I will say that I agree with whomever said that Bernie marks the future of the Democratic Party whether he wins or loses. The same may be true for the GOP, but I'm not sure about Trump. He seems like more of a one-off for the Republicans. I think the "moderate" Democratic era will end with Hillary. If she wins, the party would undoubtedly shift to the left by 2024.
Democratic socialism is not going to address the nuances of the energy industry, education, criminal justice, the environment or the political process. At best, he's treating the symptoms but not the cause.
Neither Sanders nor his fanclub understand the word nuance, hence them responding to John Lewis saying that he didn't see Bernie while working with the SNCC with a picture that was taken last year.
I agree, hence why he FACTUALLY isn't a single-issue candidate, Bernie is a progressive who likes to get things done and his agenda FACTUALLY contains more than Democratic Socialism and Wall Street.
Then why does he redirect his stump speeches and nearly all of his debate answers to those two things? It's not "staying on message"; it's having a very narrow platform.
Democratic socialism is not going to address the nuances of the energy industry, education, criminal justice, the environment or the political process. At best, he's treating the symptoms but not the cause.
I disagree on that point. He wants to treat one of the causes. There doesn't have to be just one cause. The current climate makes it even harder for minorities and those who arent straight white males to make ends.
Wall Street is not even the enemy, when in fact Wall Street IS for everbody. People don't realize that the purpose of wall street is to decentralize trades here and there.
Virtually every single one of us have access to Wall Street and trade, and become rich.
Forex, Stocks..
Why you demonizing the same thing the can make you rich?
Why is Wall Street seen as the evil one?
Wall Street is still part of the problem
The average person does not engage in trading. The rich are getting richer.
Hillary's public endorsements have been messy as hell. Gloria Steinem, Madeleine Albright, and John Lewis (all icons) making complete fools of themselves and just turning people off from Clinton even more.
Imo Sanders canvassers should go to SC and GA and trash John Lewis in the name of Bernie.
Hillary's public endorsements have been messy as hell. Gloria Steinem, Madeleine Albright, and John Lewis (all icons) making complete fools of themselves and just turning people off from Clinton even more.
John Lewis hardly said anything foolish, and Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright have both apologized. Though, while Albright's comment was not said in the right time or place, I think it was blown out of proportion. She's been saying it for some 20-odd years.
If Rubio cannot pull in strong in Nevada, that will be a warning sign to the Republicans about how much reach he really has with Latino voters. They will run the numbers, and see how well he does with Latino voters in that state.
Look at the comments on John Lewis's Facebook page, by the way. Very disgusting, but completely expected.
I don't condone racist comments but I also don't condone an obvious smear, by a known shill for the Clintons, to try and make Sanders look insincere about his civil rights activism.
And you're trying to act like it's some sort of point. It's not.
All you've told me is about his campaign, which I have already credited for being persuasive in managing to convince people that a quarter-century tenured Senator is somehow a political outsider. But what I haven't heard is HOW exactly he has been waging this great fight against the very ~establishment~ that he has been part of for the past 25 years besides talking a good game.
You're choosing to complete every single point that people are making on here and somehow trying to imply that Bernie Sanders is an establishment candidate because he was in Congress (as an Independent Socialist) for a specific period of time. It's not working.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonchild
Then why does he redirect his stump speeches and nearly all of his debate answers to those two things? It's not "staying on message"; it's having a very narrow platform.
He doesn't have a narrow platform, and just because he carries out a very important message that he feels most passionate about and which highlights the substance of his campaign, it does NOT mean he's a single-issue candidate, you're FACTUALLY wrong about that, reality entirely disagrees with you.
John Lewis hardly said anything foolish, and Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright have both apologized. Though, while Albright's comment was not said in the right time or place, I think it was blown out of proportion. She's been saying it for some 20-odd years.
Don't even try it. You know damn well what they were doing with their comments.
Issues are often interconnected, but they're also very complex. Bernie may not be a single issue candidate by the strictest sense, but it will be easy for Hillary to label him as such. She's essentially calling him naive. He will have to change the way he delivers his message if he doesn't want to be viewed as a single issues candidate. The fact he said "wall street" so many times is only going to help Clinton paint that narrative.
You're choosing to complete every single point that people are making on here and somehow trying to imply that Bernie Sanders is an establishment candidate because he was in Congress (as an Independent Socialist) for a specific period of time. It's not working.
He doesn't have a narrow platform, and just because he carries out a very important message that he feels most passionate about and which highlights the substance of his campaign, it does NOT mean he's a single-issue candidate, you're FACTUALLY wrong about that, reality entirely disagrees with you.
You say it's "not working" only to deflect that you can't actually point to any tangible proof of Sanders encouraging an anti-establishment revolution after 25 years in Congress outside of his (again, to his credit) very persuasive campaign. What has he done?
If Rubio cannot pull in strong in Nevada, that will be a warning sign to the Republicans about how much reach he really has with Latino voters. They will run the numbers, and see how well he does with Latino voters in that state.
Rubio not winning Nevada would spell doom for him. He'll be finished.
You say it's "not working" only to deflect that you can't actually point to any tangible proof of Sanders encouraging an anti-establishment revolution after 25 years in Congress outside of his (again, to his credit) very persuasive campaign. What has he done?
You don't get to interpret my words to make them fit into your narrative I have proved to you why he's not an establishment candidate and you're still attempting to drag the argument down because nothing we said fits into your scenario.
