A(nother) Guide to the Bernie Or Bust Phenomenon

[Doctor_J]

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you believe that public college should be free to those who qualify and want to attend?

Do you oppose big, hidden money in politics?

Do you believe the "too big to fail" banks should be broken up?

Do you support the re-instatement of Glass-Steagall?

Do you oppose NCLB and RTTB?

Do you oppose charter schools replacing public schools?

Do you oppose the death penalty?

Do you think Social Security should be expanded?

Do you oppose fracking?

Do you oppose torture as US policy?

Do you oppose the Iraq war, the Libya invasion, the bombing of Syria, and the Honduras coup?

Do you support a $15 minimum wage, "Living Wage", or basic guaranteed income?

Do you oppose for-profit prisons?

Do you believe Americans should be guaranteed healthcare without private insurance companies adding 20% to everyone's bill, while providing nothing?

Do you oppose treaties like TPP and TTIP, which depress our job market and wages, and allow multinationals to ignore US laws?

Do you oppose the War On (some) Drugs?

Do you believe that it should be legal for any American adult to marry whomever (s)he wants to?

If you answered "yes" to all or most of these questions, why would you vote for Secretary Clinton? If you answered "no" to all or most of them, how long have you been a Democrat?

From http://mjrmedia.blogspot.com/2015/11/bernie-sanders-on-issues-american.html

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

[CorporatistNation]

5. ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL! WELL DONE! SPREAD WIDELY! TWEET THIS!

NICE... K AND R BIGTIME... FACTS MATTER... WHAT ARE THESE "democrats" voting for? Well documented on youtube are these positional comparisons!

[CorporatistNation]

48. REPEAT K and R!

UNDENIABLE FACTS.... MATTER!

[SamKnause]

2. K&R

[HassleCat]

3. I'm a "yes" man for Bernie.

I can answer yes to all the questions, which is why I support Sanders, but I will do what needs to be done when confronted with the possibility of a Republican president.

[unapatriciated]

4. I have been a Democrat since my early teens

not to mention I was raised in union, FDR little d household. I have supported all of those issues for a long time.
Now at the age of 64 I have suddenly become not a real d.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Yup, now we're "socialists"

Can I just sit here by you and we can chat about those good old days when we were democrats?

[unapatriciated]

10. sure, I will pour the wine and put on

some music.

[Zira]

44. Totally enjoyed it, Thanks!

[JimDandy]

50. That was fun.

Hard to sleep with shingles, but was able to watch this instead.

[CentralMass]

6. K&R

[marions ghost]

8. YES to all

and it's a big YES without reservation.

OF COURSE not everything can be done at once.

But this set of goals is in the right direction, finally.

[JEB]

9. There it is. Plain as fucking day. Excellent post.

[Bread and Circus]

11. I would like to see a Hillary supporter comment on the graphic in the OP. It's quite powerful.

[Doctor_J]

12. I am not trying to "bash Hillary". I just believe down deep that we cannot elect a conservative

at this point in time and expect to solve the problems we have.

[BernieforPres2016]

13. That list is why Hillary supporters won't talk about issues

I can't figure out why anybody who considers themselves a Democrat, is outside the 1% and not a party insider would support her, other than because she's a woman.

[HughLefty1]

15. thank you

Go Bernie!

[840high]

28. yep

[MisterP]

14. and with a deranged populist RINO in the mix it's actually very dangerous for the Dems

they STILL think that their openly-failing policy of "young man, if you don't vote for our gruel the ultraconservatives who we plan on fully collaborating with and stealing their policies in the name of triangulation will win!" will work

[VulgarPoet]

16. Absolutely phenomenal.

[baldguy]

17. Considering that "or bust" means we'll have President Donald Trump come Jan ...

[Doctor_J]

18. Not so. I was told friday that "we don't need you assholes anyway"

So it sounds like you're good to go without liberals.

[joshcryer]

20. Well, yes, the BOB movement is objectively smaller than PUMA.

PUMA was built on racism, BOB is built on idealism.

[baldguy]

23. The BoBs have sexism & elitism going for them, too.

[Doctor_J]

25. Yes, I can see where the list of ISSUES in the op is very elitist and sexist

I don't think the hillarians realize how dumb remarks like yours sound to those of us who aren't in the hrc bubble. You're the ones who think everyone has enough money for healthcare that includes 20% overhead to blood sucking middlemen. You're the ones who think that a $100,000 debt coming out of college is fine. You're the ones who think that a minimum wage of less than $12/hr is ok. You're the ones who think that the hyper rich should have as much influence as they want over the government. And despite all that, you call us elitist.

[baldguy]

29. The question isn't if the issues in the OP are good or not. The question is *are they doable*?

Can you honestly say that Pres Bernie would be able to get ANY of them to have a fair hearing in Congress - much less a vote or a likelihood of becoming law - with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell in charge? The very idea is absurd.

Sanders is trying to sell a bill of goods. Not only is there no way for him to deliver, he has no intention of doing so.

[PufPuf23]

35. Of course the postitions are not immediately doable.

But one has to try and fail and try again until one succeeds.

To think otherwise is complicit and absurd.

The rabbit hole of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism is over 30 years old.

Triangulation may win elections in the immediate but also leads deeper and more entrenched into the rabbit hole.

All I want now from Sanders (and other Democratic pols) is to try and to change the narrative and reverse the trend.

You are wrong, the question is not "are they doable". "Are they doable" now is defeatist.

[eridani]

43. The first step to doing anything is to state clearly what you want to do

Marriage equality wasn't "doable" 10 years ago, nor MJ legalization. The Civil Rights Act and Medicare were not "doable" until Johnson proposed them.

Being too gutless to advocate for what you want is no way to start any negotiation.

[baldguy]

45. And they very next step is electing people who can get it passed.

Who are the like-minded candidates who are supporting Bernie in the 435 House races and 34 Senate seats up this year? No Sanders supporter has ever been able to answer this simple question. For the Democrats to do anything, they need to win a majority of those seats. Without them, literally nothing happens. Clinton has been giving money to the DNC for those races, has historically campaigned with those candidates - and will again this year. Sanders hasn't given any money for down slate candidates, and in the past has notoriously refused to share the campaign stage with candidates for other offices even though they may share his views.

Clinton has coat-tails. Sanders doesn't. The simple fact is that the best chance of getting any Democratic proposals passed, including those that address the issues in the OP - and to continue to fix the disaster left by the Bush Regime - is to have Clinton as the Democratic nominee and as President, not Sanders.

[eridani]

54. It is Clinton that has no coattails.

The Repub women grossed out by Trump will support her and vote for Repubs all the way down the ticket. Sanders is getting a lot of previously very alienated people involved in politics, who will be inclined to support the most progressive candidates they can find, who are usually Dems. Who the hell is going to be inspired by "No we can't"?

[baldguy]

55. Riiiiight! The $18M Clinton has raised for down-ticket races means nothing.

Meanwhile, johnny-come-lately Sanders has raised zero-0000-zero for his erstwhile party to elect his currently fellow Democrats. Just like he always has throughout his long political career. Instead of helping the DNC help Democratic candidates get elected, Sanders is suing them. So we know where his priorities are.

The longer Bernie "Rocinante" Sanders stays in the race, the happier it makes the fascists in the GOP.

[eridani]

56. I see. Money is important and involved voters are not. Got it. n/t

[baldguy]

57. It's not 1896. No amount of enthusiam will buy that $100K tv spot an underdog Dem might need to win.

Welcome to the reality of 21st century. (so hard I know.)

[eridani]

58. Contacting voters in person means much more

Especially in downticket races, which many voters would otherwise skip.

[alan2102]

33. The DP was taken over...

... not only by neocons/neoliberals, but RICH ones at that. The 10%. The people who make 6-column incomes, or who are retired after decades of 6-column income with commensurate assets and SS checks. In other words: VERY comfortable, living off the fat of the system, at the expense of everyone else. Just take the "1%" concept and expand it to 10% (approximate figure).

Bernie vs. HRC is a class struggle WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (i.e. without respect to corporate selling-out, etc.). The inner circle -- HRC, DWS et al -- are representatives of the moneyed elite, the party plutocrats.

[noiretextatique]

40. Can you prove that claim? No, you cannot eom

[baldguy]

22. Then you don't understand what "or bust" means.

It means you've failed, you're broken (physically, financially, emotionally), you're unable to move any further, you're finished, done, wasted, kaput.

It does ***NOT*** mean that you've seen a little difficulty, and will have a better chance to succeed next time around. With "or bust", there is no next time!

So in this context, "Bernie or bust" is blackmail meaning either we nominate Bernie, or we see the utter destruction of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

Sorry, but I *like* the Democratic Party and the progressive movement too much to see it high-jacked by people who relish in attacking them and wish to see them fail.

[PufPuf23]

36. "the bust" is a meme added by the Clinton campaign and others that

do not support the goals of the OP.

I have not seen anyone that proclaims "Bernie or bust" that favors Bernie Sanders for POTUS nominee this election cycle.

Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal and not a liberal nor a true progressive. Aside from social identity politics, Hillary Clinton supports the worst of the status quo.

Even if elected, there is no way that Hillary Clinton will be as successful as POTUS Obama. Support for Hillary Clinton harms the Democratic Party in the short and long term. The party leadership that supports Hillary Clinton are more into maintaining their own power and privilege than what is good for the country.

[baldguy]

47. You haven't read the Bernie supporter in the OP, then.

Or at least a quarter of the threads in GD P supporting Bernie.

And the rest of your post is just regurgitated RW propaganda: both parties are the same, the Democratic Party is elitist & corrupt, and incompetent on top of it all.

All bullshit.

And it's bullshit that Bernie has repeated for decades in his very best Ralph Nader impression. Well, good progressives say "Fuck Ralph Nader" for good reasons.

[PufPuf23]

52. Why don't you address line by line the policies listed in the OP?

Bernie Brothers is a smear from the Clinton campaign.

I am in the any Democrat but Hillary Clinton camp, the same position I took in 2008.

Some people and pols that take the label Democrat are elitist and corrupt but not as many at the top that take the label GOP; there is far more incompetence within the GOP than the Democratic Party.

I don't regurgitate RW propaganda. I seldom read RW propaganda and do not watch TV nor listen to radio except clips form the internet, most linked from DU, and SF Giants or Golden State Warriors games on the radio . My criticisms of Hillary Clinton are from her actions from 2001 to date, not from the Clinton witch hunts of the 1990s. Please explain to me (and DU) how Hillary Clinton is not a neo-liberal? I have been a liberal and anti-war Democrat since the late 1960s.

Hillary Clinton pals with Kissinger and is endorsed by Kagan.

The 2001 election was lost for a variety of reasons, blaming Nader is hippy bashing. Gore lost because too many Democrats voted for GWB, Gore lost his home state, Gore had Lieberman for VP, the Clintons were not supportive of Gore, Gore gave up rather than fight for what we know now was an election factually in his favor in Florida, and the GOP cheated and the USSC had its darkest day in support of a fixed election. The Democratic Party leadership chose not to fight for Gore. I have never been in support of Nader as a pol.

Explain this repulsive clip.

[noiretextatique]

41. The movement has done nothing but fail

And will continue to fail as long as people are blackmailed into voting for people like Clinton, who is not a liberal, let alone a progressive.

[joshcryer]

19. In other words do you believe Trump would lead to those goals.

By destroying the country and ushering in salvation?

[Doctor_J]

31. I guess you could call those "other words"

As in "words with an entirely other meaning"

[wilsonbooks]

21. 63 years old and For once I am voting for a Democratic candidate who represents the best interests

of the Democratic party and thec working class. Go Bernie.

[Avalon Sparks]

24. Great post, plain as day

Agree on every point, even before Bernie brought them up. Been a Dem for 30 years.

[highprincipleswork]

26. But, but, but, but I heard that Hillary was just as Progressive.

Oh, apparently there is a difference on these important issues.

[radical noodle]

27. Since when

does Hillary Clinton not have a plan for Wall Street Reform? For Student Loan Reform? This looks like something that someone just made up. Oh, and where is the info on gun control, which is a very important issue for progressives? Just to name a few problems with this entire chart.

[Doctor_J]

32. Does her plan include breaking up the big banks? Reinstating Glass-Steagall?

Make public colleges taxpayer funded? If not, then I don't see the problem with the chart.

[radical noodle]

38. She has a plan

The fact that it isn't exactly the same as Bernie's plan is beside the point. The chart says she has no plan for those things. It's all been on her website for months. The chart is full of... well... misinformation, to be kind.

[djean111]

51. Here's a difference - many of us have no reason to believe anything Hillary says.

She evolves with focus groups and polls, she is a Third Way neocon, she is not trustworthy in the least. IMO and all that. Many of us will not vote for a Third Way hawk, no matter what pretty words are uttered.

[radical noodle]

53. Well there you go...

You conveniently don't believe anything she says so people can make up anything they want to. How does that make Bernie believable? I guess it doesn't. I don't believe Bernie can do anything he's telling people but I don't make up stuff about him.

I really don't care who you vote for since that's everyone's personal choice to make, but charts should have correct information.

[mike45567]

30. Sugar coated

You sugar-coated it. Our beloved president and his secretary of state have poisoned groundwater and released enough methane through fracking to cause a climate disaster. The Porter Ranch methane release was fracked methane they attempted to store in those wells. Now they want to blame cow farts. Next they will tell you they were certain that Dick Cheney, T. Boone Pickens and Aubrey McClendon would not lie to them about fracking.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/24/mckibben-fracking-climate-change/

[riderinthestorm]

39. +10000 nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Yep. K&R

[amborin]

37. K&R is it right for voters to honor their core values, especially honesty, integrity?

[CharlotteVale]

42. K&R

[reformist2]

46. But, but, but... Hillary was just staking out the more pragmatic, practical,"realistic" position!

[Scuba]

49. K&R