Years of indoctrination, surrounded by family, work and friends who don't want to change....can't be done as a group. Rare and individual cases take more prep and nurturing than Bernie has time for.

The constant messianic messages being assigned to Bernie are embarassing.

You of course may do what you wish.

The fact that 30% of republicans think he's the bomb, that same 30% don't care who,or how he insults, they just like him for his take no guff stand, tells me his favor abilities has nothing to do with policy.

Trump is and has been their creation if not candidate.

He didn't say you should listen to Trump's message, he's talking about Bernie's ability to affect Trump's message. It's pretty great. You should reread UJ's post.

.

we shouldn't even bother?

You should spend as much time and resources "converting" 20-30 Republicans as you want.

Ps....I wonder how many Republican trolls on DU have been converted by the Sanders messages here?

So I seriously recommend you go for it. Emmerse yourself in this worthwhile conversion project. There isnt a whole lot of time.

yes, we've seen that work, over time, to our detriment.

Just where, and when, would you begin to turn that back, and to begin turning the nation in a better direction? It won't be done en masse or in 30 days, but it has to start somewhere, and starting with someone who has crossover appeal is...a start. A start to changing the narrative, which will, slowly but surely, change the national consciousness.

That's not messianic. It's smart, and it's principled.

I had a young friend who had moved to Indiana for his last few years of HS. He was extremely intelligent but the full on immersion for more than a decade had anchored right wing perspective into his thinking.
Circumstances in 2004 gave him the opportunity to spend a couple of weeks with me. Exposure to more independent news sources and long, sometimes violent discussions, revealed how he had accepted a distorted view of reality.
Your last sentence doesn't deserve comment.

to save ourselves.

anything. However, I do think those things are possible.

curious response...

They're all he assholerelative or coworker who passed around racist emails about Obama. They're the people who shouted "Go back to your country" at an American journalist who dared ask questions about immigration and they're the person in CA to almost bombed a mosque. Trump did not cast a spell that gave people these views. He's their vehicle.

from the corporate media.

You underestimate the power of corporate media propaganda, google Josef Goebbels.

The corporate media touts hatred, that's why they have kept Trump front and center in the American Peoples' consciousness since the day he announced running for office.

If Trump passes gas they analyze what he had for lunch.

But I think you'd argue my same point if anyone else did this.

that she was going after Trump supporters, what matters to me are the grounds the candidate is speaking of.

Bernie gives no allowance for racism, misogyny or xenophobia if they come to him it will be under his terms which are spelled out quite clearly by his words and actions.

Bernie is fighting for the 99% and you can't exclude Trump's supporters and come anywhere near 99%.

He had no qualms about telling them what they disagreed with and went on to find common ground. And they respected him.

.

on this thread, cui bono.

Peace to you.

Thanks for posting the OP.



.

I completely agree with your view on changing the message. I also am amazed at many of the reactions here.

It's easy to hate Trump supporters but it is still just more hate.

As off base as they may be, ignoring them is not going to help. Sander's could actually enlighten a small percentage of them and that puts us ahead.

Why do we see such vitriol here on DU over an attempt to change their views?

We definitely should reach out to such people. Many of them have, as you so correctly stated, been misdirected.

Peace to you.

Here’s why Bernie Sanders plans to speak at Liberty University next month

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/heres-why-bernie-sanders-plans-to-speak-at-liberty-university-next-month/

“...It is very easy for a candidate to speak to people who hold the same views,” Sanders said. “It’s harder but important to reach out to others who look at the world differently. I look forward to meeting with the students and faculty of Liberty University.”

http://www.c-span.org/video/?328079-1/senator-bernie-sanders-ivt-remarks-liberty-university

Thanks for the addition, slipslidingaway.

then you need to try and bring about that change and look at both sides to see where we can agree. This 'my team vs. your team' only perpetuates the stalemate we have seen for too long. I am not speaking of giving up on core principles, politics is about persuading people to bend to your views, Sanders did that very well at LU.

Small steps in the direction you want to go are needed and venturing into the lion's den is sometimes necessary.

... Americans are free to be influenced by the Bible, should they so choose.

I choose not to be.

Am I somehow supposed to be Bible-influenced because my candidate-of-choice is? She's my candidate, not the leader of a cult.

But all of that is actually beside the point I was making, which is that the language you've used - "trying to save the prodigal sons and daughters under Trump's spell" - sounds a lot more like religious "fervour" than political observation.

history no matter their source whether it be the Bible, Greek Mythology, Confucius, Socrates, an untold number of History Books etc. etc... to be shy in using it, is just a waste.

I find terms like "trying to save the prodigal sons and daughters under Trump's spell" to be a bit too cult-like for my political tastes.

But the fact that you brought up HRC's Bible influence, as though it was somehow relevant to me because she's my candidate, was very telling.

You are worrying about how Uncle Joe worded his post rather than looking at the true content of it.

And no, UJ brought up the bible influence because you focused on the words that you called fundy religious fervor or whatever. You are being disingenuous and deflective here.

I think you know the point UJ was making, why not just address that?

.

as

... can choose to be influenced by the Bible, as she sees fit - it's nothing to do with me. And BTW, being influenced by the Bible and being a Fundie are not one and the same.

I consider language like "trying to save the prodigal sons and daughters", "Trump's spell", "do you believe in redemption", etc., to be cult-like phrases meant to appeal to "True Believers (TM)" rather than those merely supportive of a political candidate.

I don't like cults - and I'll just leave it there.

..to influence our government.

For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill.
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family&quot , a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics?page=2

But we're not supposed to bring that up because...reasons.

... president no?

tia

She has a fairly constant corporatist core. Her many "evolutions" are just shifts in how she presents herself, rather than conversion experiences. There is something about such things that you just can't fake, it's apparent when it's real and when it isn't.

... supporters but not a democrat!??!

Everyone else's past can be washed away except hers?

but welcome any Trump supporters who will lend a hand to changing this country fr the better rather than giving in to the fearful rhetoric Trump throws around. President, voter, no equivalence, thanks for playing though.

... going to be president they're all human... including Hillary right?

despite the feeling in my heart that her conversion is not real, her vote will be of some small help to elect Bernie.

I said I will welcome her vote, just as I will welcome the votes of any people currently being misled by Trump.

In my opinion, voting for Bernie is the right thing to do, and there's no close second, so anyone wanting to bring about the change we need will support Bernie. I don't expect you to agree with this, but we need all the help we can get taking back our government from representing the interests of the wealthy.

If you think Hillary gets us there, knock yourself out supporting her. I certainly don't see it that way though, I see her as the epitome of a representitive of big money, supporting neliberal economics and neocon foreign policy.

stating that Hillary can't be redeemed.

... continually no?

tia

Policy. Or at least that's what it should be about.

.

as I support a Trump supporter's redemption.

I would not support either to become President of the United States.

... there's redemption there's no need to demonize people as Clinton has been.

I demonize her campaign for POTUS, not her personally. If she were not trying to become POTUS I would have very little, if anything, to say about her.

and criticism is not demonization

is how you win. I have no problem with Bernie drawing in tRump supporters--it's not like Bernie's going to change his tune on his major issues to attract them.

the merits of his legacy it can't be denied that he created one.

And appealing to racism to peel off southern Democrats is not a strategy any Democratic candidate should emulate.

... support a billionaire who thinks Americans make too much money

They're xenophobes at best... just the type RayGun wanted in his fold... they type to hate the "welfare queen"

They aren't going to vote for a Democrat and they sure as hell shouldn't vote in a Democratic primary.

"Reagan Democrats" and even President Obama respects Reagan's "legacy."

Even if "the 99%" could be considered a strategy, how on earth can it translate into policies that can realistically be accomplished?

Other are stuck in their high school mentality and emotional maturity.
On very rare occasions, a sudden event or realization may cause a person to change in a short period of time. Most people never experience this in their lifetime.

(Others, according to Hindu cosmology, take many lifetimes to accomplish even small changes. )

then suddenly there is an earthquake.

I believe Bernie will set off their richter scales.

Peace to you, Binkie The Clown.

He satisfies the standards I held long before I even heard of him.

But then I look around here and see people who support Hilary while obviously being really conservative and I realize that they (and Hilary) only had the enlightened idea to move over to the Democratic party to try and further their long term control over our government because their policies long ago trashed the GOP.

She's regularly castigated here for having been a teenage Republican, though her entire adult life has been lived as an activist Democrat.

Bernie, on the other hand, is regularly and admiringly described as a pillar of unchanging principle, and I do mean unchanging.

But good for you, anyway.

but I don't think that most people do so at the time of choosing whom to vote for.

I think some Trump voters may be just against the 'status quo' and could choose to vote for Bernie instead (just as there are actually a few UKIP voters in the UK, who are considering voting for Labour under Corbyn for the same reason).

But I don't think hardcore long-term right-wingers are likely to convert because of Bernie. Certainly, people do change politically: Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were once Republicans; Reagan began as a Democrat. Winston Churchill switched parties twice. One of our current MPs, Rehman Chishti, stood as a Labour candidate in 2005, and then successfully as a Tory in 2010. But usually the changes are more gradual than a sudden conversion.

a few on his economic inequality ideas, but the fact he describes himself as a Socialist has the fear factor in it and won't sell.

There are simply more of them and they align closer to his beliefs if we are to believe what we are told.

... is an admission that he knows he's risen as much as he can in the party. There are no more Hillary votes to be had, there aren't enough "undecideds" to make a difference, the O'Malley votes (if he withdrew) would likely be split in Hillary's favor ... what's an underdog to do?

She may get the nomination, but she is going to need all of the votes she can scrape up in the General...especiaslly if she gets the nomination by alienating many progressives and the millennials who have been attracted by Sanders.

I commend those who are willing to be open minded and realize that many people are simply grasping for something when they claim they like Trump's message (or more likely the way he delivers it). Bernie had noted that many Trump followers are not fully committed, even my personal experience shows a coworker who went to see him who is now making fun of his followers.

Donald Trump has a negative and poisonous message out there. Sen. Sanders is putting a positive and healing message out to the market place of ideas

Whow, just whow.

Everyday here on DU I see Hillary supporters coming to the epiphany that Reaganism is the answer to the Sanders challenge.

Are these folks becoming 'enlightened' to Reaganism?

I don't know, but on DU, many Hillarians have discovered the joys of political reactionaryism.

I am not as concerned with the voters as I am those in power. They are the ones to blame. They are the ones who tell people they must be afraid and then use them to gain and maintain power. Underneath the fear most voters want the same thing; to go to work in the morning and put food on the table for their children in the evening. It is that desire to go to work in the morning and put food on the table for their children that Sanders is speaking to when he talks to Trump supporters. So if someone like Sanders who we know will use power for the good of the people can turn people away from Trump who we will know will use those voters just to gain power and money, then I say good for him. We have to remember that those people who have been taught to hate things such as Social Security still need, depend, and use Social Security. And those who have been taught to hate people will often soften when they get to know someone one on one, face to face. This is how scars heal after wars. I love hearing stories of children on opposite sides of war playing soccer together. These are real things that really happen. Of course the news doesn't tell these stories because they are busy telling everyone they should be afraid and hate each other. When children play together they get to know each other and the walls of hatred are broken down. Children are often our only hope because they are the ones not yet so jaded that they refuse to talk to one another.

Who have roundly criticized HRC for changing, growing, learning, being enlightened, transforming and having epiphanies WRT marriage equality and some other issues. For a long time, the word "evolved" was treated as something to mock here.

She and President Obama seem to be the only two people for whom evolution on issues is a bad thing. At least, according to what I read on this board. Makes one wonder.

with her it becomes a different question than Trump supporters, we're not asking to elect them President.

While changing, growing, learning, being enlightened, transformed or having epiphanies can be good things, voting for a candidate also requires a measurable track record on an ideological or even pragmatic scale, too much inconsistency disrupts the faith required to support or vote for such a candidate.

This board is made up of thousands if not tens of thousands of peoples running all gamuts of Democratic Philosophy and no doubt some people are here just to stir trouble, some people have honest, sincere disagreements on matters of policy or ideological theory and one can find all manner of criticism; from the most sublime to utter ridiculousness, and this holds true with any candidate.

I'm sorry, but fuck Trump and anyone who would support this fuck.

Redemption? Saving the prodigal sons and daughters under Trump's spell? Now Trump is the Fallen Angel and only Bernie can cast out the demon?

I am fairly sure that you meant well, but the delivery is a bit jumbled.

them to the error of their ways is the exact opposite of "supporting Trump."

Elections are all about winning over the most people to your argument, what's so difficult to understand about that?

Why not just say what you said; Elections are all about winning over the most people to your argument Simple. Direct.

Yea, I'm being illogical. Get back to me on the Hitler and Religious references when you can.

Thank you.

Shouldn't we strive to learn from history whether it be religious or secular?

Does no religion have any basis of wisdom whatsoever?

Thank you

I couldn't agree more that we should learn from history. The problem is, we don't. And Religious History has no consistent factual basis. Can you tell me in what year did the Catholic Church acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ? (no cheating)

I will respect your belief in religion but will not agree with it. Like the scene in Penny Dreadful....Ms Ives "but you don't believe in God" Frankenstein's Monster: "but you do". (it was actually a heavy scene. Frankenstein's monster was a well read gentleman)

See. That didn't go so bad. Maybe there is hope for we that venture into GDP.

It looks silly on us. AND a Godwin's Law violation on top of it all

Liberals should embrace the 1st Amendment in all its' glory whether you agree with it or not.

If you want to debate an issue on its' merits that's one thing but knee jerk reactions should be in the sole realm of the Republicans.

Doesn't make me a Republican either

And no one is violating your first amendment rights. You have a perfect right to say silly things and everyone else has the right to make fun of them. That is how it works. Come on! You used religious imagery, Trump supporters, Bernie Sanders and Hitler, all in the same post. Too much, man. You are gilding the lily.

Or wait, are you saying I am violating your freedom of religion by interfering with Bernie worship?

Apparently you believe we shouldn't learn from history and you believe that the world's religions have no common sense or wisdom to them?

This seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Your logic would only cede religious arguments to the Republicans, granting them a lock on a sizable portion of the electorate and thereby insuring their success.

rhetorical questions is a valid form of debate?

Because I never said any of the things you typed. The only thing I threw out with the bathwater was Saint Bernie and some tiny Hitlers.

I'm out, getting late here....

Bernie being a "Saint" are his political opponents.

Have a good night.

Also prevents Hitlers! Good to know.

Have not witnessed it myself but I haven't seen all his ...... ummmm..... campaign speeches.

I heard he can heal cancer with his hands too. Just pulls the tumors right out!

is not all that different from Trump's blaming the economic and social woes of Germany on the Jews.

Trumps blames it on the Mexicans, or Muslims.

Why didn't I think of that? Good thing we have Savior Bernie to rescue us!