Support NeoGAF

[Dash_Riprock]

As someone who has worked in Democratic politics in DC, I'll say this:

Bernie Sanders is the Democratic version of John McCain. He believes in (most) of what he says, but more then anything Bernie Sanders believes in Bernie Sanders. His role, what he stands for, his righteousness. The fact that PP and HRC would dare support anyone else is, to him, a sign of their own failings. After all, if they can't see he is the right choice, they MUST be wrong, and should be lumped in with all the rest that just don't see the truth.

So he's a self righteous jackass with a persecution complex? Pretty sure most politicians are, to be honest.

 

[bounchfx]

It's almost as if this one thing is still nowhere near enough to make me interested in any other candidate. Even worst case scenario here, he's still a better overall candidate than the others.

 

[Matt]

So he's a self righteous jackass with a persecution complex? Pretty sure most politicians are, to be honest.

Sure, to some degree, but its expressed in different ways and to different degrees.

My main point is, this wasn't Bernie misspeaking, this was the real Bernie.

 

[lednerg]

As someone who has worked in Democratic politics in DC, I'll say this:

Bernie Sanders is the Democratic version of John McCain. He believes in (most) of what he says, but more then anything Bernie Sanders believes in Bernie Sanders. His role, what he stands for, his righteousness. The fact that PP and HRC would dare support anyone else is, to him, a sign of their own failings. After all, if they can't see he is the right choice, they MUST be wrong, and should be lumped in with all the rest that just don't see the truth.

He said "Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment". Was he wrong?

 

[excelsiorlef]

He said "Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment". Was he wrong?

Wait now... he's now said they aren't.

So was it a gaffe that he walked back... or did he lie on Maddow in order to quash criticism and try to get folks back on his side, a very political move.

 

[Arkeband]

Wait now... he's now said they aren't.

So was it a gaffe that he walked back... or did he lie on Maddow in order to quash criticism and try to get folks back on his side, a very political move.

“That’s not what I meant,” Sanders told NBC News in an interview during his campaign swing through the first-in-the-nation primary state. “We’re a week out in the election, and the Clinton people will try to spin these things.”

Pressed on whether he views the groups as “establishment,” Sanders said: “No. They aren’t. They’re standing up and fighting the important fights that have to be fought.”

Sanders said he was specifically talking about the leadership of those groups and their endorsement decisions.

I have to ask, are you roleplaying, or are you actually trying to have a serious discussion?

 

[gutter_trash]

He said "Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment". Was he wrong?

I'm finding it hilarious that a candidate who wants to nationalize lots of things is calling such organizations as ''establishment',

I got news for you, all agencies and orgs that get direct links with higher public office become part of the establishment

what does he think? that all self righteous nationalized groups will remain self righteous? hell no, they will become entrenched into to the system from public service workers, higher up civil servants to congressmen

 

[noshten]

I have to ask, are you roleplaying, or are you actually trying to have a serious discussion?

It's was pretty obvious from the OP onwards what the goal is

 

[Interfectum]

It's was pretty obvious from the OP onwards what the goal is

Yup. Crazy how this thread is still even active. Such a non-issue.

 

[lednerg]

I'm finding it hilarious that a candidate who wants to nationalize lots of things is calling such organizations as ''establishment',

I'm finding it tiresome how otherwise intelligent people are making themselves real dumb about what the democratic establishment is all the sudden. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? For real.

 

[gutter_trash]

How about you let the guy I asked answer the question? Is that okay?



I'm finding it tiresome how otherwise intelligent people are making themselves real dumb about what the democratic establishment is all the sudden. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? For real.

who said I was intelligent?

 

[EthanC]

Good for you, Bernie. You've got my vote. Mostly because every other candidate is garbage, but you've got it regardless.

 

[lednerg]

who said I was intelligent?

Look, you're gutter trash and all, but I'm willing to give you a shot.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

who said I was intelligent?

lol..

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Sanders isn't wrong, not one bit.

PP/HRC endorsements are decided by well-to-do, almost if not all white boards of directors seeking to gain political favor, not the people within those organizations. Hillary in her decades of service has done jack shit to defend PP and the policies she's stood behind have hurt marginalized women the most, from war to crime.

The HRC has "honored" Raytheon, a defense industry contractor that produces endless weapons which end up killing innocent women and children in the Middle East for LGBT equality. They celebrated Goldman Sachs while millions of LGBT homeless youth try to survive in the streets. Their founder fought FOR trans discrimination. They're endorsing a weathervane that was against gay marriage until it was politically necessary. Their idea of activism is to golf with politicians and lobby them at the clubhouse.

You have to be hilariously naive to think Sanders isn't 100% on the mark here. The leadership of both organizations are 100% part of the Establishment Left that has stood idly by while the Republicans have run roughshod over not only this country, but the Middle East as well.

 

[brainchild]

who said I was intelligent?

Gotta hand it to ya, I don't think I've ever seen someone single handedly discredit their own statements without so much as batting an eye.

Bravo.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sanders isn't wrong, not one bit.

PP/HRC endorsements are decided by well-to-do, almost if not all white boards of directors seeking to gain political favor, not the people within those organizations. Hillary in her decades of service has done jack shit to defend PP and the policies she's stood behind have hurt marginalized women the most, from war to crime.

The HRC has "honored" Raytheon, a defense industry contractor that produces endless weapons which end up killing innocent women and children in the Middle East for LGBT equality. They celebrated Goldman Sachs while millions of LGBT homeless youth try to survive in the streets. Their founder fought FOR trans discrimination. They're endorsing a weathervane that was against gay marriage until it was politically necessary. Their idea of activism is to golf with politicians and lobby them at the clubhouse.

You have to be hilariously naive to think Sanders isn't 100% on the mark here. The leadership of both organizations are 100% part of the Establishment Left that has stood idly by while the Republicans have run roughshod over not only this country, but the Middle East as well.

Ooops

Sanders:

American Postal Workers Union - Executive board vote

National Nurses United - Executive council vote

Glass houses, etc...

And by Hillary doing jack shit you mean introducing numerous legislation (that Sanders then supported)

Also I didn't make this thread about HRC, HRC is a very different organization and much more debateable

Your link doesn't even talk about PP

Also I'm sorry but the leader of PP has stood by idly????

 

[Particle Physicist]

lol you guys have literally argued all sides of this. Sanders didn't actually mean what people are twisting his words to mean, but at the same time Sanders did mean what Hillary alluded to because all those groups that support Hillary did so due to shady connections rather than actual substance. But lets ignore the fact that Hillary has made women's rights and LGBT rights a prominent part of her campaign while Sanders has not. I mean, it's not like Hillary was accused of using the gender card as a campaign focus early on.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-plays-the-gender-card

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/this-time-hillary-embraces-gender-card-120441

Jeevesmeister, I like how you pointed out that PP and HRC board of directors are all white completely ignoring Sanders' base. Also HRC who 'should have supported Sander because they gave him a perfect score' also gave Raytheon a perfect score for their treatment of GLBT employees, consumers and investors but they make bombs so their ratings are crap, except for Sanders'!

 

[sangreal]

I have to ask, are you roleplaying, or are you actually trying to have a serious discussion?

uh, your quote proves her point. Everyone in this thread, including the person she quoted says Sanders is right because of course PP is an establishment group. But the quote you provided, where Sanders attemtpts to walk back his gaffe, says PP is not an establishment group

Pressed on whether he views the groups as “establishment,” Sanders said: “No. They aren’t...."

 

[Arkeband]

Ooops

Sanders:

American Postal Workers Union - Executive board vote

National Nurses United - Executive council vote

Glass houses, etc...

Total endorsements in that list:

Hillary: 11
Bernie: 6

Endorsements directly decided by the members, not executives:

Hillary: 0
Bernie: 4

 

[Particle Physicist]

Total endorsements in that list:

Hillary: 11
Bernie: 6

Endorsements directly decided by the members, not executives:

Hillary: 0
Bernie: 4

That link says Open Online Vote for most of those.... I am not sure what that means other that Sanders has a large online following... which we are all well aware of.

EDIT

I also see these:

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) -Hillary Clinton- Executive council vote following polling of membership

Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) -Hillary Clinton- Executive board vote informed by membership poll

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) -Hillary Clinton -Executive board vote after collecting member feedback

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) -Hillary Clinton- Executive council vote after non-binding survey of membership in summer 2015

United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW) -Hillary Clinton- Executive board and president’s collective decision after focus groups and polling with members

so.. huh?

 

[Wall]

As someone who has worked in Democratic politics in DC, I'll say this:

Bernie Sanders is the Democratic version of John McCain. He believes in (most) of what he says, but more then anything Bernie Sanders believes in Bernie Sanders. His role, what he stands for, his righteousness. The fact that PP and HRC would dare support anyone else is, to him, a sign of their own failings. After all, if they can't see he is the right choice, they MUST be wrong, and should be lumped in with all the rest that just don't see the truth.

That's funny, I get that vibe from the Clinton campaign and more than a few Clinton supporters.

 

[Arkeband]

That link says Open Online Vote for most of those.... I am not sure what that means other that Sanders has a large online following... which we are all well aware of.

EDIT

I also see these:

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) -Hillary Clinton- Executive council vote following polling of membership

Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) -Hillary Clinton- Executive board vote informed by membership poll

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) -Hillary Clinton -Executive board vote after collecting member feedback

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) -Hillary Clinton- Executive council vote after non-binding survey of membership in summer 2015

United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW) -Hillary Clinton- Executive board and president’s collective decision after focus groups and polling with members

so.. huh?

Endorsements directly decided by the members, not executives:

The distinction is that Bernie's endorsements were decided directly by the member base, while Hillary's, if there was a vote, was simply a consideration and then decided amongst executives, who are often lobbyists and special interests, or even part of her or Bill's previous campaigns. An online vote is bottom-up and sidesteps interference.

The executive vote does not need to reflect their internal polls, especially if it's close. They don't even need to let their members know how their poll turned out. It's more of a formality than anything. See, in particular, the Federation of Teachers endorsement, specifically saying non-binding survey.

Exhibit A and B:
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-201...ary-clinton-defying-rank-file-critics-2188461
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-teachers-union-214190

Both unions had objections from significant numbers of members, the SEIU's in particular, since Bernie and Hillary's stance on a 15 dollar minimum wage were polar opposites. (I have no idea if she's "evolved" on this since)

 

[AlphaDump]

Total endorsements in that list:

Hillary: 11
Bernie: 6

Endorsements directly decided by the members, not executives:

Hillary: 0
Bernie: 4

Are Unions a part of an establishment?

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Particle Physicist]

The distinction is that Bernie's endorsements were decided directly by the member base, while Hillary's, if there was a vote, was simply a consideration and then decided amongst executives, who are often lobbyists and special interests, or even part of her or Bill's previous campaigns. An online vote is bottom-up and sidesteps interference.

The executive vote does not need to reflect their internal polls, especially if it's close. They don't even need to let their members know how their poll turned out. It's more of a formality than anything. See, in particular, the Federation of Teachers endorsement, specifically saying non-binding survey.

Exhibit A and B:
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-201...ary-clinton-defying-rank-file-critics-2188461
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-teachers-union-214190

Both unions had objections from significant numbers of members, the SEIU's in particular, since Bernie and Hillary's stance on a 15 dollar minimum wage were polar opposites. (I have no idea if she's "evolved" on this since)

FYI online polling has always been garbage and can easily be manipulated but regardless then, according two you two of Sanders endorsements were not actually decided by members:

Working Families Party -Bernie Sanders- Open online vote followed by national advisory board action

Communications Workers of America (CWA) - Bernie Sanders- Three-month process involving meetings, discussion, culminating in an online vote

This one was funny, so I looked it up: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/cwa_sets_process_for_presidential_primary_endorsement

"CWA members and activists will be able to weigh this information about candidates at worksite events and in a telephone town hall call before casting their votes in the online poll. The poll will stay open into early December and will help determine whether a single candidate has overwhelming support from CWAers."

Sounds like that was was also not ultimately up to the members

The executive vote does not need to reflect their internal polls, especially if it's close. They don't even need to let their members know how their poll turned out. It's more of a formality than anything. See, in particular, the Federation of Teachers endorsement, specifically saying non-binding survey.

Funny you pointed that one out. I looked it up.

http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/memo_presidentialsurvey2015.pdf

You keep saying they dont have to release the polling numbers, but if you bother to look them up, they have...

Exhibit A and B:
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-201...ary-clinton-defying-rank-file-critics-2188461
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-teachers-union-214190

Both unions had objections from significant numbers of members, the SEIU's in particular, since Bernie and Hillary's stance on a 15 dollar minimum wage were polar opposites. (I have no idea if she's "evolved" on this since)

How many actually? Neither of those links give number. There is no way to know if the objections come from a majority, a minority or an equal amount for/against. I like your 'evolved' jab as if Bernie has never changed his mind about anything or as if it's a bad thing to take into account opposing views and realize that your previous thinking may have been wrong :/ (it's also not like she isn't proposing to raise the minimum wage).

 

[exmachina64]

That's funny, I get that vibe from the Clinton campaign and more than a few Clinton supporters.

Wouldn't serving as Secretary of State in Obama's first term after a bitter campaign contradict that?

 

[AxelFoley]

Bernie all outta fucks to give. LOL

 

[Mael]

uh, your quote proves her point. Everyone in this thread, including the person she quoted says Sanders is right because of course PP is an establishment group. But the quote you provided, where Sanders attemtpts to walk back his gaffe, says PP is not an establishment group

It's so weird.
So according to Sanders they're not establishment but according to his fans they are now?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

It's so weird.
So according to Sanders they're not establishment but according to his fans they are now?

He said they were before, so folks are still saying it.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

As someone who has worked in Democratic politics in DC, I'll say this:

Bernie Sanders is the Democratic version of John McCain. He believes in (most) of what he says, but more then anything Bernie Sanders believes in Bernie Sanders. His role, what he stands for, his righteousness. The fact that PP and HRC would dare support anyone else is, to him, a sign of their own failings. After all, if they can't see he is the right choice, they MUST be wrong, and should be lumped in with all the rest that just don't see the truth.

While I agree with that assessment having worked with Sanders' and his staff staff, I wouldn't even compare him to McCain who I believe is moreso a hypocritical opportunist than anything else. McCain makes promises and backs out at the last minute because of vendettas or primary opponents. I'll give Sanders credit, I haven't known him to do that.

Sanders isn't a democrat. He has lampooned the party for years and it's not surprising he isn't on great terms with their establishment advocacy groups. He's not sexist or a racist or anything else...he's a tone deaf politician from Vermont who didn't expect his campaign to do this well. And now he's surrounded by a terrible staff of McGovern/Mondale/etc flunkies and anti-Obama absolutists who don't know or care how Washington works.

Obama swept in a new congress. You can argue about his successes or failures in 2009-2010 but the fact remains any change in DC requires changes in congress. Sanders is incapable and not even interested in changing congress. He's not endorsing candidates or letting many congressmen speak at his events, or doing small fundraisers for like minded people. Even Ron Paul helped out some libertarians during his runs. Sanders is living in the past and it would be a disaster to nominate him.

 

[NeoXChaos]

While I agree with that assessment having worked with Sanders' and his staff staff, I wouldn't even compare him to McCain who I believe is moreso a hypocritical opportunist than anything else. McCain makes promises and backs out at the last minute because of vendettas or primary opponents. I'll give Sanders credit, I haven't known him to do that.

Sanders isn't a democrat. He has lampooned the party for years and it's not surprising he isn't on great terms with their establishment advocacy groups. He's not sexist or a racist or anything else...he's a tone deaf politician from Vermont who didn't expect his campaign to do this well. And now he's surrounded by a terrible staff of McGovern/Mondale/etc flunkies and anti-Obama absolutists who don't know or care how Washington works.

Obama swept in a new congress. You can argue about his successes or failures in 2009-2010 but the fact remains any change in DC requires changes in congress. Sanders is incapable and not even interested in changing congress. He's not endorsing candidates or letting many congressmen speak at his events, or doing small fundraisers for like minded people. Even Ron Paul helped out some libertarians during his runs. Sanders is living in the past and it would be a disaster to nominate him.

what was it like to work with him?

 

[Wall]

Wouldn't serving as Secretary of State in Obama's first term after a bitter campaign contradict that?

I was talking about the perception her campaign and supporters are giving off now. Obviously that is my personal perception, so others will disagree.

Also, I viewed Clinton's SOS position more as a concession from Obama to Clinton to help set her up as "next in line". Clinton made a big deal about continuing in the 2008 primary long after she had been mathematically eliminated to demonstrate her support within the party. I always viewed her SOS position as the Obama team's concession to that support, as a well as a gesture towards mending fences and party unity.

While I agree with that assessment having worked with Sanders' and his staff staff, I wouldn't even compare him to McCain who I believe is moreso a hypocritical opportunist than anything else. McCain makes promises and backs out at the last minute because of vendettas or primary opponents. I'll give Sanders credit, I haven't known him to do that.

Sanders isn't a democrat. He has lampooned the party for years and it's not surprising he isn't on great terms with their establishment advocacy groups. He's not sexist or a racist or anything else...he's a tone deaf politician from Vermont who didn't expect his campaign to do this well. And now he's surrounded by a terrible staff of McGovern/Mondale/etc flunkies and anti-Obama absolutists who don't know or care how Washington works.

Obama swept in a new congress. You can argue about his successes or failures in 2009-2010 but the fact remains any change in DC requires changes in congress. Sanders is incapable and not even interested in changing congress. He's not endorsing candidates or letting many congressmen speak at his events, or doing small fundraisers for like minded people. Even Ron Paul helped out some libertarians during his runs. Sanders is living in the past and it would be a disaster to nominate him.

Sanders says over and over again that it will take a movement to enact the changes he wants to make. To me, that would seem to imply electing like minded individuals to congress.

From where I sit, the Democrats don't have the foggiest idea regarding how to win back congress. I can't even tell if they care to try. Judging by what "insiders" say, the plan appears to be to wait a decade or so for what party leadership perceives to be more favorable demographics. In the meantime, the plan appears to be for the party to hold the White House for the next eight years with a candidate over 50 percent of voters disapprove of. Thank god even more people disapprove of Donald Trump.

Still, I don't see how Clinton makes it through two terms if she gets in. That means Republicans will control all three branches of the federal government by 2020.

 

[RustyNails]

In the meantime, the plan appears to be for the party to hold the White House for the next eight years with a candidate over 50 percent of voters disapprove of. Thank god even more people disapprove of Donald Trump.

Do you think Bernie will have 80% approval rating or something? He will hover around 2nd term GWB levels after he keeps getting caught flatfooted time and again with regards to terrorist incidents and inability to pass even a sick puppy fund through Congress. Like Clinton or not, believe she is authentic or not, but she has worked with congress and has huge political clout. She has been in the public eye for 30 years and that means lots of baggage, scandals and everything. We all agree the Benghazi is bullshit cooked up by GOP and feeding it to media. Emails is totally non issue but could have been avoided. Everything has taken its toll on her. Despite all yhat she is still resilient in the elections. Sanders has never struck a deal in his life nor handled a controversy. And somehow we are to assume that this magical socialist will deliver all the unicorns he's promising and make friends with the opposition and everyone lives happily ever after. Give me a break. Like mentioned above, he's tone deaf and completely unaware and unknowlegeble of anything outside big banks and 1%.

 

[Wall]

Do you think Bernie will have 80% approval rating or something? He will hover around 2nd term GWB levels after he keeps getting caught flatfooted time and again with regards to terrorist incidents and inability to pass even a sick puppy fund through Congress. Like Clinton or not, believe she is authentic or not, but she has worked with congress and has huge political clout. She has been in the public eye for 30 years and that means lots of baggage, scandals and everything. We all agree the Benghazi is bullshit cooked up by GOP and feeding it to media. Emails is totally non issue but could have been avoided. Everything has taken its toll on her. Despite all yhat she is still resilient in the elections. Sanders has never struck a deal in his life nor handled a controversy. And somehow we are to assume that this magical socialist will deliver all the unicorns he's promising and make friends with the opposition and everyone lives happily ever after. Give me a break. Like mentioned above, he's tone deaf and completely unaware and unknowlegeble of anything outside big banks and 1%.

Clinton will get exactly the same treatment from Congress that Obama got for the same reason that Obama got it. There simply isn't any reason for Republicans to work with a Democratic president. Any Republicans that try to work with a Democratic president risk a primary challenge from the grassroots of the Republican party. Republican voters simply don't want their representatives to work with the Democrats. The age of liberal or moderate Republicans is over, as is the age of moderate or conservative Democrats. The parties are polarized now.

The same is true for Sanders regarding the cooperation he would get from a Republican congress, but at least his rhetoric indicates that he recognizes the above is true. The idea that Clinton is somehow going to work with a Republican congress that already is trying to investigate her through committees is a fantasy.

I also should point out that Sanders has been in the House since the early 90's and has been a senator since 2006. He holds several important committee positions and worked with Republicans to pass reforms when he was head of the Veteran's Affairs Committee. As a result, the information you posted about Sander's record isn't really true.

 

[Mael]

He said they were before, so folks are still saying it.

Once again Sanders fans run contrary to Sanders...

While I agree with that assessment having worked with Sanders' and his staff staff, I wouldn't even compare him to McCain who I believe is moreso a hypocritical opportunist than anything else. McCain makes promises and backs out at the last minute because of vendettas or primary opponents. I'll give Sanders credit, I haven't known him to do that.

Sanders isn't a democrat. He has lampooned the party for years and it's not surprising he isn't on great terms with their establishment advocacy groups. He's not sexist or a racist or anything else...he's a tone deaf politician from Vermont who didn't expect his campaign to do this well. And now he's surrounded by a terrible staff of McGovern/Mondale/etc flunkies and anti-Obama absolutists who don't know or care how Washington works.

Obama swept in a new congress. You can argue about his successes or failures in 2009-2010 but the fact remains any change in DC requires changes in congress. Sanders is incapable and not even interested in changing congress. He's not endorsing candidates or letting many congressmen speak at his events, or doing small fundraisers for like minded people. Even Ron Paul helped out some libertarians during his runs. Sanders is living in the past and it would be a disaster to nominate him.

That's a more concerning matter.
This point to a Sanders president who would have to fight BOTH Republicans and Democrats while in power.
and worst of all it wouldn't even mean Sanders' type candidate going to primary Sanders Dems opponents.
A Sanders presidency would literally achieve nothing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Total endorsements in that list:

Hillary: 11
Bernie: 6

Endorsements directly decided by the members, not executives:

Hillary: 0
Bernie: 4

Given a lot of what you've said as already been examined and shown as to not be exactly accurate. I'm going to just say this... So what?

Sanders accepted endorsements from an organization arguably larger than PP (Postal Workers Union and then another in the Nurse's one), who chose him the exact same way PP chose Clinton.

You can't go after Clinton and PP for doing exactly what The Postal Workers' did just because the decision was to support Sanders and not Clinton.

I don't care if it was just 2 and Clinton’s was 5 or 6 once you accept it on your side you can't cry foul.

 

[AxelFoley]

Do I think he's anti-PP? Of course not - he's got a pretty good track record there, though Hillary's is better (hence the PP endorsement).

Do I think that he spends far too much time blaming 'the establishment' for his problems rather than himself? Hell yes - and especially his supporters who see a conspiracy theory around every corner.

Bernie fails to understand one particular thing: the establishment might have bad parts, but it's how shit gets done. Upper-middle class white college men bitching on Twitter and posting on Reddit doesn't get things done. Nor does running a candidacy as an island where everybody else, no matter how progressive or beneficial to the country, is tossed under the bus at the slightest hint of not falling into line for Bernie. Pretending to be a Democrat when it's convenient in order to further a personal agenda that wouldn't even get 1% of the vote if he ran as a third party candidate doesn't get shit done either.

I'll vote for him if he wins (considering the absolutely horrible alternatives on the right), but he's a terrible candidate and lacks a fundamental understanding of everything necessary to run a country. Income inequality is not the root cause of all of our problems, and breaking up Goldman Sachs isn't going to magically cure all of our ills.

Summed it all up perfectly.

 

[jmood88]

Do I think he's anti-PP? Of course not - he's got a pretty good track record there, though Hillary's is better (hence the PP endorsement).

Do I think that he spends far too much time blaming 'the establishment' for his problems rather than himself? Hell yes - and especially his supporters who see a conspiracy theory around every corner.

Bernie fails to understand one particular thing: the establishment might have bad parts, but it's how shit gets done. Upper-middle class white college men bitching on Twitter and posting on Reddit doesn't get things done. Nor does running a candidacy as an island where everybody else, no matter how progressive or beneficial to the country, is tossed under the bus at the slightest hint of not falling into line for Bernie. Pretending to be a Democrat when it's convenient in order to further a personal agenda that wouldn't even get 1% of the vote if he ran as a third party candidate doesn't get shit done either.

I'll vote for him if he wins (considering the absolutely horrible alternatives on the right), but he's a terrible candidate and lacks a fundamental understanding of everything necessary to run a country. Income inequality is not the root cause of all of our problems, and breaking up Goldman Sachs isn't going to magically cure all of our ills.

Great post.