Trump calls for Sanders to 'run as an Independent'

[onehandle]

Source: AOL News

For what might be the first time in this campaign, Republican front-runner Donald Trump shared an opinion that supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders are likely to agree with on Tuesday when he said Sanders has been treated unfairly by Democrats and should run as an independent candidate.

"Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise," he said in a tweet. "He should show them, and run as an Independent!"

While he hasn't gone so far as to threaten a third-party run, Sanders doesn't appear prepared to enthusiastically endorse Clinton if she wins the nomination. When asked at an MSNBC town hall on Monday if he would tell his supporters to back Clinton if he's not on the ballot come November, he stopped short.

"We're not a movement where I can snap my fingers and say to you or to anybody else what you should do, that you should all listen to me. You shouldn't. You make these decisions yourself," Sanders replied.

Read more: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/26/trump-calls-for-sanders-to-run-as-an-independent/21351248/

---

I'm sure The 'Not Hillary' Party agrees with Trump.

I believe that Senator Sanders doesn't.

[NowSam]

1. Trump would love to split the Dem vote

He's clever albeit transparent. That said, he is right. Bernie has been treated horribly. If he ran as an indie, it is possible that if the vote flipping could be overcome he would win and a new day would dawn in America.

[sharp_stick]

2. Of course he does

It's the only way he could possibly win the Presidency.

Fortunately I don't think Senator Sanders would do this.

[northernsouthern]

28. They don't need sanders...

Plenty of other options, the Green Party has been more and more in the news. I am sure they are waiting to take up the mantle based on Jill's actions. Republicans that don't want to vote for Trump may switch to Hillary, but I see this as Trump getting ready to run as a Third if he has too. He is basically hinting to his own party. Perhaps he is hoping so that he will be seen less of a divider if he is not the only party splitter.

[redstateblues]

3. What a scam artist.

[yellowcanine]

4. Trump hopes to repeat in the General Election what he did in the Primary.

Run against three other candidates so that maybe he can win with a measly 35%.

[puffy socks]

36. Hitler did it. nt

[SwankyXomb]

56. So did LePage

[leftynyc]

78. He would still have to get

the majority of electoral votes or it gets thrown to the House.

[FLPanhandle]

5. No one is that stupid

It would guarantee a Trump win.

Even the most ardent Sanders supporter wouldn't be stupid enough to support a third party run.

[Andy823]

14. Really?

There is already a thread over in GDP trying to get people to sign a petition to do just that, run as an independent. Now I do admit that a hell of a lot of those who keep pushing that meme are NOT who they claim to be, but are most likely republican trolls, but I do think that some are gullible enough to buy into this kind of shit. Hell they buy into the idea that every time Bernie loses a primary it's because Hillary somehow cheated and won by illegal means!

I don't think Bernie would go that far. He ha said he would not and I accept his word.

Link to post trying to get people to sign a petition, although the petition is on another site they all go to. It was in GDP. The one on the Bernie board is about marching in protest during the convention if Bernie loses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511833628

[RiverNoord]

26. He won't do it.

Sure, there will be people calling for it, but he's got too much integrity - won't happen.

Especially with such a ringing endorsement from... Donald Trump.

BTW, I've been a Bernie Supporter from the start, but I would not vote for him if he declared GE candidacy as an independent. Sadly, I won't vote for HRC either, and will probably not cast a vote for President for the first time in my 28 years as a voter, but Bernie isn't a very selfish or egotistic guy - if he loses, he loses, and that's that.

[groundloop]

48. You'll be voting for T-rump if you don't vote.

Look, I'm a Bernie supporter. Donated to his campaign, voted for him in the primary. But IF Hillary is the nominee I'd be an idiot to do anything other than give her my full support. Elections are about making a choice as to which of two candidates come closer to your views..... I believe the choice between T-rump and Hillary is obvious (even if you have to hold your nose when you cast your vote).

AND Bernie has already stated that he will not run as an independent, I give him a lot of credit for that.

[RiverNoord]

64. I understand your points.

However, I accepted a commitment to myself well before Bernie declared his candidacy. There was one Democrat who I could and would not vote for if she became the Democratic nominee, and it was Hillary Clinton.

I've voted for more Democrats that I could count over the long years, and never voted for a Republican. The latter part won't change.

However, voting is an affirmative act - it involves consciously and knowingly providing direct and immediate support to a candidate for political office. To me, the candidacy of Hillary Clinton simply cuts much too deeply into the fabric of basic representative democracy for me to knowingly and willfully provide her the most valuable political commodity I possess as an American citizen.

I won't bother you with all of the reasons - they are shared by many Democrats in the country and especially many DUers. Just a couple, though, so that I've appropriately responded to your assertions.

The first is the phenomena of political legacy. I don't believe that sons, daughters and spouses of former Presidents should be natural candidates for the same office. At the Presidential level, that ended decades ago (although Bobby Kennedy's run ended by assassination) and resumed with the Bush family. George W. Bush was grossly unfit for the office of the President, and it was obvious to anyone really paying attention from the beginning. But he had connections and power that flowed directly, and only, from his father's time as Vice President and President. Without those connections, such a person would never have come close to the Presidency. He was a horrible disaster for the country.

Now we have some very problematic ethical considerations in the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Her husband has become a member of a very powerful club of world oligarchs since his time as President. Mrs. Clinton has benefited immensely from these connections and embraced the system that made them possible. She accomplished little in her own political undertakings, other than project a meticulously cultivated aura of success, and would almost certainly never have reached an office such as U.S. Senator if it had not been for her charismatic husband. So she's a product both of political legacy and very, very wealthy interests currying favor with her and her husband through an immense amount of money provided to her family.

As a citizen of the United States, I find the development of political legacy at this level dangerous and appalling. Representative democracy is all about representation. It works when people seek out others they genuinely believe will act, for the most part, on their behalf during a period in government.

The system that makes a Hillary Clinton presidency a possibility isn't even remotely bound to that concept. It is a complete mockery of representative democracy - the people she is bound to aren't the citizens of the United States, they're people who, by virtue of immense wealth, are not beholden to governments - they maintain a global system of feudal rule by wealth. They grow stronger while nations weaken, mostly as a result of their system's successes in undermining and subjugating governments to their requirements.

I believe this. It's where things have been headed for a long time, and Hillary Clinton's candidacy represents this system's potentially finest achievement. I believe that representative democracy is still salvageable, and voting for Clinton would be, to me, a betrayal of all of its potential.

So, no, not voting for someone does not equal voting for someone else. It's an absurd notion. Not voting for someone is exactly, precisely just that. And it's not as though this is a surprise. Clinton and her campaign have known for a very long time that there are many Democrats who will not support her candidacy. If she and her supporters have elected to ignore or fantasize away this reality, it is absurd to assign blame to people like me who have been very, very clear and open about our positions for a long time, quite the contrary to the Clinton campaign, which deals in meaningless platitudes, cult of personality, and media manipulation - not honest clarity.

I hope people like you will at least observe with some degree of comprehension the position that people like me have found we must take. For me, at least, it's not really a choice. There are many things that, even in extremis, I simply could not do. I wouldn't be myself if I did. This is one of those things.

[GulfCoast66]

67. Long diatribe.

Arn't you special.

[RiverNoord]

70. Cute - I don't seem to have been saying a goddamn thing to you, however.

And you managed a 'diatribe' in two insulting sentences, while I wrote substance. If the words were too long for your attention span to digest, maybe a bit of 'See Spot Run' would be more your style.

And... you obviously don't have any manners concerning butting into others' discussions to lob an insult, so take your piss-ant attitude and be somewhere else.

[arikara]

73. Hardly a diatribe as you put it

It's a well thought out and rational position.

[RiverNoord]

98. Thanks arikara :-)

I tend to write long posts, since I can't usually write what I mean to express in a couple of sentences. So I get accused of 'diatribe' on occasion. The exception is something like my response to that person, which was... maybe a bit harsh...

It's not always easy to be confident that what you've written really isn't a 'diatribe,' so thanks for reading what I wrote and for the kind reply.

[arikara]

105. I often don't fully read the longer posts

but yours was worth it. Thank you for posting it.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. I Agree

First, he has more power now in the Senate as a guy who took the nomination process to the brink than if he gets creamed as a 3rd party candidate.

Second, he already said he won't do it.

Third, he definitely won't now that Trump wants him to. He clearly sees Trump as a part of the problem and isn't going to facilitate a Trump victory.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Trump can run as an independent

[CrispyQ]

8. This. ^^^ -nt

[puffy socks]

37. Bernie against Trump as Independents and ideological opposites. nt

[Democat]

7. Trump's only chance

Sanders will make up his own mind if he isn't the nominee, but I'm pretty sure he's not going to do anything to throw Trump the presidency.

[oldandhappy]

9. no dice trumpster

We are focusing on supporting and nurturing young progressives to take over local city councils, state houses, and the House and Senate!!

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Not happening, Donnie boy....

[d_legendary1]

11. His wife said he's not running as an independent

So screw Trump.

[carburyme]

12. What an

Embarassment!

[bigworld]

13. I think Trump is launching a trial balloon for his own independent candidacy

.... when is the first deadline for him to get on the November ballot??

[Xithras]

34. You're on to something, but I think there's more to it than that.

If the Repubs skip Trump, he'll absolutely be willing to make an independent run for the White House. The problem is that, in spite of his persona, Trump really is NOT stupid. He knows that he can't win an independent run against a united Democratic party.

On the other hand, if Trump and Sanders BOTH mounted independent runs, BOTH parties would be split. That would provide an independent Trump candidacy a far better shot at the White House. A three way race simply allows the united party on the other side to win. A four way race knocks everyone down a peg and evens things out.

[Eleanors38]

52. Smells like it to me.

[jmowreader]

76. Next month, in Texas

Independents have to petition their way onto the ballot in every state they wish to stand for election in, and Texas has a steep, steep requirement - 75,000 signatures.

Either Bernie or Donald would have to run on an established third party to get on the ballot at this late date...and I don't think the American Nazi Party has ballot access in very many states, which leaves Trump out.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Glad to see DU is united on this one.

[rocktivity]

16. Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award

Sure, and split the Dem vote like Ross Perot did, which gave the Repub enough of a lead to for him to slip over the goal line...


rocktivity

[zalinda]

50. Wait a minute, Bill Clinton won because of Ross Perot. eom

[msongs]

17. bernie ran as a dem because that's where the $$ is. trump has lots of his own $$ nt

[cali]

113. I'm sure that figured into it. But mostly he wanted his message heard

[Coventina]

18. You first, big guy!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. IF he went first......a four way race? Be careful what you wish for Don

Now I have heard elsewhere, maybe it was on Maher's show, that it is in all practicality, too late to run as an independent. Because there are like seven states where you must have registered to run as an independent months ago, and so those States would not be able to vote for that candidate. So even if Sanders (or Trump) had more national popular vote than the others, the two official candidates from the parties would have an insurmountable advantage.

But...if that information was wrong, maybe it was, then if it were a four way race?......Hillary should also be very very afraid. Those that felt betrayed by Obama's 180 on issues of Wall St. and using the MIC, whistleblower persecution, defense of BP and more drill baby drill offshore, and many other issues......held their noses to vote him back in for a second term as the clear easy choice against Mitt, may not be so enthralled to re-vote back in yet another third way corporatist business-as-usual candidate IF they have a choice for a candidate that has way more credibility to do what they only could dream that Obama could have, should have, started.

[we can do it]

87. GMTA!

[MFM008]

19. Trump

like anyone should listen to this piece of shit.
about anything.

[FailureToCommunicate]

20. "I'm sure The 'Not Hillary' Party agrees with Trump." One of so many quotes of

yours that will will be mentioned as examples of how bitter the primary season was here.

[George II]

21. Well, that clinches it - Trump essentially supporting Sanders. Anyone surprised?

[olddad56]

27. No, Trump supports Trump and would love to split the Dem vote because he can't win otherwise.

[AllyCat]

46. GII here to read into something that which is absolutely not there

[Gore1FL]

57. Where did he show his support?

And why are you trying to use a logical fallacy on a false claim? If you are going to make up a baseless argument for the purpose of trolling, why make it so obviously vacant of persuasiveness?

[Democat]

74. Trump is not supporting Sanders

He is thinking of a way that he could win against Democrats.

[a la izquierda]

75. You seriously lack...

Reading comprehension skills.

[Wibly]

22. Independent runs all around

Trump should run as an independent. So should Sanders. Add in the GOP candidate, and the Dems Hillary, and a four way race, perhaps five with the Greens, would finally end the stranglehold the two corporate parties have on the Whitehouse.
I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. I also do not believe for a moment that Trump would top a four or five candidate race. I think Sanders would top such a race, with Clinton in Second, Trump in third, and the GOP far behind.

[snooper2]

24. So you are kind of new to this whole politics thing?

[procon]

31. Steep learning curve, yeah? Sure makes me proud of the Amurikan Edumataionele Sistum. nt

[olddad56]

53. isn't Trump kinda new also?

[Bodych]

55. Maybe you should ask Mike Papantonio that question...

...as he's the one who first suggested it. That suggestion (Ring of Fire clip) was featured here on DU some time back.

I respect Pap. You?

[Wibly]

93. Cheap shot

Nice innuendo.

[COLGATE4]

30. Ask the people in Maine what happens when a candidate

is elected by a mere plurality rather than a majority. Would you really like a President Stein?

[Wibly]

92. Never said that

Never said I wanted a President Stein, or a President Clinton, or a President Trump.
Good job reading things I never said into my post.
Not sure what you're hoping to get back in form of a response. I don't think your post warrants any response beyond what I've already written.

[Wibly]

110. Why not?

I'd prefer it to a Trump or Clinton.

[MidwestTech]

42. You're so cute.... the what's?

The green party was destroyed and lost all credibility when nader took over in 2000.
Besides the party is full of idiots. They think the only prize worth winning is the president... that's stupid and naive.
the REAL prizes are the ones the republicans have been going after for decades... local office, then county then state legislature, federal house, federal offices, judges, et al

Obama's presidency proved how little power the president actually has to govern.

[Wibly]

91. calling people idiots

And expressing your opinions as if they were facts does nothing but speak to your lack of ability to present a strong rebuttal to my post. It also says something about your reading comprehension when it comes to my post.

[MidwestTech]

100. are you a green?

if so why are you here?
if not why do you care?
and yes the greens are idiots!

They seem to be incapable of taking the reasonable and intelligent approach to getting their agenda enacted.
they are the party of victims "oh poor us, we're such a small party, why are we so small?"

IF the green party had any sense they would start small, build up their base with actual results and go from there. but no, they only care about the big prize and nothing else.

[Wibly]

109. Name calling

Hey, if you have to resort to calling me names then I've already won.
I don't listen to people who don't have the actual capacity to challenge my comments and have to resort to calling me stupid and naive.
What is stupid and naive is believing that calling people names strengthens your argument.

[Gore1FL]

59. We have a two party system in this country.

When multiple viable candidates run, the winner comes from one of the two major parties. It's how the math works when there is a majority requirement in an electoral college.

[Wibly]

90. Not

If the person winning the most votes is not from one of the two parties you mention.

[Gore1FL]

94. That never happened in U.S. history even when a popular former president ran.

The closest to what you describe is the fiasco of 1824. That is not desirable, either.

[GulfCoast66]

68. So have you read

What the constitution says happens in that scenario? Do they even teach civics in school anymore?

[Wibly]

89. Have you?

Have you read it?
Clearly not.
Always know a poster has no point when they resort to innuendo.
If you have a segment of the constitution that would prohibit multiple entities for running for President, link us to it!
Insulting me by inferring I did not learn civics in school just says a whole lot about you while doing nothing to dismiss my point.

[GulfCoast66]

106. I assumed no one on DU

Would want the House of Representatives to pick the president. Which would be the likely outcome with 3-4 candidates getting roughly the same percentage of votes.

If you were aware of this then I apologize for questioning your knowledge of civics.

[Wibly]

108. Have you?

Do you?

Insults and innuendo are not substitute for rational and reasonable debate.

[coyote]

99. I agree

It would certainly break the lesser of 2 evils voting that we have traditionally had. It would also give people a chance for everyone to actually vote FOR someone they want.

[baldguy]

23. But how many Sanderss fans agree with Trump?

Too many, obviously.

[mac56]

32. Obviously?

Since it's so obvious, certainly you can document this claim.

[JohnnyRingo]

39. True

The absence of people agreeing with Trump here is proof that no one is buying this cheap ploy.

[Gore1FL]

60. How many is too many.

Can you please name a few?

[procon]

29. Maybe he's looking for a running mate? nt

[ananda]

33. This Sanders supporter strongly disagrees with Trump!

Nuff said.

[Mustellus]

35. Maybe Trump could hire Ralph Nader to do it....

... again.

[AllyCat]

44. Proven time and again that Nader had NOTHING to do with Gore not winning

Take a look at the ridiculous state contests, voting "irregularities", and our SCOTUS to place blame, not Nader.

[Gore1FL]

61. Do what again?

Gore won Florida.

[MidwestTech]

102. He muddied the water between the parties to the uninformed voter

which is the majority of voters, sadly.
His line of "there's no difference between the parties" is a convenient lie that the rw created and has been using ever since Nader made it popular.

the reality, of course, is there are plenty of differences between the parties. They converge a lot but there is still a massive difference even between corporate dems and the average republicant, who are mostly insane zealots now a days.

THAT is what Nader did that we are still feeling the affect of now a days.
Florida was ... special and set up way before Nader got his 5%

[beachbum bob]

38. Sanders not stupid to bite at that

[saturnsring]

40. STFU DONNIE

[AllyCat]

41. As a member of the "Not Hillary" Party, I DON'T agree with Trump

Give it a rest.

[annabanana]

43. Then he calls for his pipe and he calls for his bowl

and he calls for his fiddlers three..

He can call me Ray.

He can call for 4 calling birds.

sheesh

[whatthehey]

45. I sincerely doubt he is either that stupid or that venal.

Sanders that is. Pretty sure Trump IS.

[no_hypocrisy]

47. I don't want ANY candidate to be President with a plurality.

If Trump and Bernie run as independents along with Hillary and the republican nominee, someone could theoretically win with as little as 26% of the popular vote but not with enough electoral votes.

And you know what happens thereafter: Congress votes on who's president. All bets off thereafter.

[MidwestTech]

104. isn't that technically how bill clinton got in?

Yes it was a majority, but what that little texan ferrengi pulled (a solid 20+%) was mostly from the gop side of things.
Bill clinton won the majority of electoral votes, because most states are a winner take all system.

[no_hypocrisy]

107. Yes, twice.

[mahina]

49. No, thanks, but you go right ahead Donald.

How stupid do you think we are?

Never mind...

[Eleanors38]

51. Sanders had the right reply. nt

[Nitram]

54. The only way Trump can win is if Bernie splits the liberal vote a la Nader.

If that happens, we deserve what we get.

[KamaAina]

58. Bugger off, King Combover.

Better still, run indy yourself!

[aurelius2112]

62. I love the idea

If the DNC does not change the way our primaries are run, then yes I would support a 3rd party run.

The superdelegate process crap is just that crap.
HRC had over half of the superdelegates in the bag, when she started the primary and no one even voted yet.
Even states that Bernie won by double digits, were "washes" since HRC bought out the superdelegates in that state.

This is way wrong for a "democratic" country to hold elections.
DNC mentality = "let the people think they are voting for their candidate, we will over-rule their wishes with superdelegate votes so we can get the right person in office to do our bidding."
The DNC chair is in HRC's pocket for sure. (anybody remember who the 2008 HRC campaign manager was?)

I will not hold my nose and endorse an establishment candidate that will kiss Big Money's @$$ when in office.
She will be no different than if we elected a Bush.
She will pander to the Bernie supporters and then drop us like a hot potato, when in office.
I will not participate in furthering the interests of the 1% and vote HRC.

Bernie 4eva!

[Demit]

63. She will be no different from Bush? You are very wrong there.

She is pro-choice and will champion women's rights, for one thing, and that is a very important way she is different from Republicans. I don't know which Bush you're thinking of, but she runs rings around them all in sheer brain power.

So hold your breath & turn blue on election day, Mr Bernie 4eva, and dream your dreams of romantic third-party runs, but the rest of us are Democrats and we're going to put a Democrat in the White House.

[FLPanhandle]

71. Don't feed the republican trolls

No Democrat is that stupid.

[aurelius2112]

82. Good thing this election cycle is a learning experience

Although it may be easier to dismiss my comment as a "republican troll", I have been a democrat for many years.

The democratic party in the 90s shifted directly to the middle of the political spectrum.
Bill and HRC are neocons and promoted the ideaology during the 1990s.
I will not support their brand of democracy and the Big money that is their master.

Interesting Wiki link that lists HRC as a neoconservative.
(The list includes public people identified as personally neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisers, such as George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

A couple DU links (guess I'm not the only one that sees the forest through the trees)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511513649

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251582816

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/12511343045

Plenty of links on the subject as well.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18998/neocon-war-hawks-want-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump.-no-surprisetheyve


Vote us under the bus, if you will.
I will not be forced to vote for the lesser evil again.

[aurelius2112]

83. Thanks for continuing the establishment!

She has different domestic policy positions due to the platform of the DNC.
Foreign Policy wise and Corporate Economics are the same as Bush.
Read up on the Clintons and Dem Neocons.

She is definitely way more intelligent than any Bush, yet in a very creepishly evil way.
She always has the right answer ready for the audience she is front of.
Pandering is one of her best skills and she does it very well to either the masses or Big money.

Glad you are happy with settling for someone less than qualified to run on true democratic principles.
I won't settle for an establishment pick by the Democrat superdelegates.

Under the bus we gooooo........ Corporate interests will thank you for your vote!

[leftynyc]

80. LOL - you ain't fooling anyone here

Now scoot and let the adults talk.

[aurelius2112]

81. Fooling who?

I meant what I said.
I can appreciate conjecture, but not in this case.

You can obviously vote for who you want to.
But I will not vote for an establishment candidate like HRC, who will only continue the same ol bs.
Hillary is in with Big Money period. You can't argue that one bit.
Whether its the wall street speeches, $165B in arms sales as SOS, flip flopping on policy issues (depending on the wind that day), she will always be a puppet of the 1%. (even the Koch's are warming up to her.....hmmm?)
And not one word from HRC on Citizens United? I don't wonder why.

We will all continue to suffer under the establishment until either 1. we decide to change the way we elect our primary candidate or 2. we elect someone so horrible that the next round will truly be a huge wave of liberalism.
I prefer #1, but we will see what the DNC Chairpuppet will say at the convention.
My bet, no changes to the establishment system of selecting presidential candidates.

Vote us under the bus again!
I won't!

[hamsterjill]

84. Bernie knew the rules before he decided to run as a Democrat.

I've heard his surrogates say this over and over and over.

If you don't like the rules, work to change the rules for the next game. But rules are not going to be changed in mid-game. Sanders knows and accepts this.

So you will not vote for Hillary per your post. Will you be voting for Trump?

[aurelius2112]

88. Everyone knows the establishment rules....

for pre-selecting our presidential nominee.

We pretend our vote makes a difference and the superdelegates sit there and vote for whoever they want too.
Despite how the people voted in their state.

"Bernie knew the rigged rules before he started, so he shouldn't complain now."
This is quite lame for a reply.
You are endorsing the rigged system, since you're for HRC?

Or will you vote for the establishment candidate and support changing the rules so people like HRC cannot buy the election again?

Some things to think about......

Hmmm...although my frustration with HRC and the establishment lies is very strong, a Trump vote would be an angry vote against Hillary and not based on logic or reason.
Maybe write in Bernie .....or maybe Mickey Mouse....but definitely not voting for the morphing HRC, my conscience will not allow me to vote for someone who will eff us in the end.

I'll remind you how this turns out next year......hear comes the HRC bus!!!

[hamsterjill]

95. I'm not sure I'm following your response.

What does the underlining signify?

You've not copied my comment verbatim as to Bernie knowing the rules.

Having said that - what I am saying is that there is a system in place and the rules have been in place for years. Bernie has (himself) publicly agreed to this and indicated that he will abide by the rules. If anyone is uncomfortable with those rules, the proper action is to work to change those rules at the next juncture that allows for change. It is not to whine about the rules having been in existence, and whine because the rules don't work to your advantage.

If you don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, who will be the nominee, then don't. It's no sweat off my back. But in not voting for the Democratic nominee, you are helping the Republican nominee (likely Trump) win. If THAT doesn't bother your conscience, then I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, by all means, please DO remind me about this next year. I'll be waiting with baited breath!

[aurelius2112]

96. Underlining was just bad formatting on my part

My bad and I apologize.

I can agree with you on the current state of the primary process.
But I am not whining, I am proposing change, like you mentioned.

This campaign cycle has alot of passion in it and people are final starting to realize how the DNC elites have been steering our delegate votes to whoever they want to be in the WH.
This is not how most Americans view our primary process.
They are brainwashed to think that their vote matters, when it actually means more in local elections than presidential elections.

I appreciate your openness to choice. I also can attest to this mind set.
But saying that not voting is voting for Trump is yet another way to guilt people into voting for someone they do not believe in.
I won't cave into simplistic guilt trips.
Big money will ensure that the "right" person for them will get in, don;t worry about it.
I'll save my vote for when I believe in the candidate, not because she is the lesser evil than the other 3 stooges.

We will evaluate the HRC presidency together and hopefully from an objective point of view.
I can imagine we will discuss something about Big Money and HRC, but we will see

Peace!

[hamsterjill]

97. Thank you for a well-reasoned response

But it wasn't a guilt trip. You are free to do as you wish. But it is a fact that, under our system, when one chooses not to vote, then s/he still affects the outcome. Right or wrong, rigged or not rigged, it is still the ONLY system we have.

Peace right back at you. I appreciate civil discussion.

[Dont call me Shirley]

65. And Bernie would win.

[Politicub]

66. We're going to see some of the more cray Sanders supports flock to Trump

Mark my words.

[npk]

69. And Ted Cruz should also run an Independent.

The more the merrier. Then we can just have a pro-longed extension of this already drawn out primary.

[Quantess]

72. Sanders AND Trump should each run as Independent.

That would be so fantastic.

[titaniumsalute]

79. Trump should run as an independent...the Rep party has treated him terribly

[Joe Nation]

85. He would still come in 3rd

[yellowcanine]

86. Christie thought it was funny when Trump said that.

It seems that Christie is assuming the role of the official Trump wing man.
The people of New Jersey must be so proud of their governor.

[jamese777]

101. Clinton should urge Cruz

to run as an Indpendent!

[HockeyMom]

103. The Ross Perot Factor

Republicans voting for Independent Perot, taking away from the Republican candidate, and ensuring the Democratic win.

Trump is asking for the opposite to that. The man may be a lot of things, but he isn't totally stupid.

Of course, if Sanders supporters decide not switch their votes in the General to Hillary, and to not vote at all, it could also have the same Perot effect. I suppose you would have to count the votes in the Primary cast for Hillary versus Trump, to see how close the the two actually are; minus the Independent votes who could go either way.

[ucrdem]

111. Exactly, with a similar result.

It might even help:



So when do we learn that Bernie got an encouraging call from Bill last year . . .

[cali]

112. Wrong yet again.