It is time for someone who appeals to the Bernie crowd to run as an independent

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The Bernie crowd needs to be schooled on reality, not pandered to.

I see the Bernie crowd as essentially a growing movement that understands America can't keep going on like this. They understand it better than supporters of any other candidate. I don't think it's so much about turning America into a socialist country as it is being serious about solving problems like income inequality (or systematic imprisonment). If there were a non-socialist answer to the problem of American's income inequality epidemic that could be implemented, I don't think people in the Bernie crowd would reject it for not being socialist enough for them

That income inequality bullshit is just that -- bullshit.
The poorest Americans have it better than the wealthiest in many countries and need to be reminded that the opportunity to get wealthier is always there.

Yyyyeah umm.... the comparison is not between any set of Americans and completely unrelated demographics in other countries. Never has been. Perhaps it's you who needs to be "schooled on reality".

You conveniently avoided the last line of my post.

It was irrelevant.

Fatter o' mact it still is.

How so? It's the entire essence of the argument. The only thing preventing the non-wealthy from becoming wealthier is the government and this admin specifically. The wealthy aren't the impediment.

 

[oreo]

I'm tellin' ya, the answer is sooooooo simple.

Hillary runs as the Republican.
Bernie runs as the Democrat.

Such a deal.

**** Rump. Politically he's bankrupt. A condition he should be used to.

Bernie Sanders doesn't run as a Democrat, he's a freaking communist. There isn't an American politician that would have ever praised Fidel Castro. A dictator that is responsible for slaughtering thousands, imprisoning thousands more, seizing private property and assets, burning books, executing teachers & scientists, while thousands more died in homemade rafts trying to make it to the Florida coast.

In fact, if JFK were alive and sitting in the Oval office when Sanders did this, he would have immediately had him arrested and put up in front of a congressional hearing regarding his loyalty to this country.
Bernie Sanders heaped praise on Fidel Castro in 1985 interview

Sanders who voted against background checks on gun purchases--aka the Brady bill--5 times is NOT a Democrat. No Democrat would have EVER voted against that.

So don't try and push your Sanders is more of a Democrat than Hillary Clinton on this board. Sanders has never been a Democrat.

 

[Snouter]

Good point oreo. Crooked Hillary represents low information folks and ivy league "elitists," but Crazy Bernie supporters represent surprisingly low information, delusional folks, many of whom having spent more time in liberal classrooms than traditional low information folks.

 

[oreo]

Good point oreo. Crooked Hillary represents low information folks and ivy league "elitists," but Crazy Bernie supporters represent surprisingly low information, delusional folks, many of whom having spent more time in liberal classrooms than traditional low information folks.

The far left and the far right have something in common this year. They've both gone bat shit crazy. Hillary Clinton will most certainly be the next POTUS--because the far right nominated Donald Trump, and they are also very low information voters.
Column: Trump exploits rational political ignorance

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The Bernie crowd needs to be schooled on reality, not pandered to.

I see the Bernie crowd as essentially a growing movement that understands America can't keep going on like this. They understand it better than supporters of any other candidate. I don't think it's so much about turning America into a socialist country as it is being serious about solving problems like income inequality (or systematic imprisonment). If there were a non-socialist answer to the problem of American's income inequality epidemic that could be implemented, I don't think people in the Bernie crowd would reject it for not being socialist enough for them

You have it backwards, it's a growing crowd that doesn't understand the economy, politics, history, and just wants everything handed to them, because they believe the world owes them something. Literally none of what you listed is an issue, let alone one solved by Socialism. If people didn't want to be bottom-rung, they'd be more motivated to work, go to college, and succeed, rather than try to drag down the rest of the nation to suit their own preferences to just live a meaningless life and die a meaningless death.

 

[there4eyeM]

No Bernie. No Clinton. No Trump.

Someone sane.

Someone else.
It is too easy to think these three are nuts; they aren't. That is what is most lamentable about the level of U.S. political debate. All these people are functioning 'normally', in the context. It is the context that is 'insane'.

 

[Disir]

Get away from the restraints of a biased DNC and you'll do better. There's demand for a real progressive candidate. You can get that through an independent candidate. That candidate will fair better against Trump than Hillary

It doesn't need to be Bernie who does this. It could be someone younger who just picks up the torch of Bernie's movement and keeps it going

You think the revolution conducted by the Founding Fathers and their followers was easy?

No. I am not interested in whatever little package someone puts in front of me. I will not vote for a libertarian. I will not vote for the Green party. I will not vote for Trump or Hillary. I have as of yet to see anyone honestly address the issues. This is not FaceBook with memes and likes.

One of the reasons that a lot of people have difficulty getting it is that much of the conversation is directed towards other alleged liberals.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Bernie crowd needs to be schooled on reality, not pandered to.

I see the Bernie crowd as essentially a growing movement that understands America can't keep going on like this. They understand it better than supporters of any other candidate. I don't think it's so much about turning America into a socialist country as it is being serious about solving problems like income inequality (or systematic imprisonment). If there were a non-socialist answer to the problem of American's income inequality epidemic that could be implemented, I don't think people in the Bernie crowd would reject it for not being socialist enough for them

That income inequality bullshit is just that -- bullshit.
The poorest Americans have it better than the wealthiest in many countries and need to be reminded that the opportunity to get wealthier is always there.

Yes and no. I agree that it doesn't work to try to define and fix it by forced redistribution of wealth through govt.

What we need is distribution of knowledge and mentored training and experience in BUILDING wealth, jobs, schools, hospitals and other facilities including production. Share the KNOWLEDGE and this will end the disparity and monopoly that people are complaining is keeping the poor poor.

Because this can take generations to move people from poverty and victim mentality to ownership and empowerment, most people don't see how this is even a possible choice (unless you've seen a working model of how it's done). There are no shortcuts. People learn by doing. Why not reward the experienced business owners and managers for investing loans and mentorship training to people first learning to manage independently.

If we set up a tax incentive with breaks, even earning interest on microlending under step by step business plans to make sure every intern succeeds in learning business models, then we can get away from the resentment of forced taxation paying for welfare handouts that keep dependent people poor.

 

[emilynghiem]

No Bernie. No Clinton. No Trump.

Someone sane.

Someone else.
It is too easy to think these three are nuts; they aren't. That is what is most lamentable about the level of U.S. political debate. All these people are functioning 'normally', in the context. It is the context that is 'insane'.

I thought the Republicans trying to be diplomatic and correct Trump without stooping to his tactics made the party look good in comparison with him.

I came away with more respect for Rubio and Cruz by how they spoke about him, even admitting mistakes as Rubio when he tried to play Trump's game.
And that didn't work but backfired.

I have a lot of respect for people who are honestly sticking to their guns that they cannot support Trump, period.

However, I would have even more respect for leaders who can bring these people together and stick to the Constitution and America's best interests,
and not put personal or political agenda in the way of unity and agreement on what is going to shape public policy. If people don't agree, it probably means there is more to the problem and solution than where they are stuck. So both sides would have to agree to let go and let the higher solution direct the path.

If they are too stuck playing the bullying games in the media, and what is the cheapest fastest way to bring someone down, that's all we're going to see.

I really hoped the Republican leaders would be above this. I've come to expect it among liberals who only use party politics to get anywhere. But for GOP they used to use the Constitution to back their arguments and principles. I can't believe they've lost that and just play political games now.

So I guess the buck is passed to the people to come up with our own solutions and lead ourselves. When both parents are too busy fighting, sometimes the kids have to get up and make their own sandwiches instead of going hungry, with all the yelling and screaming going on.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Bernie crowd needs to be schooled on reality, not pandered to.

RoshawnMarkwees What better way than to hold them responsible for funding and developing their own business plans for worker-owned cooperative economics?

The Greens have been teaching people for years, how to set up their own labor coops, health care coops, farmer coops, so that you use the free market system but make sure the workers retain maximum control and management of their businesses and labor. The Greens backing Sanders already practice independent labor coops and currency, outside of govt.

Great! How is that not consistent with what independent conservatives say about owning your own businesses and managing your own affairs. Whether we come from the right or the left, we all thrive by owning and representing ourselves locally as much as possible, and minimalizing how much we depend on outside third-party collective groups to exert power over us.

The only problem separating people is how to manage the learning curve.
The left wants to depend on govt to manage the resources.
The right wants govt out, and people to take back maximum sovereignty.

How can we set up business models and mentorship training that allow the security of govt but the freedom and mobility of private programs?

I have suggested organizing people by their interests and mastery levels
by PARTY so the more experienced leaders can work with one party to take on reforming the VA or military resources to cover health care for vets MOST EFFETIVELY and use that model to expand on to cover the greater population. Money currently wasted on illicit war contracts that went to private profits while denying care to vets could be reimbursed to cover health care.

For student, interns, even convicts or former inmates who need more support before becoming independent of govt or charity welfare, why not reward citizens and businesses for investing in microlending and training, so it isn't a handout, but a supervised program in stages or classes as in schools.
The Democrats have promoted and promised in their party platform to reform prisons and health care, so why not tackle both using the same budget currently wasted on failed systems, and convert it to medical programs that work. Mixing medical education with internships/residencies serving the communities would redirect resources to the most cost effective methods of diagnosis, prevention, management and cure of both physical and mental illness, including criminal illness filling up our prisons and costing us more.

Why can't we use this segregated party system to ORGANIZE like minded leadership around solutions, and fund programs each group believes in making work. And quit wasting resources fighting one against the other!

That's like powerful states going to war to dominate the union with their own state laws. Why not each group represent and fund their own focus on social programs, share the best ideas with other groups, and adopt them freely,
based on the most effective ways for resources to serve the greatest number.

All by free choice, using parties similar to religious or nonprofit organizations people freely choose to fund and participate in because they work better.

 

[g5000]

Get away from the restraints of a biased DNC and you'll do better. There's demand for a real progressive candidate. You can get that through an independent candidate. That candidate will fair better against Trump than Hillary

It doesn't need to be Bernie who does this. It could be someone younger who just picks up the torch of Bernie's movement and keeps it going

You think the revolution conducted by the Founding Fathers and their followers was easy?

Any "independent" or third party socialist/liberal candidate will just ensure a Trump win.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The Bernie crowd needs to be schooled on reality, not pandered to.

I see the Bernie crowd as essentially a growing movement that understands America can't keep going on like this. They understand it better than supporters of any other candidate. I don't think it's so much about turning America into a socialist country as it is being serious about solving problems like income inequality (or systematic imprisonment). If there were a non-socialist answer to the problem of American's income inequality epidemic that could be implemented, I don't think people in the Bernie crowd would reject it for not being socialist enough for them

That income inequality bullshit is just that -- bullshit.
The poorest Americans have it better than the wealthiest in many countries and need to be reminded that the opportunity to get wealthier is always there.

Yes and no. I agree that it doesn't work to try to define and fix it by forced redistribution of wealth through govt.

What we need is distribution of knowledge and mentored training and experience in BUILDING wealth, jobs, schools, hospitals and other facilities including production. Share the KNOWLEDGE and this will end the disparity and monopoly that people are complaining is keeping the poor poor.

Because this can take generations to move people from poverty and victim mentality to ownership and empowerment, most people don't see how this is even a possible choice (unless you've seen a working model of how it's done). There are no shortcuts. People learn by doing. Why not reward the experienced business owners and managers for investing loans and mentorship training to people first learning to manage independently.

If we set up a tax incentive with breaks, even earning interest on microlending under step by step business plans to make sure every intern succeeds in learning business models, then we can get away from the resentment of forced taxation paying for welfare handouts that keep dependent people poor.

Not that complicated. Restore intact families and the opportunities will manifest themselves. Otherwise you're only leading a horse to water.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The Bernie crowd needs to be schooled on reality, not pandered to.

RoshawnMarkwees What better way than to hold them responsible for funding and developing their own business plans for worker-owned cooperative economics?

The Greens have been teaching people for years, how to set up their own labor coops, health care coops, farmer coops, so that you use the free market system but make sure the workers retain maximum control and management of their businesses and labor. The Greens backing Sanders already practice independent labor coops and currency, outside of govt.

Great! How is that not consistent with what independent conservatives say about owning your own businesses and managing your own affairs. Whether we come from the right or the left, we all thrive by owning and representing ourselves locally as much as possible, and minimalizing how much we depend on outside third-party collective groups to exert power over us.

The only problem separating people is how to manage the learning curve.
The left wants to depend on govt to manage the resources.
The right wants govt out, and people to take back maximum sovereignty.

How can we set up business models and mentorship training that allow the security of govt but the freedom and mobility of private programs?

I have suggested organizing people by their interests and mastery levels
by PARTY so the more experienced leaders can work with one party to take on reforming the VA or military resources to cover health care for vets MOST EFFETIVELY and use that model to expand on to cover the greater population. Money currently wasted on illicit war contracts that went to private profits while denying care to vets could be reimbursed to cover health care.

For student, interns, even convicts or former inmates who need more support before becoming independent of govt or charity welfare, why not reward citizens and businesses for investing in microlending and training, so it isn't a handout, but a supervised program in stages or classes as in schools.
The Democrats have promoted and promised in their party platform to reform prisons and health care, so why not tackle both using the same budget currently wasted on failed systems, and convert it to medical programs that work. Mixing medical education with internships/residencies serving the communities would redirect resources to the most cost effective methods of diagnosis, prevention, management and cure of both physical and mental illness, including criminal illness filling up our prisons and costing us more.

Why can't we use this segregated party system to ORGANIZE like minded leadership around solutions, and fund programs each group believes in making work. And quit wasting resources fighting one against the other!

That's like powerful states going to war to dominate the union with their own state laws. Why not each group represent and fund their own focus on social programs, share the best ideas with other groups, and adopt them freely,
based on the most effective ways for resources to serve the greatest number.

All by free choice, using parties similar to religious or nonprofit organizations people freely choose to fund and participate in because they work better.

That's all fine and good but without incentive it's only good on paper. As long as you have generations of socialist sloth already, nothing works until that cycle is broken.

 

[Pogo]

Get away from the restraints of a biased DNC and you'll do better. There's demand for a real progressive candidate. You can get that through an independent candidate. That candidate will fair better against Trump than Hillary

It doesn't need to be Bernie who does this. It could be someone younger who just picks up the torch of Bernie's movement and keeps it going

You think the revolution conducted by the Founding Fathers and their followers was easy?

Any "independent" or third party socialist/liberal candidate will just ensure a Trump win.

More likely ensures a Democrat win, since the spit is in the RP.

Like it did in 1912. Wilson was left with under 42% of the pop vote, yet won the EC in a landslide. Third party TR came in 2nd.

 

[amrchaos]

They could vote for pothead Gary Johnson.

I can tell you now that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein(Green) are seriously being considered by angry Bernie supporters.

Choosing Trump after Bernie is an anti establishment vote. Anger towards the establishment is mostly on the right.

 

[Pogo]

I'm tellin' ya, the answer is sooooooo simple.

Hillary runs as the Republican.
Bernie runs as the Democrat.

Such a deal.

**** Rump. Politically he's bankrupt. A condition he should be used to.

Thanks for the 'funny' emilynghiem but I'm actually half serious.

Why not? Aren't the Hillary detractors always wailing she's a "corporatist"? And they're not wrong. So --- let her run as one in the party where she came from. A homecoming. Meanwhile that leaves Bernie with the Democratic ticket representing the actual left for the first time in who can count how long. That's a win-win.

Imagine that --- two parties that actually contrast with each other. Ever seen that before?

And they can do it, because a political party can nominate whoever it wants --- they're not bound by primary results.

Rump, who's not applicable to any party, will need to be placated, so make him Emperor of Antarctica and tell him he can build all the ostentatious golf courses he wants. Let him eminent-domain the penguins. Then we're rid of him too, and that's a win-win-win.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tellin' ya, the answer is sooooooo simple.

Hillary runs as the Republican.
Bernie runs as the Democrat.

Such a deal.

**** Rump. Politically he's bankrupt. A condition he should be used to.

Thanks for the 'funny' emilynghiem but I'm actually half serious.

Why not? Aren't the Hillary detractors always wailing she's a "corporatist"? And they're not wrong. So --- let her run as one in the party where she came from. A homecoming. Meanwhile that leaves Bernie with the Democratic ticket representing the actual left for the first time in who can count how long. That's a win-win.

Imagine that --- two parties that actually contrast with each other. Ever seen that before?

And they can do it, because a political party can nominate whoever it wants --- they're not bound by primary results.

Rump, who's not applicable to any party, will need to be placated, so make him Emperor of Antarctica and tell him he can build all the ostentatious golf courses he wants. Let him eminent-domain the penguins. Then we're rid of him too, and that's a win-win-win.

OK Pogo then it's Hillary as the Republican.
Trump as the DEMOCRAT
and Sanders as the GREEN.

Cruz is either Tea Party or Constitution Party (ie alienating career politicians in both parties allergic to Constitutional restraints).
Rand Paul is Libertarian (I mean, keeping govt out of marriage and marriage out of govt. Dead giveaway!)
Obama is more like Occupy?

 

[candycorn]

It may be helpful to point out that you can't just show up and ask nicely to be put on ballots, form a party, and begin campaigning.

Just saying you are a third party candidate is like poor Michael declaring bankruptcy

 

[Pogo]

I'm tellin' ya, the answer is sooooooo simple.

Hillary runs as the Republican.
Bernie runs as the Democrat.

Such a deal.

**** Rump. Politically he's bankrupt. A condition he should be used to.

Thanks for the 'funny' emilynghiem but I'm actually half serious.

Why not? Aren't the Hillary detractors always wailing she's a "corporatist"? And they're not wrong. So --- let her run as one in the party where she came from. A homecoming. Meanwhile that leaves Bernie with the Democratic ticket representing the actual left for the first time in who can count how long. That's a win-win.

Imagine that --- two parties that actually contrast with each other. Ever seen that before?

And they can do it, because a political party can nominate whoever it wants --- they're not bound by primary results.

Rump, who's not applicable to any party, will need to be placated, so make him Emperor of Antarctica and tell him he can build all the ostentatious golf courses he wants. Let him eminent-domain the penguins. Then we're rid of him too, and that's a win-win-win.

OK Pogo then it's Hillary as the Republican.
Trump as the DEMOCRAT
and Sanders as the GREEN.

Cruz is either Tea Party or Constitution Party (ie alienating career politicians in both parties allergic to Constitutional restraints).
Rand Paul is Libertarian (I mean, keeping govt out of marriage and marriage out of govt. Dead giveaway!)
Obama is more like Occupy?

How could Rump possibly run as a "Democrat"? You'd have to completely throw out the definition and start again from nothing. He's already far enough off that he doesn't qualify as a Republican.

I told you before, Rump is the Sui Generis Party. That's the only thing that fits his ilk. As if there is an ilk.

I can see Bernie as the Green candy, yes. OK here's the plan....

Take the Democratic Party, ALL of its resources, funding, people, convention literally everything, and dump it into the Green Party. Then leave the name, alone, for Donald Frump. No resources, just the name. Just to see how many of the Unwashed continue to ooze to the booth like zombies and go "yess....Democrat, I've heard of that" and pull the chain.

Deal?

He wouldn't keep the name anyway -- he'd immediately rename it the ""Trump Party" and his logo would be a playing card with a dollar sign humping it. And somebody somewhere, would intentionally vote for that. Boggles the mind.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tellin' ya, the answer is sooooooo simple.

Hillary runs as the Republican.
Bernie runs as the Democrat.

Such a deal.

**** Rump. Politically he's bankrupt. A condition he should be used to.

Thanks for the 'funny' emilynghiem but I'm actually half serious.

Why not? Aren't the Hillary detractors always wailing she's a "corporatist"? And they're not wrong. So --- let her run as one in the party where she came from. A homecoming. Meanwhile that leaves Bernie with the Democratic ticket representing the actual left for the first time in who can count how long. That's a win-win.

Imagine that --- two parties that actually contrast with each other. Ever seen that before?

And they can do it, because a political party can nominate whoever it wants --- they're not bound by primary results.

Rump, who's not applicable to any party, will need to be placated, so make him Emperor of Antarctica and tell him he can build all the ostentatious golf courses he wants. Let him eminent-domain the penguins. Then we're rid of him too, and that's a win-win-win.

OK Pogo then it's Hillary as the Republican.
Trump as the DEMOCRAT
and Sanders as the GREEN.

Cruz is either Tea Party or Constitution Party (ie alienating career politicians in both parties allergic to Constitutional restraints).
Rand Paul is Libertarian (I mean, keeping govt out of marriage and marriage out of govt. Dead giveaway!)
Obama is more like Occupy?

How could Rump possibly run as a "Democrat"? You'd have to completely throw out the definition and start again from nothing. He's already far enough off that he doesn't qualify as a Republican.

I told you before, Rump is the Sui Generis Party. That's the only thing that fits his ilk. As if there is an ilk.

I can see Bernie as the Green candy, yes. OK here's the plan....

Take the Democratic Party, ALL of its resources, funding, people, convention literally everything, and dump it into the Green Party. Then leave the name, alone, for Donald Frump. No resources, just the name. Just to see how many of the Unwashed continue to ooze to the booth like zombies and go "yess....Democrat, I've heard of that" and pull the chain.

Deal?

He wouldn't keep the name anyway -- he'd immediately rename it the ""Trump Party" and his logo would be a playing card with a dollar sign humping it. And somebody somewhere, would intentionally vote for that. Boggles the mind.

Pogo
I agree with the gist of this idea. I thought it would happen by diverse third party groups all jumping in and taking over the Democratic Party. And then out of that mix, of people so diluted by groups, someone could rise up and reinvent the party as Reagan when he switched from D to R and set the stage for the 80s conservatism that ppl credited and loved so much.

Here the D party has lost its way and goal of inclusion of diversity, becoming reactionary exclusionary and bullying to win politically, so whoever can restore and master true inclusion and diversity can rise and take over. Ppl will follow a good lead like with Reagan being the new GOP and then Bush who rode on that wave.

I thought it would be the Muslim constitutionalists, the Greens and Libertarians who take over the lead. If it turns out to be Trump and Sanders uniting their business plans, maybe it could be a collaborative team effort that reforms the party system, who knows!

Trump is a wild card who can either play to divide or play to unite for business deals. It depends does he want to buy peace or war with his money and media influence.