Bernie 4 Prez redux

[Marypoza]

Will KY & OR get Berned today?

[Marypoza]

OR got Berned, KY got singed

[playwrite]

A clear shot across the BernieBoat bow -

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/be...ats-223336

Quote:Bit player Sanders poised to become Senate force

But Democrats warn he could blow his newfound clout if he doesn't move to unite the party soon.

Long a lonely voice of the left in the Senate, Bernie Sanders is poised to return to his day job as a potential kingmaker after a presidential campaign that made him a household name and hero of the progressive movement.

But the Vermont senator risks frittering away that newfound clout, Democratic senators said Wednesday, if he doesn’t move soon to unite the party and train his fire on Donald Trump

The NV ruckus may have been a blessing in disguise.  It has unveiled the underlying irrational seething of some Sanders supporters over their candidate losing the election.  The ruckus would be forgotten within one 24-hour news cycle except for it possibly foreshadowing a bigger meltdown by Sanders supporters at the convention - something that could greatly help usher in a Trump Presidency.  It is already apparent on social media that several Sanders supporter groups are planning such a ruckus.

As the article suggests, Sanders has the possibility of returning to the Senate in a much more prestigious light and the very real possibility of chairing the most powerful Committee (i.e., Budget) if the Dems reclaim the Senate.  On the other hand, if he let's ego (and ALL politicians have hefty levels of it) stand in the way, no one will greet him at the door and he will disappear back into relative obscurity - maybe trotted out in some district races where there's universities with large student bodies.

My understanding is three conditions have been presented to him if he wants to take his 'movement' to the next level with actual power in the Senate; they are -

1. Not just mitigate, but completely jettison any further rhetoric aimed against the Party about corruption or his nomination being stolen away.  He's welcome to talk about money in politics, Citizen United, Koch Bros, yadda-yadda, but he needs to be clear he is not talking about the Dem Party.  He can highlight the few differences on actual issues he has with Clinton but the clever smears and innuendo has to come to an end.  This has to happen this week.

2.  He's welcome to stay in the race for the big June 7 primaries, but he needs to suspend his campaign before the June 14 DC primary.  There was a willingness to let him stay in until the convention, but with the NV ruckus and his insistence to challenge at the convention providing the fundamental reason for major discord at the convention, his staying in is no longer acceptable after June 7.  Between his campaign suspension he needs to calm the waters for most supporters and very visibly and vocally disassociate himself and his movement from those who want a major disruption - the latter have to painted as Trump operatives.

3. At the convention and afterwards, Sanders has to use the 2008 model that Clinton used to endorse Obama.  His enthusiasm should be sufficient to cause speculation of whether he will go back to the Senate or have a prized position in the Clinton Administration.

The delivery of the message needs to be subtle, but the message itself should be very very clear - his political career will be essentially over unless he does these three things.  Again, he will be returned to the backbench in the Senate.  In a couple years, particularly if he facilitated a Trump Presidency, he should be the Dem's number one primarying target.

It's time to take the gloves off, and see if this guy is really a progressive looking for change or just another too-large ego.

[playwrite]

It looks like Big Bob is coming around -

Quote:

That recent national poll showing Trump up by 3 over Clinton must be putting the fear of the devil into hearts and minds; let's hope others climb down from the ledge soon.
Imagine Trump putting 3 or 4 of those Neanderthals on his list on the SCOTUS over the next 4-8 years;  we'll all be so F'd.

[Bronco80]

I don't have a problem with Bernie taking his campaign to the convention, as long as he understands that he's going to lose and the purpose is to try to set the Democratic Party further to the left beyond 2016.

[playwrite]

(05-19-2016, 10:02 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: I don't have a problem with Bernie taking his campaign to the convention, as long as he understands that he's going to lose and the purpose is to try to set the Democratic Party further to the left beyond 2016.

I use to feel that way, and had clearly stated that on the previous 4T Forums. 

But no longer; not after what happen in Nevada and his choosing to again stress the outright lie that he has been treated unfairly and the Dem party is corrupt.  It is an implicit endorsement of the type of disruption at the convention that will go a long way to enabling a Trump presidency.  There's just too much at stake.

He's on an ego trip.  Currently, he is not the Bernie that people fell in love with.  He needs to be talked down off the ledge now.  It needs to be made crystal clear that while a more progressive movement will continue within the Dem Party, his role will at best be some barely-tolerated relic.  Some argue that he'll go off and start a 3rd party; Elizabeth Warren, a true progressive Democrat, will crush him if he tries.

On the other hand, if he can get a handle on his ego and and get back to it being about a movement, he should be able to see the large role he could still play in pushing that movement forward. 

That's a direct message to the man, Bernie Sanders.

For the majority of his followers, the ones with more cerebral lobe rather than amygdala thinking, the message is that their guy is truly faced with a choice of destructive personal ego or sustained political movement - if he chooses the former, why are they continuing to support that?

[pbrower2a]

The point: the people so enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders need to recognize that they can best work with the Democratic Party to (1) get Hillary Clinton elected, (2) get the Democrats back in the majority in the Senate, and (3) perhaps take back the House of Representatives. This is the optimum. The worst, of course, is that Donald Trump become President with effective majorities in both Houses of Congress likely to do great harm to anyone not already super-rich.

America is much closer to being ready for pervasive, progressive change now than it was in 2006 or 2008. The elections of 2006 and 2008 were practically referendums on the competence of George W. Bush -- and his bungled foreign policy and the consequences of a speculative boom that went bust. The Right was able to get back in power except in the Presidency by fostering the attitude that with the problems solved, America can go back to the economic policies of George W. Bush and do neoconservative foreign policy with a little more caution.

Do we need another 2008-style (or worse, 1929-style) economic meltdown to further discredit the economic Right? Do we need another diplomatic or military debacle because the President wants a war and Congress is willing to give it to him? History repeats at its worst when people fail to learn the lessons.

[Eric the Green]

(05-19-2016, 12:19 PM)playwrite Wrote: A clear shot across the BernieBoat bow -

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/be...ats-223336

Quote:Bit player Sanders poised to become Senate force

But Democrats warn he could blow his newfound clout if he doesn't move to unite the party soon.

Long a lonely voice of the left in the Senate, Bernie Sanders is poised to return to his day job as a potential kingmaker after a presidential campaign that made him a household name and hero of the progressive movement.

But the Vermont senator risks frittering away that newfound clout, Democratic senators said Wednesday, if he doesn’t move soon to unite the party and train his fire on Donald Trump

The NV ruckus may have been a blessing in disguise.  It has unveiled the underlying irrational seething of some Sanders supporters over their candidate losing the election.  The ruckus would be forgotten within one 24-hour news cycle except for it possibly foreshadowing a bigger meltdown by Sanders supporters at the convention - something that could greatly help usher in a Trump Presidency.  It is already apparent on social media that several Sanders supporter groups are planning such a ruckus.

As the article suggests, Sanders has the possibility of returning to the Senate in a much more prestigious light and the very real possibility of chairing the most powerful Committee (i.e., Budget) if the Dems reclaim the Senate.  On the other hand, if he let's ego (and ALL politicians have hefty levels of it) stand in the way, no one will greet him at the door and he will disappear back into relative obscurity - maybe trotted out in some district races where there's universities with large student bodies.

My understanding is three conditions have been presented to him if he wants to take his 'movement' to the next level with actual power in the Senate; they are -

1. Not just mitigate, but completely jettison any further rhetoric aimed against the Party about corruption or his nomination being stolen away.  He's welcome to talk about money in politics, Citizen United, Koch Bros, yadda-yadda, but he needs to be clear he is not talking about the Dem Party.  He can highlight the few differences on actual issues he has with Clinton but the clever smears and innuendo has to come to an end.  This has to happen this week.

2.  He's welcome to stay in the race for the big June 7 primaries, but he needs to suspend his campaign before the June 14 DC primary.  There was a willingness to let him stay in until the convention, but with the NV ruckus and his insistence to challenge at the convention providing the fundamental reason for major discord at the convention, his staying in is no longer acceptable after June 7.  Between his campaign suspension he needs to calm the waters for most supporters and very visibly and vocally disassociate himself and his movement from those who want a major disruption - the latter have to painted as Trump operatives.

3. At the convention and afterwards, Sanders has to use the 2008 model that Clinton used to endorse Obama.  His enthusiasm should be sufficient to cause speculation of whether he will go back to the Senate or have a prized position in the Clinton Administration.

The delivery of the message needs to be subtle, but the message itself should be very very clear - his political career will be essentially over unless he does these three things.  Again, he will be returned to the backbench in the Senate.  In a couple years, particularly if he facilitated a Trump Presidency, he should be the Dem's number one primarying target.

It's time to take the gloves off, and see if this guy is really a progressive looking for change or just another too-large ego.

I agree Sanders needs to do all that. Hillary also needs to do HER part, and find a way to make the Bernie folks feel they have been heard, by adopting some of his platform planks rather than uselessly fighting over them, and by picking a progressive veep candidate and signaling a willingness to listen to progressives about appointments, rather than do what her husband and Obama did and make appointments that placate Wall Street. Unity or the lack thereof is going to be a two-way street.

[playwrite]

Bernie's last ditch effort!

[Marypoza]

(05-20-2016, 10:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The point: the people so enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders need to recognize that they can best work with the Democratic Party to (1) get Hillary Clinton elected, (2) get the Democrats back in the majority in the Senate, and (3) perhaps take back the House of Representatives. This is the optimum. The worst, of course, is that Donald Trump become President with effective majorities in both Houses of Congress likely to do great harm to anyone not already super-rich.

America is much closer to being ready for pervasive, progressive change now than it was in 2006 or 2008. The elections of 2006 and 2008 were practically referendums on the competence of George W. Bush -- and his bungled foreign policy and the consequences of a speculative boom that went bust. The Right was able to get back in power except in the Presidency by fostering the attitude that with the problems solved, America can go back to the economic policies of George W. Bush and do neoconservative foreign policy with a little more caution.

Do we need another 2008-style (or worse, 1929-style) economic meltdown to further discredit the economic Right? Do we need another diplomatic or military debacle because the President wants a war and Congress is willing to give it to him? History repeats at its worst when people fail to learn the lessons.

-- I realize politicians are inherently sleazy, but she goes beyond the pale. She actually makes the Donald look good. Just can't (& won't) vote for her (or the Donald for that matter)

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2016, 01:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- I realize politicians are inherently sleazy, but she goes beyond the pale. She actually makes the Donald look good. Just can't (& won't) vote for her (or the Donald for that matter)

I can't see that she goes beyond the pale at all, and I think it's likely that people will come to realize that the choice is between a compassionate grandmother who has dedicated her life to helping people improve their lives, and a fraudulent trickster and talented marketing scam-artist trading on peoples fears and prejudices to boost his own power.

Using a personal email server which in fact is safer than using a partially-non functional State Dept. email server, which previous Secretaries had done too, is not "beyond the pale." Getting donations for a family-run non-profit foundation from which she derives no personal benefit is not beyond the pale either. I just don't see it. The essence of her career is helping people get health care and break through barriers of prejudice, and being an ambassador for America and for human rights around the world. What is the essence of Donald Trump's career? Making millions and billions, and losing them, and making them again, through shady deals and marketing/self-branding talent. The Donald makes Hillary look good-- VERY good. I just hope the people can see; that's always the wild card, the American people, which no-one not even Donald Trump ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of.

And it's time more people including maryposa recognize that politicians are only as "sleazy" as the ones we choose and tolerate. There is nothing "inherently sleazy" about politicians at all; they are just folks like us who do the job that WE elect them to do, or that WE allow to do the job badly or not at all.

[playwrite]

(06-02-2016, 01:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- I realize politicians are inherently sleazy, but she goes beyond the pale. She actually makes the Donald look good. Just can't (& won't) vote for her (or the Donald for that matter)

Let's give you a chance to show that you're not just another sheeple suffering from Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome fed to you by the Right wingnut propaganda machine.

Tell us exactly what meme you believe makes her "sleazy" and defend it with some facts and logic.

I have yet to be disappointed by the hilarity of someone trying to attempt this, but its real value is showing how utterly depraved the Derangement and why certain types of people are so susceptible.

Go for it; you might learn something about yourself.

[playwrite]

(06-03-2016, 09:32 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 01:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- I realize politicians are inherently sleazy, but she goes beyond the pale. She actually makes the Donald look good. Just can't (& won't) vote for her (or the Donald for that matter)

I can't see that she goes beyond the pale at all, and I think it's likely that people will come to realize that the choice is between a compassionate grandmother who has dedicated her life to helping people improve their lives, and a fraudulent trickster and talented marketing scam-artist trading on peoples fears and prejudices to boost his own power.

Using a personal email server which in fact is safer than using a partially-non functional State Dept. email server, which previous Secretaries had done too, is not "beyond the pale." Getting donations for a family-run non-profit foundation from which she derives no personal benefit is not beyond the pale either. I just don't see it. The essence of her career is helping people get health care and break through barriers of prejudice, and being an ambassador for America and for human rights around the world. What is the essence of Donald Trump's career? Making millions and billions, and losing them, and making them again, through shady deals and marketing/self-branding talent. The Donald makes Hillary look good-- VERY good. I just hope the people can see; that's always the wild card, the American people, which no-one not even Donald Trump ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of.

Maybe we shouldn't bother her for any facts or logic.

She needs to spend some time working on that apology to her kids and grandkids for enabling a President Trump and a Supreme Court that will be at least as terrifying, and much more long-lasting.

On the other hand, I'm still waiting for those Naderites to own up to their enabling of 'W' and 9/11, Iraq Invasion, the Great Recession, 2008 Financial Meltdown, etc. etc.

[Mikebert]

(05-20-2016, 10:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Do we need another 2008-style (or worse, 1929-style) economic meltdown to further discredit the economic Right? Do we need another diplomatic or military debacle because the President wants a war and Congress is willing to give it to him? History repeats at its worst when people fail to learn the lessons.

Seeing how Republicans have retaken the House and Senate and Trump is within a few points of Clinton in the polls, it would seem that the economic right have not been discredited.  So if this is to happen, something discrediting needs to happen.

IMO another financial crisis is a possibility in the next few years.  Whoever wins the election this fall should have no impact on its probability. IMO how economic policymakers will respond will have an impact on the severity of the economic impact of a crisis, should it appear. The Fed will do its own thing regardless of who is president.  Any fiscal response will be up to Paul Ryan and the Republican house, who are typically unwilling to do stimulus unless there is a president of whom they approve.

The the Ryan-led Republican House most certainly does not approve of Hillary Clinton and if she is president the outcome from a crisis (should one happen) would be more severe than what we saw under Obama.  If the president were an establishment Republican, I see a generous stimulus being approved, although they would call it something else.  But the only alternative is Trump.  I do not see Ryan spending much of his political capital quieting the Tea Party Caucus on the behalf of Donald Trump, so I don't see Congress acting to blunt the impact of a crisis (should it happen) with either potential president.

So if a crisis happened I see a very serious recession, possibly even a depression regardless of who is elected president.  Here is where the 4T climax comes into play.  There will be a war between the White House and the Congress over who will get the blame for destroying the American economy.  If Congress wins, the outcome will be Republican political dominance a decades or two.  Again this is regardless of who is president. 

However if the president wins then it gets interesting.  If the president is Clinton it means Democratic dominance for the next couple of decades.  If the president is Trump it means the destruction of the current Republican party, but Trump will remain.  He will probably get a Democratic Congress.  If he can strike a deal with them and get the policy needed to restore some semblance of prosperity, he will get a fair chunk of the credit.  The Republican brand will be toxic, but the Trump brand will not.  Trump could then be the nucleus about which a new Republican party could form, perhaps named after him--he would certainly go for that.

[pbrower2a]

(06-04-2016, 04:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 10:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Do we need another 2008-style (or worse, 1929-style) economic meltdown to further discredit the economic Right? Do we need another diplomatic or military debacle because the President wants a war and Congress is willing to give it to him? History repeats at its worst when people fail to learn the lessons.

Seeing how Republicans have retaken the House and Senate and Trump is within a few points of Clinton in the polls, it would seem that the economic right have not been discredited.  So if this is to happen, something discrediting needs to happen.

TARP bought us some time without solving the core causes of the economic mess that awaits us.

The Right is on the brink of consolidating full power, and it is more adept at casting blame and imposing pain than at solving anything. It would blame workers for not working hard enough, long enough, and cheaply enough for the Ruling Elite, the only people who matter in their world. Get leadership full of narcissists at best and sociopaths at worst, people devoid of any moral compass... and you get Simon Legree in modern garb and in possession of greater technologies of repression.

Quote:IMO another financial crisis is a possibility in the next few years.  Whoever wins the election this fall should have no impact on its probability. IMO how economic policymakers will respond will have an impact on the severity of the economic impact of a crisis, should it appear. The Fed will do its own thing regardless of who is president.  Any fiscal response will be up to Paul Ryan and the Republican house, who are typically unwilling to do stimulus unless there is a president of whom they approve.

I can even imagine a new version of serfdom as a solution, a serfdom that the elites enforce with the lash and the gallows. The government can be weakened, but private interests can be made all powerful in their fiefs. That's how life was in the Middle Ages.

Quote:The the Ryan-led Republican House most certainly does not approve of Hillary Clinton and if she is president the outcome from a crisis (should one happen) would be more severe than what we saw under Obama.  If the president were an establishment Republican, I see a generous stimulus being approved, although they would call it something else.  But the only alternative is Trump.  I do not see Ryan spending much of his political capital quieting the Tea Party Caucus on the behalf of Donald Trump, so I don't see Congress acting to blunt the impact of a crisis (should it happen) with either potential president.

Of course they want Hillary Clinton to fail and get the blame, which might allow them a Constitutional majority that allows them to amend the Constitution at will. Maybe after a few Amendments they can purge the last remaining Democrats first from politics and then to "ten years without the right of correspondence". That was the formulation that hid a death sentence to some "Enemy of the People" in the Soviet Union. Only this time it will be "Enemy of Progress".

Quote:So if a crisis happened I see a very serious recession, possibly even a depression regardless of who is elected president.  Here is where the 4T climax comes into play.  There will be a war between the White House and the Congress over who will get the blame for destroying the American economy.  If Congress wins, the outcome will be Republican political dominance a decades or two.  Again this is regardless of who is president.

No, only until the American Evil Empire goes too far in pushing its horrific New Order onto the rest of the world, and brings about its own defeat and dissolution.

Quote:However if the president wins then it gets interesting.  If the president is Clinton it means Democratic dominance for the next couple of decades.  If the president is Trump it means the destruction of the current Republican party, but Trump will remain.  He will probably get a Democratic Congress.  If he can strike a deal with them and get the policy needed to restore some semblance of prosperity, he will get a fair chunk of the credit.  The Republican brand will be toxic, but the Trump brand will not.  Trump could then be the nucleus about which a new Republican party could form, perhaps named after him--he would certainly go for that.

[/quote]

Who gets the blame in 2018 -- and 2020?

I ask any educated person -- what would it take to make you into a Lenin?

[Marypoza]

?Habrá Puerto Rico se Berned hoy?

[Marypoza]

Well I guess it's all over now. Still, from a generstions pov, it would of been nice if the Silents had gotten their Prez. I guess it's Jill Stein 4 me now

[Eric the Green]

I hope some Bernie people get on the Hillary bangwagon, as Bernie wants us to do. You won't, and I'm not sure about me yet entirely; but although she has shortcomings, Hillary has real talent and vision, and she can do the job; although the Republicans will do all they can to sabotage her. But they have done that to ALL the Democratic presidents since they lost their entitlement on the White House. They smear them, and abuse them, and block them, and it's up to the people now to "move on" and shove the Repugs out of the way so the nation can do its business.

I understand that Stein feels the need to slander Hillary as unfairly as the Repugs do, but it's unbecoming. If she gets some extra votes, she'll have to pull them away from the Hill. But she may lose mine that way. She needs to push the Green platform, instead of trying to boost her vote total at the expense of the Lady who is the only one that can do the job now as president.

[Eric the Green]

(06-04-2016, 04:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: However if the president wins then it gets interesting.  If the president is Clinton it means Democratic dominance for the next couple of decades.  If the president is Trump it means the destruction of the current Republican party, but Trump will remain.  He will probably get a Democratic Congress.  If he can strike a deal with them and get the policy needed to restore some semblance of prosperity, he will get a fair chunk of the credit.  The Republican brand will be toxic, but the Trump brand will not.  Trump could then be the nucleus about which a new Republican party could form, perhaps named after him--he would certainly go for that.

That's certainly a possible scenario, Mike. The indicators don't seem to favor it though. My new horoscope system does not give Trump much better reviews as a candidate than Hillary after all, and most other indicators favor a Democratic win for the White House in 2016. In the 2020s, all bets are off. This 4T "climax" will last about 8 years, and the two parties may only be beginning to get scrambled and re-arranged, with the GOP possibly biting the dust and even the duopoly and other aspects of our current system along with it. How far things go depends on how much the millennials and other Americans are willing to venture forward, and with what level of acrimony.

[Marypoza]

(07-12-2016, 01:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hope some Bernie people get on the Hillary bangwagon, as Bernie wants us to do. You won't, and I'm not sure about me yet entirely; but although she has shortcomings, Hillary has real talent and vision, and she can do the job; although the Republicans will do all they can to sabotage her. But they have done that to ALL the Democratic presidents since they lost their entitlement on the White House. They smear them, and abuse them, and block them, and it's up to the people now to "move on" and shove the Repugs out of the way so the nation can do its business.

-- the DNC cheated, fixed elections, engaged in voter suppression, to keep Bernie from becoming the nominee. Why Bernie is giving all that a pass I don't know, but then he is an Artist. I am not & imho, to vote for the DNC's Annointed One is to approve their tactics & they'll do it again & again & again. Soooo don't vote 4 the Annointed One. Besides Jill is a much better candidate

Quote:I understand that Stein feels the need to slander Hillary as unfairly as the Repugs do, but it's unbecoming. If she gets some extra votes, she'll have to pull them away from the Hill. But she may lose mine that way. She needs to push the Green platform, instead of trying to boost her vote total at the expense of the Lady who is the only one that can do the job now as president.

How is Jill slandering the Hildabitch?[/quote]