how ironic if HRC gets the nomination via massive help from Citizens United.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Neon Gods
(222 posts)I want a strong, smart progressive to run against Hillary in the primaries. Most Americans never get to hear real liberals talk about liberal ideas and solutions. We need pressure on Hillary from the left to keep her from going all third-way on us.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)But if we can energize the Progressive, yea Liberal, side of the party by an Independent firebrand, Let's Go. There are more of us than they realize, cooling our heels behind the Third Way wave.
If I have to vote for her in the General, sobeit, I won't vote for a Republican SCOTUS, which awaits in the Split/Democrat-Republican wings. But a sharp Progressive prod in the political backside is a good thing. She's a political animal, and if we stop whining about here and, as Obama said, "make me do it", her strength of "vascilating" will lean our way, at worst. At best, maybe we can field another candidate who has the entire package. That will absolutely bring an about face for HRC.
And, she hasn't yet said she's running.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)HRC said a few times since 2008 that she won't run again, but people in the media (especially MSNBC) and elsewhere don't want to take her at her word. Same thing with Warren. The news cycle must be horrendously slow (aside from the Mandela thing, at least) for them to continuously pit people against one another who either haven't announced they'll run, or have said they won't. Right now, it's merely a distraction from next year's elections.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)poor excuse to sow dissension among Democrats, distracting us from the tragedy that is the modern gop.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Forget it. If he was about ten years younger, I'd be open to him but definitely not now.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)If that's what it would take, I would do it in a nanosecond!
ladjf
(17,320 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)indeed be most fortunate to have such a highly qualified politician in Congress. If he runs as a Democrat, he has my vote.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)no matter which party he runs under.
I happen to be a people before party kinda guy.
We always ask republicans "how can you vote against your own interests?"
How can you? You wrote "I believe that Bernie is the smartest and most well informed person in Washington."
Yet you would only vote for him as a democrat?
That is the definition of "party before people." Sad...
ladjf
(17,320 posts)elected if he runs as a Democrat. Personally, I wouldn't care if he ran on the atheist ticket. I was trying to be pragmatic.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)... One of the few.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Give us a real linberal candidate, not just "more liberal than Republicans"
JEB
(4,748 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)SANDERS 2016
Beacool
(30,253 posts)He has as much chance of being elected president as does Palin. Wishful thinking is not reality.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)But he has zero chance of getting elected president.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)We've got to look forward, the future can be bright.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)quakerboy
(13,921 posts)I havn't yet seen anyone else put forward that would do a good job of it. Excepting Warren, but I doubt she is running.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)another third-way, right of center politician who will work with the GOP to maintain the status quo. That's what I would gather based on the posters avatar image anyway.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Pipe dreams of electing a Socialist who would be 75 years old in 2016 are not realistic options. Neither is a senator from MA with all of 10 months experience in elected office (aside from the fact that she' not interested in running). Ideals are fine, but reality always bites us in the butt.
I want a person who can beat the Republicans in 2016. It'll be hard enough as it is to keep the WH without putting out there candidates who only a minority group would vote for and not someone who could take it to the Republicans and give them a drubbing.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)If we nominate someone who may beat republicans, but will govern poorly, then we lose.
Someone who can beat the Republicans.. when we go with that as our standard, we do oh so well (Kerry anyone?). And when we put our money on a long shot (multiracial freshmen senator elected mainly as a result of a republican scandal with scanty national political experience, and a name that sounds more like the name of USA enemy #1 than like that of any president in the last 200 years).
Or flip it.. Republicans have been picking based on who can "beat democrats". Thats what Romney was. Their move to the middle. Thats what McCain was. An "electability" choice. Its worked out just as well for them as it has for us.
But lets set aside the clear myth of "electability". Lets run with your standard of someone who can beat Republicans. Who would that be?
We've only had two serious candidates in the last 4 elections who could beat Republicans. Gore did it, and Obama did it. None of the others were able to manage it. So who new is on the scene with that potential?
polichick
(37,152 posts)through elected officials that are supposed to represent the people but are little more than whores for their owner corporations.
Stop spewing this lie!
Edit: typo
Beacool
(30,253 posts)You truly believe that a Socialist in his mid 70s could win the WH in 2016????
Really?
polichick
(37,152 posts)(which these days amounts to a corporate tool) can't possibly be viable.
It's complete bullshit designed to protect the status quo.
Do I believe that a Socialist in his 70s can win in 2016? Only if the people vote for themselves instead of against themselves - and stop buying the idiotic viability lie.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)He brought the enthusiasm of his charisma and the opportunity to transcend race. Sanders is not in the same category of electability.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)First of all we desperately need a progressive Democrat winning the nomination. I dont think that will be Sen Sanders. But that doesnt preclude him from running and getting the progressive message out. Something that Clinton wont do. Sen Sanders have for years openly spoken out for the lower classes. Clinton doesnt bother. At least she isnt hypocritical.
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will lose lots of New DEmocrat / Previous-Republican votes to Christie. Votes that Obama got in 2012. She may not be able to defeat Christie without the support of the left. And the left recognizes that eight more years of The Third Way will finish off the middle class.
Just Asking Questions - I recommend you google it.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Some here seem in denial of the political realities on the ground as the Tea Party folks who saw Bachmann, Cain and Palin as viable candidates. Ditto for the Baggers that they are pushing now to run in 2016.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The reality I see is that the lower classes have been under assault for 30 years and we can not withstand that assault much longer. Therefore we must stop that assault and we wont with another conservative Democratic president that embraces Larry Summers and Wall Street.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)Elections are about winning, not about pushing for some idelaized candidate who won't ever win.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)I vote on principle, but also on electability. Sanders has a zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, never mind that he's not even a Democrat.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)But, obviously your principles differ from mine and JQA's.
Not to mention Thomas Jefferson's.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Sanders admitted he does not "wake up every morning with a huge desire to be president of the United States... I dont."
cuongtl
(1 post)Bernie have my support
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Now THAT is Change I Can Believe In!
Yes. We. CAN!
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
loudsue
(14,087 posts)and really wouldn't get any face time by the rightwing media. If he ran on the democratic ticket, he would. But, of course, the media will call him a freak, like they did Kucinich and Howard Dean and other great dems.
riqster
(13,986 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)anti partisan
(429 posts)Sanders would make a way better President than any of the "serious" contenders, but a third party run by him could enable a complete crackpot like Ted Cruz to get into the White House.
Nobody would be happier than the Republican oligarchs to see infighting between progressives.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)That is all.
anti partisan
(429 posts)Ted Cruz will probably not be the nominee. I was just using him as an example of someone scary enough that Clinton/Cuomo would look wonderful in comparison.
I do think the GOP is capable of nominating someone very frightening.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Obama has taken from the Right for his not-really-socialist policies, I'm curious to see what they would have in store for a REAL socialist president a la Bernie Sanders. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if they start pretending they were always cool with Obama (like how they've done with Bill Clinton and his various criticisms about Obama), just to try to make Sanders look extreme.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)He claims to be one - but he generally backs the President on everything he's done.
My guess is that DU would become just as disenchanted with a Sanders presidency as they have with Obama's.
anti partisan
(429 posts)I don't agree with that assessment because of numerous statements that Sanders has made, but I see where they are coming from. What some see as selling out, I see as diplomacy. You can have someone like a Ron Paul of the left who never misses an opportunity to fight for what they feel is right (and I would like that, not saying there's anything wrong with it), but without a bit of a diplomatic touch you remain a gadfly for life.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)no more old white guys for a while.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Special circumstances for a very special "old white guy."
sibelian
(7,804 posts)What justifies this insanity?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)HE EATS CABBAGE! HIS FACE IS AASYMMETRICAL! IF YOU LOOK AT HIM SIDEWAYS HE RESEMBLES A TABLE LAMP! HE'S LATE TO THE PARTY! HE SMELLS OF CHEESE! HE'S UNCOOL! HE MAKES NO SENSE! HE'S A HIPPY! HE DOESN'T WASH! HE'S GOT HAIRS STCKING OUT OF HIS EARS! HE HAS A PET COW! HE'S A WITCH!!!!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Except we are girls. (actually ancient witches!)
Alkene
(752 posts)or open limousines.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)not just slightly-to-the-left-of-Attila-the-Hun.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I would vote for him!
Rockyj
(538 posts)I've always been jealous of Vermont because they have him!
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)He would have my support.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He should understand that just having the Presidency is not enough.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)democracy and defeat oligarchy.
Considering his past actions in the Senate as well, that makes him the superior candidate by a country mile.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He can't "defeat oligarchy" without the cooperation of Congress. DUers not realizing that is one thing, but Bernie has been a Senator for years.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)You never really know unless you really try.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)all the way. Recommended.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We need him in the worst way. And he knows it.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)They would allow exactly zero party support, and would work to derail his campaign as fervently as the GOP. Wall Street has likely already selected their Democratic and GOP 2016 offerings to the people, and you can select from those choices and those choices ONLY!
The Democrats (save for a few good apples) are as corrupted as the GOP, a means to ensure that neither party represents a threat to the oligarchy. I see absolutely no benefit in Bernie running as a Dem, absolutely none.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The Third Way is absolutely hated by anyone that has any understanding of their true nature.
Also, anyone tainted by the Third Way should be completely exempt form deciding anything about the Democratic Party. They can go join the Republican Tea Party, right where they belong.
Bernie will have a shocking amount of support as a Democrat. Bernie is dead center on nearly every issue, right with the American people. That's why the paid NAY SAYERS are coming on strong, saying, "There is no use for Bernie to run as a Democrat."
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)If he ran as an independent would that somehow prevent you from supporting him or voting for him? The Democratic party likely would not have him, they would not help him, and in fact they would do everything in their power to destroy him and his candidacy. For my money I could care less what party affiliation he runs under. In fact, he can even make up a party name and I will STILL vote for him. If he runs as an Independent, I will vote for him. If he runs as a Democrat, I will vote for him. If he runs as a Green, I will vote for him. If he runs as a NPA (no party affiliation), I will vote for him.
I tend to think that the ones that insist he must run as a Democrat to get their support, really aren't all that interested in his candidacy, but are secretly more interested in ensuring that his candidacy goes nowhere.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)struggle4progress
(118,356 posts)to build a machine that would have any chance of electing him
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Machine politics
polichick
(37,152 posts)internet organizing and social media.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)At this point, unless and until another good left-of-center Democrat appears, I am happy to support either Sanders or Warren; not both, as we're going to need a firebrand in the Senate, too.
I'd probably put Sanders before Warren, based on seniority and experience, but either would do the job.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bernie fills the bill.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Addressing climate change is the single most important event in the history of humans and for the animals that depend on a stable ecosystem. By failing to realistically address it with every passing day we are sentencing our children and wildlife to miserable existences and eventual extinction.
Any vote for someone who cherishes Wall St over the environment at this point is not only anti-environment and anti-liberal. I'd say it places you firmly in the lap of Ronald Reagans party no matter the insignia behind the name.
Every dollar invested in Wall St, every hour worked in its service is a disservice to those who will come after us. It is spitting in face of nature and her creations and clearly shows a complete lack of respect and admiration for it.
Response to Jesus Malverde (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
William769
(55,148 posts)otherone
(973 posts)Thanks for the op
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... hope it turns out differently, though.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)hay rick
(7,643 posts)Bernie is what Democrats ought to be.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)You people are out of your goddamned minds.