Bernie Sanders Must Not Be Elected

.
The Bernie Sanders phenomenon is attracting average Americans to political rallies not seen in this country for decades.

His words reach a segment of the population usually ignored by mainstream politicians. For those of us happy to see a candidate truly willing to serve average Americans, Bernie Sanders is a breath of fresh air. For voters wanting to maintain the oligarchs'power and see them keep getting richer at the expense of everyone else, Sanders is a threat.

Like Senator Barack Obama in 2008, Sanders condemns the status quo in Washington D.C. But as we found after Obama took office, defenders of the status quo are well funded and have strong support among ignorant Americans. Obama's efforts fighting the Old Guard in D.C. resulted in government gridlock.

The high dollar political donors have gained even more strength with Citizens United permitting unlimited spending by the super-rich. Sadly, and despite the wishes of his supporters, Bernie Sanders has little hope of winning against a foe so well financed.

As an advocate for average Americans, Sanders will find he has no support from the right. Their votes and their defense are reserved for candidates to serve the very rich and Big Business. Also, he will never get the votes of anti-choice voters, voters who oppose same sex marriage, elderly and disabled Americans who have cheered for the G”NO”P's obstructionism of the first African-American President, and a host of other U.S. voters willing to vote against their own best economic interests.

However, if Sanders does, somehow manage to win the White House, his proposals to undo the status quo in D.C. will be fought by the long serving Congressmen (and women) on both sides of the aisle. Big spending donors will never relinquish their grip over our government. It's taken too many years and too many millions of dollars convincing the weak-minded in America they need to be ruled by the oligarchs.

Bernie Sanders must not be elected, and if he is, he must be stopped to protect the status quo.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/whats-behind-bernie-sanders-enormous-rallies-126531662801.html

.

 

I am glad to see someone like Sanders running. He does seem like an outsider and that is what is generating his support. I have been looking at what he wants to do and have not made up my mind about him just yet.

The propaganda in this article about Obama is ridiculous. While he ran as an outsider he turned out to be just the opposite. He has been nothing but a puppet for left wingers in congress. They have no intentions of helping the middle class. Their intentions are to to use the middle class and anyone else they can to stay in power so they can do nothing but line their own pockets.

 

Why? Sanders seems to connect with the young in's. They are the ones who will have to pay the national debt we racked up for them.

 

All parties wonder what is wrong with their own corruption in the forums. It's $, always.

Bernie is the only Politician in how long that doesn't get donations from major banks? Only from We The People..

This will probably change but for now, he is the only Representative of America.

 

^I'll ask you what debt Bernie will make while adding what projects your Right Wing promises without actually discussing them openly/for years.

Your post shows that you think the Left spends like crazy. When it's generally the Right Wing that spends like crazy on Unnecessary war.

You are free to correct me if I am wrong. If you do. You will actually find a DEBATE and will lose.

 

.
While Sanders has become a master using social media, he falls down as a politician by refusing to bash his opponents. Worse yet, he tells the truth.

Truth appeals to the younger generations Sanders is courting, but truth is the last thing experienced voters want to hear. They much prefer hearing the same old empty promises from their chosen candidates.

Trump watched the successes and failures of the candidates he sponsored election after election. Using this insight, he honed the hate filled rhetoric needed to gain the support of the right wing. It is obviously working, Trump is leading the Republican pack.

The question remains, will Sanders' truth-telling overcome the need for older voters to be told what they want to hear? Past election history has shown those candidates relying on the truth do poorly in the long run.

.

 

This idea that the right is the big bad corporate sellout is just straight up wrong. The establishment left is just as bad if not worse (in the past at least). I agree emphatically that Reagan was a complete corporate shill, but so was Clinton. So is Obama. In addition, nothing today even approaches the collusion present in the Progressive era. What's present today is but a relic from that era.

So excuse me if I don't buy into the whole "big bad Republicans" spiel. In reality - it's the "big bad establishment", on both sides.

[hr][/hr]

I mostly think Sanders is a candidate of true values and the such, but there's a very real danger he could turn full Wilson. That would be a worst case scenario. You just never know which way people are going to go until they're in office.

I think we can agree that a socialist/libertarian political polarity is ideal. Sanders vs Johnson, now that's an election I can get behind! Both parties are socially conservative, it would be nice for them to both be socially laissez-faire for a change. It's not that outrageous - the Democratic-Republicans were pseudo libertarian for a bit, the Whigs and Republicans have been vaguely fringe left at times. It can happen again.

 

Sanders is an excellent example of the "Lesser of Two Evils" saying...Still, in this case less may end up being more.

At least he is not HillBill.

 

Maintaining the status quo in D.C. has been the only goal the GOP. While the Democrats do little to fight for change, the Republicans oppose it at every turn. Progress in bringing change is not what the right wing wants (progress implies progressive). They are content to see the Republicans wage unending wars, steal the hard-earned dollars from Social Security recipients (money the recipients paid into the system for decades), permit the vast majority of U.S. citizens to go without healthcare, defund education to the point the U.S. would rank at the bottom of developed countries, etc.

Cite one issue that helps the bottom 80% of the U.S. population that the GOP does NOT oppose. Ending abortion does not, neither does preventing same sex marriage (these are two issues that have no effect on right-wingers lives, it just gets their goats that gays can marry, and pregnant women can avoid the punishment of raising an unwanted child). The tax cuts for the very rich, touted as money to be reinvested to create jobs, only created jobs in countries outside the U.S., and caused massive lay-offs here at home. Of course conservatives and neoconservatives cannot see this, and what they cannot or will not see does not exist in their alternate reality.

If the people cannot elect politicians willing to address the many problems faced by average Americans, and are only offered candidates sworn to serve the one percent, there is no real point in going to the polls.

How many rank-and-file Republican voters would vote for anyone NOT devoted to Big Business and the very rich, after all, these same politicians will promise to end abortion and same sex marriage? If past history is any indication, the number would be extremely small, too many vote against the nation as a whole, instead hoping to further the narrow-minded, oppressive right wing agenda.

.

 

Isn't this the guy that likes to talk about giving free stuff to people?

 

It would seem he is agin' it....considering that Corporations are now people.

 

Sanders is using Castro's blue print. But he is stupid enough to think the plan will work in the U.S. because he will be El Presidento. Because we are a republic with a capitalist economy Sanders is able to shoot his mouth off about what he thinks could be better. The consummate fool living in a dream world.

 

I don't call 20,000 screaming college kids average Americans. I call them a small segment of the voting population. I'm glad you're enthused. I haven't seen a bunch of kids this crazy over an old guy since Ross Perot. I hope you won't be too discouraged when the Democrat machine destroys him.

 

We will be discouraged because many of us are just as sick of the Democrat machine as we are of the Republican one. The only difference between the parties is generally social issues which is how they attract their voters for the most part. You think the Republicans would be a major party without guns and religion?

 

What makes the gun lobby so powerful is that it's bipartisan. Many Democrats are gun owners and gun rights advocates.

I mostly agree with you. The two-headed monster has a tight grip. We make it easier for the monster to divide us, count us and control us. They depend on demographic politics and the divisive social issues.

 

Obama may have been ignorant of how to deal with congress. The sad part is he never learned or considered congress and at times both party's leaders beneath his dignity to discuss his agenda or how to work with both sides. Successful presidents usually makes friends with someone, usually a party leader from the other to provide help when the going gets tough. I seen Eisenhower do this with LBJ then the Democrat senate majority leader. JFK and LBJ did with same with Everit Dirksen, then the Republican minority leader in the senate. Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal worked great together and got lots and lots accomplished. Each of these presidents and others were willing to pick up the phone and call anyone in congress to help get what the president wanted done. Obama neither made friends or has been willing to use his phone with congress.

Your finance comment is very true. Also the hard core Republicans and Democrats will never vote for the other party's candidate even if their is a Hitler, Stalin or Charles Manson vs. Mother Teresa. History has shown those who identify or affiliate themselves with one party or the other vote 90% of the time for their party's candidate/s. Sanders or whomever is running on the Democrat side will get 90% of his party's vote. The question is how he would do with independents? Surprisingly Sanders trails Bush, Walker, Rubio just by a couple of percentage points when looking at independents and independents only in head to head match ups. Sanders actually beats Trump in a head to head among independents.

What Sanders has going for him among independents is he is not Hillary or Trump. Hillary among independents and independents only has a 35% approval rating, 53% unfavorable. Trump has a 26% approval rating among independents and a 56% unfavorable. But Sanders has a 33% favorable rating among independents with only a 26% unfavorable. But 39% of all independents say they haven't heard enough about Sanders to make a decision. So Sanders has plenty of room to both improve his standings among independents or fall off the table.

In other words, if he can somehow unseat Hillary, I sure wouldn't write him off.

 

Actually, he's attracting the same lunatic fringe Leftists that have been attracted to Obama. It's not really a phenomenon, but it sounds really kewl doesn''t it?

Socialists, communists, ANSWERniks, OccuTards...

What a gushing piece of propaganda - I see the Bernie Sanders Cult of Personality is open for business!

I will say that the Communist Party USA is just as thrilled as you and the rest of the socialists who support him are:

Bernie Sanders 'political revolution'
http://www.cpusa.org/bernie-sanders-political-revolution/

However, I do appreciate Sanders' honesty and his courage of his convictions. He's a self-proclaimed socialist and proud of it - he doesn't refer to himself as a "progressive" like dishonest New Left cowards do out of fear of revealing their true colors and agenda.

And that brings us to why he won't get elected - because he's a socialist. But I do pray that he gets the Democratic nomination - he'll get shellacked in the general election.

 

That depends on your definition of "free."
"Target: Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont.

"Goal: Eliminate poverty in the United States by guaranteeing everyone a universal minimum income.

"Universal Basic Income is a social safety net that affords all Americans a guaranteed sum of money. This progressive idea would end the expensive bureaucratic welfare system our country currently has in place. No one would have to jump through extensive bureaucratic hoops to prove their worthiness of needing assistance. This also levels the playing field for everyone and eliminates the stigma attached to being 'needy.'

"The estimated 3.5 million homeless people in America will have a chance to get a roof over their head.

"Tens of millions of American children will not have to go hungry because funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has been slashed, yet again.

"Millions of Americans struggling with unemployment will be able to support their families without the added stress of fighting for the limited amount of jobs available.

"Poverty will be eliminated."
Bernie's on record as supporting a Basic Income.

http://forcechange.com/139511/demand-a-universal-basic-income-for-all/

 

Obama followed by HillBill or by Sanders would be the coup-de-grace for America.

I suppose if you're Conservative, and you want a chance to start over from scratch....

-

 

really doesn't mater most of Congress gets the $$$ from donors and to many $$$ is the only free speech they are about

the president is only able to do so much, the real power is in Congress

 

The Democrats want to maintain the status quo every bit as much as the GOP. Consider the GOP: they want to move forward with "progressive" policy on many issues: they want to lower taxes on the ultra-rich, they want to end legal abortion, they want to become more involved in the fight against ISIS, etc, etc. That they want to progress in a different direction to you is not really relevant.

Anyhoo, the Democrats are Fabian socialists. They want to advance their pro-labor agenda, so long as it preserves the system on which their derive their power. That resources would be nationalized, taxes would be higher, etc under such a system does not interfere with the collusion they have going with industry. They don't want to change that part of the status quo, oh my no!

Each party has their base, and so long as they're able to maintain the collusion which sustains their power, they're happy to pander to their respective bases.

This is exactly the sort of base-pandering that I was talking about. They sustain their power through a) special interests, and b) the public interest. The latter; their base, is ideologically devoted to these policies. The special interests benefit from them (on the tax cuts at least). It's a win-win.

Politicians function like we all do: they serve their own self interest. The best at doing this find their way to the top, because the self-interest of a politician is winning office.

[hr][/hr]

The exact same is true for establishment Democrats. I'm not talking about the true believers like Bernie Sanders, just as I wasn't talking about the true GOP believers like Ron Paul. I mean the establishment lot - ie: the vast majority of them. Do you think Pelosi actually gives a flying f*** about gay marriage? Equal pay for equal work? Regulation?

Of course not. Some of these target their special interests - equal pay aids trade unions, regulations benefit market leaders at the expense of new competitors, etc. Many others target their public interest - their base feels strongly about gay marriage and the such. Nor do they actually have to deliver on their policies - they just need to dangle it in front of their base's collective faces, and rhetorically denounce the opposition.

[hr][/hr]

This is how politics really works when you strip away all the nonsense. If the GOP or the Democrats could sustain their power more effectively with a different policy platform, they would adopt it without a second's thought. They have done so numerous times in the past: remember the southern strategy? The switch from the Democrats as the party of laissez-faire in the 19th century to progressive interventionism in the 20th? The policies are just a means to an end: their continued power.

The government leads the citizenry, not the other way around. The public offers them a way to gain power. Sure, in this capacity they can guide the direction politicians lean, but they are constantly battling with special interests - and will always be a mere means to an end. If their policy does not agree with this end, they will not get their way.

In addition, the government is so centralized that the individual may as well not even participate. One can have absolutely no effect whatsoever in an electorate of 300,000,000. The only way to make government more representative is to place sovereignty closer to the individual. Slice government up into smaller bodies. In an electorate of 50,000, the individual can have an effect on the policies which are put in place: his vote is not completely worthless.

As it stands, it's not worth the trip to the polling booth.

I agree emphatically, I just think you're kidding yourself when it comes to the Democrats.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhH-PWjR3b0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zq-2cKENOc

 

I certainly hope he runs as a third party candidate.

 

The Bolsheviks were supported by the peasantry. That didn't make the Bolshevism any less of a bad idea.

Primarily people who don't follow politics and don't understand economics.

You're admitting that you've already failed once. What makes you think that you'll succeed this time?

Thank god.

Nor from the center.

There are five people running for the Democratic nomination, all of whom are white.

Socialism is never in anyone's best interests.

 

He's a socialist. What else do you need to know about him?