Riddle me this, why would Sanders supporters lie about fraud? What do we have to gain from this?
Win. That’s what you gain: winning. Also, that lawsuit has been standing still for a while.
Also, why did Bernie said Hillary won fair and square and does this? Who do we believe?
Let’s take a look at what happened when and after Zelaya was overthrown
Spoken like a true ignorant of what happens here. Crackdown of the press? Not new. Violence? Please. You got to do better than that.
Oh, and the children migrants, why are the majority from El Salvador then? Why are kids from Guatemala going too?
Again, easy to report from a comfy USA, not so easy when you live here and understand the complexity of the issues that you can type and source but not live and understand them.
You might want to take a seat here.
Am I willing to stand up with neoliberal, hawkish oligarchs? No. Am I willing to stand up with decent albeit flawed politicians like Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren? Yes.
Losing strategy. Many Democrats agree with the “neoliberal, hawkish oligarchs”. What do you tell them? Their vote isn’t worth it?
Most of the mainstream media was biased against Sanders.
How many email stories did he get? Or FBI coverage?
This is what I meant, take your wins where you get them.
No, we have to. We have to unless we want economic inequality to worsen, our planet to warm, and thousands to die in endless wars.
Once again, you don’t have to. Nobody asked you. You want to.
Also, it might be nice if you added sexism, racism, xenophobia, to your list of issues. Inequality can’t be fixed without fixing sexism and racism first.
It’s kinda simple, actually. The Left can work inside and outside the Party. It doesn’t have to exclusively be one of the two options.
Now that is a good idea. However, you can’t claim one if you’re not in it.
The Establishment Democrats failed to offer a populist message to voters. They ended up losing badly in the Midwest and across the country.
Traditionally, populist messages from the Left never win (I can’t find the The Economist article I read it on but in essence people associate populists messages from the Left to the failed Latin American governments that have experienced it). I’ll give you that the Democrats failed to prove the good economic message that they had (and the media didn’t help), but using a populist message wouldn’t have been a winning strategy either.
Besides, it’s more and more apparent that Trump voters didn’t much care about his populist message but about his immigrant message.
I don’t care if Bobby the Democrat in Portland is a centrist. I care that the Party leaders have embraced a Third Way centrist view that has failed them.
But if Bobby the Democrat in Portland wants a centrist to represent him, then what? Maybe Bobby doesn’t feel like they have failed. This is what I mean. Why should Bobby not be represented the way he wants to because you’ve decided for him?
The majority of the country is pretty left on the issues.
This is a flawed article. The VOX poll asked one issue (wealth redistribution via taxes -which isn’t a new ideology) and it also showed a not-good result of people still preferring corporations over governments.
It also shows what I meant: majority of groups that aren’t fully liberals (Independents, Moderates, Evangelicals -why did they poll them like this I don’t know) polled higher in the “Somewhat Agree” answer. They still have reservations.
We’re just asking that Hillary support and fight for single-payer.
You had her there. She came to support it, even with opposition she would’ve faced.
And stop making the GOP seem unbeatable. I don’t care if Obama was too weak to fight them. Look at how activists are holding Republicans accountable now. Imagine a President Sanders mobilizing his progressive voters to fight on the ground for single-payer.
They are. Until gerrymandering and voter suppression is fixed, they’ll be unbeatable because no legislation would pass the House. Senate? Probably. House? No. They hate Liberals/Democrats/Progressive more than they care about people.
HA! Too weak. Good one. I guess he could’ve pushed them to the wall and force them to vote on things, right?
Activists are holding them accountable NOW because of Trump. If Sanders (if he got over his minority problem) would have won, there would have been no Women’s March. The organizing would’ve been limited and not in mass scale as it is right now. This activism is a direct response to Trump. If Bernie or Hillary would have won, there wouldn’t have been activism that needed in response to Muslim Bans or ICE praying on parents to deport them. These policies wouldn’t exist.
There would be no town halls on ACA because the ACA wouldn’t be repealed as Hillary or Bernie would’ve veto it. Hillary or Bernie wouldn’t be defunding PP, another source of activism. Hillary or Bernie wouldn’t be signing EO banning visitors/immigration/refugees, no protests at airports needed. There would be no “not my president” protests. There wouldn’t be “A Day Without an Immigrant” protests.
We don’t have these purity tests.
Yes you do, you just gave it away. You said you wouldn’t vote for a corporatist. That is a purity test.