You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 06:03:25 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Bernie Sanders discussion....  (Read 4305 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Far eyes

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2016, 10:43:46 AM »
I think its more the effect of just having 2 boxes to put all your things in, you can tray and sort your thing but it the end you still end up with a mess in both boxes. Currently people just see a mess in both of those boxes

Quote
What is that? What would mark a party that actually "works"?

I dont think that its that it dos not necessarily work, its just that as in the above principle you have so much things that you should really have othr boxes/parties for you end up with just an overwhelming amount of things that dont really belong there. 
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 10:45:53 AM by Far eyes »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2016, 10:57:52 AM »
The theory is that you can tell something about a candidate's views, goals, and ideologies by which party they are associated with.  For example, the Federalists, who believed that the executive branch needed to be stronger, and the Whigs, who believed it was already quite strong enough (and could even stand to lose some power.)  This is why the option of voting 'straight ticket' would even be a possible strategy:  even if you didn't know the actual stand of a particular candidate on the issues, you could be reasonably sure that they would line up with the others you'd picked.

Offline elone

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2016, 03:35:48 PM »
I wouldn't be so sure. Tons and tons of Bernie supporters have pledged to not vote for her if she wins the primary. If she's abandoned by most Bernie supporters and the independents who like him don't show up to the polls as much because they don't feel like there's a good option on the table, she's going to have a hard fight ahead of her. At this point, I can't really feel bad for her or her supporters (or the nation as a whole, really) if she loses to Trump or another Republican. Much as I might not want to see a Republican in power, I refuse to vote for her and I think this might be what the DNC needs to wake them up to the fact that people meant it when they said they wouldn't settle for the status quo anymore.

Well said, but we do have other choices if the establishment keeps Bernie off the ticket. One can always write in Bernie Sanders on the ballot, and I suspect that there will be a movement for that. Also, Jill Stein is running for president for the Green Party, another option for us Bernie supporters who cannot vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Both options are better than staying home, at least it shows the parties we will not stand for the same old Clinton bull and party and media rigging of the process.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 03:37:46 PM by elone »

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2016, 05:25:49 PM »
We'd do it with basically any establishment candidate the DNC put forward, especially if they rigged the election in favor of that person the way they have with Hillary. It's about a refusal to settle for the two party system that doesn't serve us. It's about living up to the promise of a political revolution we gave when we threw in our lot with a guy who only showed single digit numbers in basically every state but his own. It about making it absolutely clear that we're not going to allow the DNC to be hijacked by neo-liberals that are two steps away from Republicans any more. We're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, which is exactly what a vote for Hillary is.

As stated previously, Hillary has been the stated successor to Obama, and the Democratic-controlled media outlets have had eight years to build her up as the next candidate.  I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a very apt analogy I read for this election the other day: the election is a baseball game, and the goal is to circle the bases and score.  On the Democratic side, guys like Bernie, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, all start off at home plate.

Hillary gets to start on third base.

The fact that Bernie has stayed in this long, forced Clinton to fight this hard for the nomination, and that's STILL NOT OVER, tells me two things.  One: the pure strength of Bernie's message.  I listened to some of the other candidates when they were still in the race, and I can tell you that if Bernie hadn't run, I think the Democratic primary election would have been decided by the end of March, rather than it still being a bit of a toss-up.  Two:

I mentioned it before and I'll say it again: Hillary is not really a liberal.  She's only more liberal than guys like Cruz.

She's backed literally every major bad decision (Iraq, NAFTA, the TPP, etc) and been on the wrong side of history up until the time it was politically expedient for her to be on the right one (civil rights issues - no one talks about the fact that she campaigned for a segregationist, gun laws, gay marriage, etc). And instead of making an honest attempt to win us over and show that she really IS "on our side" as she likes to put it, she belittles us as voters. We're "unrealistic" for wanting universal health care. We're "unrealistic" for wanting public colleges to be free. And for no other reason than the fact that we're voting for Bernie and not her, she accuses us of not doing our own research. Never mind the fact that the independents... who make up HALF the voters in the country and are heavily swayed toward Bernie, are historically the most well informed demographic out there because we aren't beholden to a party color.

Expect those bad decisions to come out in the general election.  Bernie's been playing nice and refusing to use attack ads and the like, instead falling back on the strength (and goddamn is it strong) of his message.  The Republicans will not be as kind, especially if Trump secures the nomination.  If I were him, I would attack her relentlessly on those fronts, knowing full well all she can't criticize me for my own voting record, because I don't have one.  That's not to say she can't attack him, but I think he will have a much easier time of it than she will.

The growing attitude of the political establishment (left and right) has been one of authoritarian sentiment: the American people are morons, they don't know what they're talking about, they should just leave all the politics to us.  That argument might actually stand, if I didn't believe that the parties have been complicit in trying to engineer a populace that, to paraphrase George Carlin, are just smart enough to work the voting machines, but just dumb enough not to know what it all actually means. 

That is an attitude of disenfranchisement, that is a regressive stance - pushing us back rather than forward.

I switched my registration from independent to democrat to vote for Bernie. Once this primary is over, if he loses, I'll be switching back to independent and I will be writing him in. Why? Because I refuse to abandon my morals. I meant what I said when I said I want a political revolution. Hillary cannot and will not ever give us that, it would mean she loses most of her power. It means her bread and butter, her way of life will no longer fly. I refuse to allow the threats of a Trump presidency to force me to abandon what I stand for. I don't owe Hillary or the DNC anything. Early polls, before primary voting even began, showed Bernie was the better candidate to send up against anyone on the Republican side. The DNC and their bought and paid for corporate media ignored that and stacked the race against Bernie, assuming we'd all fall in line once Bernie lost the race. It's on them if Trump or Cruz wins. Not us. We owe them nothing because they've done nothing to represent us.

"What have you done to represent us and our interests?"

That must be the driving question - the only question - behind any person who wishes to vote.  You can excuse people who haven't done this sort of thing before, but for professional politicians, their voting record should be the key piece of evidence in the process of deciding if you're going to vote for them.  Speeches are nice, but I would be voting for Bernie even if he was perpetually tongue-tied and Hillary was about as silver as a gun loaded for bear against a werewolf.  People can hide what they say, but hiding what you do - when it's a matter of public record - is a lot harder, and a lot more telling.

And the truth is that the political establishment has done nothing for us - they've spent the last few decades carving out little fiefdoms for themselves, at the expense of doing their job.  So, as you've said, we owe them precisely JACK.

Completely agreed. I think the republicans are doing it on their own though, and I only have one vote, so I'm choosing to work on the party that's a bit too happy being stagnant. Ideally, if Bernie doesn't take the nomination, I'd like to see both parties fall apart because they both lose a ton of support (Remember that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters have the biggest, most important issue in common: they both want big money out of politics) because they pushed their establishment nominees, and a strong, single minded third party came together. It's how we got rid of the Wig party. I'd love to see it happen again. I just worry most Americans are too complacent and too easily bullied by fear tactics ("If you don't vote for Hillary you're giving the presidency to Trump!" is a fear tactic, pure and simple).

The Republicans are self-destructing because they no longer represent a legitimate political entity - they've basically become a holding company for a handful of diminishing populations that wield influence disproportionate to their numbers: Wall Street & the militant religious right, for examples.  I've listened to various commentators on the Republican side of the election, and most of them have been comfortable saying that the Republicans are on their last legs - if Trump or Cruz get elected to the office, it's the end of the party NOW; if someone like Paul Ryan gets the nomination in a contested convention, it's going to be merely SOON.  After they lost to Obama in '08, they had a chance to pull back and do some soul-searching and figure out a new direction to take the party in to ensure their survival.  They didn't take it seriously, instead trying things like putting Marco Rubio up to win the Hispanic vote, or copy-catting Obama with Herman Cain and Ben Carson - things that meant nothing, because all they were doing was giving the same philosophy a more racially-friendly face.  And now it may destroy them.

Hillary's campaign lives and breathes on two things: fear of what another Republican in the White House might do, and Democrats who aren't willing to challenge their own party allegiance.  I have a friend who I discuss the election with - he's been a big fan of the Green Party and Jill Stein for years.  He's told me more than once that if the Green Party ever became more than just an American third party, he'd dump the Democrats and go for them.  But they don't have any influence and power, so he stays where he is.

One of the more common fear tactics I've seen used against Trump is the 'A Republican will destroy the country!'  No, he won't.  You know how I know?

Because for the last eight years, all I've been hearing is 'Obama will destroy the country! Obama will destroy the country! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!'

We may call him the most powerful man in the world, but the President does not have that kind of power.  If he did, he would be a dictator, not a President.

Whether or not Hillary succeeds - both in the general and in the remaining primaries - depends on whether or not people realize that, and whether or not the remaining people in the race start hitting her back for stuff she's done, when all she can talk about is what they might do.

The theory is that you can tell something about a candidate's views, goals, and ideologies by which party they are associated with.  For example, the Federalists, who believed that the executive branch needed to be stronger, and the Whigs, who believed it was already quite strong enough (and could even stand to lose some power.)  This is why the option of voting 'straight ticket' would even be a possible strategy:  even if you didn't know the actual stand of a particular candidate on the issues, you could be reasonably sure that they would line up with the others you'd picked.

The problem with that - party being a stand-in for what a particular candidate believes - is that the parties have swapped around and changed sides and things have stayed a bit muddled since then.  As an example, during the Jim Crow era, blacks tended to vote more for Republicans than for Democrats, whereas Southerners hated the 'Party of Lincoln.'  Once JFK, LBJ, and the Civil Rights Act was passed, that changed - the socially conservative (read: racist) 'Dixiecrats' jumped ship, refusing to vote again for the man who had outlawed segregation.  The Dixiecrats voted largely for George Wallace in the '68 election, and then were picked up by Nixon during his re-election bid in '72.  They've been there ever since.

You know all that screaming about Republican voter suppression in the South?  Laws that disproportionately disenfranchise blacks and other typical Democratic voters?  That's your Dixiecrats at work, right there.  They might be dead or dying, but that doesn't mean they gone.

Back to the main point - the party label is just that, a label.  And a label is only good if you can understand what it means.  As an example: I can pick up a jar of peanut butter, read the ingredients, and understand what goes into it.  I can do that because, as a trained chemist, I know what the various chemical terminologies on the jar mean.  Your average person can't do that, so they don't understand.  Of course, with the parties today, it's less a case of unclear label and more a case of they ripped the label off and are hiding it...

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2016, 05:35:06 PM »
The problem with that - party being a stand-in for what a particular candidate believes - is that the parties have swapped around and changed sides and things have stayed a bit muddled since then.  As an example, during the Jim Crow era, blacks tended to vote more for Republicans than for Democrats, whereas Southerners hated the 'Party of Lincoln.'  Once JFK, LBJ, and the Civil Rights Act was passed, that changed - the socially conservative (read: racist) 'Dixiecrats' jumped ship, refusing to vote again for the man who had outlawed segregation.  The Dixiecrats voted largely for George Wallace in the '68 election, and then were picked up by Nixon during his re-election bid in '72.  They've been there ever since.

That's one of the reasons that I used examples from the 1800's.  ;)  Back when it was the Federalists and the Whigs, it was reasonably safe to identify the candidate with the label on the jar.

As for today's parties, I'm reminded of a quote from Orwell:

Quote
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2016, 05:40:05 PM »
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Borderline Prophetic if you ask me.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #56 on: April 22, 2016, 05:48:13 PM »
As for today's parties, I'm reminded of a quote from Orwell:

The surest sign of that?  (Even though somehow the quote didn't make it in?)

I watched a piece of online commentary talking about something Rush Limbaugh said on his show - that Republicans are ready to jump ship and vote for Hillary if either Cruz or Trump get the nomination, because all they want at this point is to hold onto the stuff they built for themselves.  For the party that's been spewing I HATE DEMOCRATS for the last eight years to even consider this kind of maneuver should tell you a lot.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #57 on: April 22, 2016, 06:04:08 PM »
The surest sign of that?  (Even though somehow the quote didn't make it in?)

I watched a piece of online commentary talking about something Rush Limbaugh said on his show - that Republicans are ready to jump ship and vote for Hillary if either Cruz or Trump get the nomination, because all they want at this point is to hold onto the stuff they built for themselves.  For the party that's been spewing I HATE DEMOCRATS for the last eight years to even consider this kind of maneuver should tell you a lot.

(Quotes of quotes don't get quoted.)

Thing is, I know a lot of Republicans who are on the moderate side of issues - more 'Party of Lincoln' than 'Party of Reagan'.  They're either Republican out of 'habit', or because they still hope to drag the party from the edge of the abyss that it's teetering on.  For those people, Hillary probably makes a lot of sense.  I don't think Limbaugh has it quite right, though.  I think that the 'hot mess' that's been the Republican primary race this year has finally made it sink in for the moderates that the party leadership no longer represents their values.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2016, 06:13:23 PM »
Edit: Removed my rant because it was too off topic and I really need ti think before flying into one of my rages :P
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 10:37:35 AM by Lustful Bride »

Offline CuriousEyes

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2016, 07:15:24 AM »
Might be a can of worms this thread doesn't need, but dare I ask for thoughts on what happened at the Nevada convention?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2016, 10:50:23 AM »
Henry M. Robert is spinning in his grave.  That's all I feel comfortable saying around here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order

Offline WhatLiesAbove

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location: The Great Plane between Heaven and Hell
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2016, 07:54:58 PM »
Might be a can of worms this thread doesn't need, but dare I ask for thoughts on what happened at the Nevada convention?

I live in Nevada.

From my understanding, the NVDNC didn't allow adequate time for a vote that would have shifted delegate count in Bernies favor. They closed proceedings, and then the convention ended. Nobody was attacked, nobody was hurt. Someone collapsed in the Paris, but it was completely unrelated.

Bernie supporters sat in the dark (literally) until told to leave by security.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2016, 09:31:17 AM »
From the aforementioned Robert, regarding motions, emphasis mine:

Quote
The member states the motion.

Offer your motion concisely (and with only minimal advance comment, if any at all) by saying, "Mr. Chairman, I move that. . . ."

For all but the simplest original main motions, write out the motion ahead of time and be prepared to immediately submit the written motion to the chair or the secretary after making the motion.

Another member seconds the motion.

Main motions must be seconded, meaning that a second member expresses a desire to have the motion considered by the group. To do so, a member simply calls from her place, "Second!"

If no second is forthcoming, the chair asks, "Is there a second to the motion?" If a second still doesn't come, the motion is said to fall to the floor and simply does not come before the group. If this happens, the chair states that as the case and moves on to the next item of business.

Contrary to popular belief, a second is not necessarily an endorsement of the idea. The procedure requires a second mainly to ensure that at least one other person thinks the motion should be discussed. A member who opposes the motion may want it to come before the meeting so it can be voted down.

Offline Cycle

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2016, 07:04:01 PM »
These are worth watching.  They're pretty funny.





Offline FionaM


Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #66 on: May 27, 2016, 10:08:51 PM »
Frankly, given the tenor of the election, I don't think anyone could stand up to Bernie and what he would raise in a debate.  A lot of people I know are only considering voting for Trump because they don't think Bernie has a chance (I'm waiting until CA is called), and they don't want an establishment candidate.

Hell, I watched the Democratic debates and I think he destroyed Hillary, especially when he finally started tackling her corruption.

Offline CuriousEyes

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2016, 06:34:59 AM »
Frankly, given the tenor of the election, I don't think anyone could stand up to Bernie and what he would raise in a debate.  A lot of people I know are only considering voting for Trump because they don't think Bernie has a chance (I'm waiting until CA is called), and they don't want an establishment candidate.

Hell, I watched the Democratic debates and I think he destroyed Hillary, especially when he finally started tackling her corruption.

I'm just going to put this out there - there is nothing that any human being on this planet could say to help me understand the thought process of someone who considers Trump as their backup plan to Sanders.

Abstain from voting, write in, or support a third party. I think those options toe the line from pointless to potentially dangerous and don't necessarily support them, but I can at least understand the thinking that brings a person there.

But actively voting Trump on a ballot when you prefer Sanders (I presume on the issues) is absolutely baffling.

Offline Cycle

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2016, 12:51:39 PM »
But actively voting Trump on a ballot when you prefer Sanders (I presume on the issues) is absolutely baffling.

Maybe this article sheds light on how some of the I'll-take-Trump-if-I-can't-have-Bernie folks are thinking.

Quote
ďFor me itís mostly about spite. I really just donít want Hillary to win.Ē

And this article may be worth reading too.

Quote
[Candidate 1] voiced the discontent I was feeling. I was young and idealistic and wanted political revolution. It felt good to back a rabble-rouser, not the stiff, robotic [Candidate 1]. I was annoyed with the Democrats for picking a predictable, incremental candidate who played not to the left, but to the mushy middle. I went to a [Candidate 2] rally in NYC: Bill Murray, Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon spoke. Eddie Vedder sang. I felt inspired, part of a movement to bring about real change, ready to cast my protest vote.

Offline elone

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2016, 07:27:54 AM »
[quote author=Cycle link=topic=246895.msg12359479#msg12359479 date=1464457899

And this article may be worth reading too.
[/quote]

It is hard to compare what happened in 2000 with Nader taking votes from Gore, with Bernie today. Nader was a candidate (Green Party) and on most ballots, whereas Bernie at this point in not running independently. As a Bernie supporter, I am one who will not vote for Clinton. My reasons are not because of any blind loyalty to Sanders, but because I abhor the idea that Clinton would win the elections. "Before there was Obamacare there was Hillarycare". She touts that as a success?? It was a miserable failure, largely due to her incompetence and secrecy. What has changed in that regard. She supported Bill's incarceration of tens of thousands of people for drug offenses (mostly minorities), supported marriage as between a man and woman, secrecy of the emails including refusing to be interviewed by the IG of the State Department after saying she would talk with anybody, the list is too long. Claims of a right wing conspiracy are out the window, it is the Obama FBI that is investigating her.

So the question for Bernie Sanders supporters is whether to go against all they believe in and vote for Clinton, or vote for a third party candidate,(Libertarian, Green party, or write in Sanders, or others). They may even vote for Trump as a way to show displeasure with the establishment.  I don't feel that elections are for voting against a particular candidate, but for voting for the candidate that most closely mirrors what one may believe in.

We may end up with a choice between 2 flawed candidates, I will vote for neither, but I will vote.

Just in, MSMBC reports that Republicans are actively seeking an alternative candidate to run as an independent. Now that would make things interesting, We could have Bernie, Hillary, the Donald, and maybe Mitt Romney all running. I would like to see that.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2016, 12:41:27 PM »
Just in, MSMBC reports that Republicans are actively seeking an alternative candidate to run as an independent. Now that would make things interesting, We could have Bernie, Hillary, the Donald, and maybe Mitt Romney all running. I would like to see that.
Isn't it too late in many states to register as a candidate for the presidential elections?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2016, 01:08:00 PM »
Jill Stein has extended an offer to have him on the Green ticket (which is already on the ballot) in the position of President.  She would take Veep.

Offline CuriousEyes

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2016, 01:48:33 PM »
Jill Stein has extended an offer to have him on the Green ticket (which is already on the ballot) in the position of President.  She would take Veep.

Source? I havent seen that specific offer anywhere, although I have seen attempts to court Sanders and his followers.

Given his earlier pragmatism I doubt he'd take that offer and willingly hand the nomination away by splitting the Democratic party. But I'm still curious what his pivot is at this point, as far as focusing what he's built into support of Clinton (or opposition of Trump, I imagine).

Offline Cycle

Re: Bernie Sanders discussion....
« Reply #73 on: May 31, 2016, 01:53:35 PM »
I've only found these so far, searching "Stein Sanders Green President":

From GreenPartyUS

Quote
In an open letter to Sanders, Stein expressed her admiration for Sanders' achievements of speaking to the real problems facing the country and engaging young people in the political process, as well as her disdain toward the Democratic Party for, in her opinion, disadvantaging the Sanders campaign in numerous ways.  ...

This wasn't necessarily a request for Sanders to run with Stein, but any kind of collaboration would, presumably, at least involve Sanders throwing his weight behind the Green Party in the form of an endorsement.  ...

That Sanders might ignore the request is perhaps not surprising, considering that, since the very beginning of his campaign, he has held that he will not run as an independent against Clinton if she gets the Democratic nomination, citing the horror of a Republican presidency as the reason. His wife Jane Sanders reiterated this position on April 26, after Sanders lost four out of five primaries that day. If Clinton and Sanders were both running against Trump, they'd split the Democratic and left-leaning votes, making it more likely Trump would win.

Given his concern about the spoiler effect, it is unlikely that Sanders would support or endorse any third-party bid, let alone get on the Green Party ticket himself.

From RealClearPolitics

Quote
Polls show that many Bernie Sanders voters say they will withhold their support for Hillary Clinton, and thatís exactly how likely Green Party nominee Jill Stein wants it. She is tailoring her rhetoric to woo their votes, and in the process is rejecting claims that her campaign will be a ďspoilerĒ candidacy, splitting the left and electing Donald Trump.

Memories of Ralph Naderís 2000 Green candidacy are never too far away for older Democratic voters, but apparently this is not true for legions of youthful Sanders supporters, some of whom were in diapers at the time. So Stein is re-litigating the case, arguing that Nader deserves no blame for George W. Bush becoming president.

Update:  found another from Salon

Quote
Has Bernie or the Sanders campaign responded to that open letter? And what were you hoping for with such an invite, specifically?

Well, the missing link here is the conversation, because that could be a gateway to all kinds of solutions. Whether itís collaborating at the level of the social movement, cabinet positions, a joint ticket, many of these things are possible, at least from the Green side. And there would be administrative hurdles, but they might be overcomeable. I mean, certainly in some areas easier than others, but there would be a whole spectrum of options to collaborate on.

But the missing link is a word from Bernie that he would be interested in doing this and that he has come to see, in fact, the necessity for independent third party politics which is not controlled by the big corporate guns at the end of the day. And heís getting enough of a beating, an outrageous assault right now thatís being conducted on his campaign, that maybe he will have a change of heart and a change of mind. Iím not holding my breath, but Iím keeping my fingers crossed.

Iíll take that as saying he has not responded to the letter and that the campaign hasnít either, but what were you hoping for? When you talk about alternatives, were you literally talking about a unity ticket? You and Bernie Sanders running on the Green Party ticket? Is that part of what you are thinking about?

There are some technical considerations here that would have to be explored, but yes, I would put all options on the table, including a unity ticket.

How many state ballots will the Green Party presidential candidate be on this November?

We hope to be on all of the ballots, or just about all of them. In the last race in 2012, we were on the ballot for about 84 percent of voters. This time around, at this point in the cycle, we are on the ballot for all the large states, and that includes California, New York, Texas, Florida. We have ballot drives going on in Illinois and Pennsylvania, those are the two major states that we have not locked down yet, and then there are a variety of small states which are also in process.

Update 2:  found this from Rolling Stone

Quote
You sent a letter to Bernie Sanders after the New York primary asking him to join the Green Party ticket. Did he ever respond?

No, he has not. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not ruling it out either.  The Green Party has been reaching out to him since 2011 without a response. There are a lot of commonalities in our agendas, in our views. Technically he is a political independent ó or used to be, up until his recent registration as a Democrat ó so we've long been exploring the potential for collaboration.

He has definitely not been interested, although I would mention that his brother is a member of the Green Party in the UK. But he has not responded, and has been really quite consistent in expressing disinterest in independent third parties over the last many years.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 03:46:24 PM by Cycle »

Offline PennySludt

  • Clever as the Devil and twice as pretty ~ Declared an irresistible muse ~ Sister to the Eris ~ Snuggle Shark, watch out! ~ Random PMs ALWAYS welcome!
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2014
  • Location: Clawing out of the pit of despair
  • Gender: Female
  • take me. use me. fill me. leave me.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 18