A good start would be allowing them to engage in the process in familiar ways. The fact we can't vote online is ridiculous. You can make a 100 million dollar investment with a few mouse clicks but I can vote for president.
Bernie Sanders to House Democrats - 'Our goal is not to win elections' - Gets booed.
- Thread starter SlimySnake
- Start date
- Status
A good start would be allowing them to engage in the process in familiar ways. The fact we can't vote online is ridiculous. You can make a 100 million dollar investment with a few mouse clicks but I can vote for president.
The goal should never be about winning elections, it should be about reforming the country. If you have a good message and are a good candidate, then you will inevitably win the election.
The hyper competitive aspects of political elections leads to a whole slew of horrendous issues, whether it be politicians taking literally millions of dollars in endorsements to help push rich peoples wants over the wants of everyone else, a first term presidential election that's literally all about getting re-elected rather then doing your job, and a whole bunch of other issues.
Honestly, it's like saying the goal in being a lawyer is to win your case. That's not exactly what you should be trying to do, the goal of being a lawyer is too reach the truth, just like the goal of politics is to help the country succeed.
The hyper competitive aspects of political elections leads to a whole slew of horrendous issues, whether it be politicians taking literally millions of dollars in endorsements to help push rich peoples wants over the wants of everyone else, a first term presidential election that's literally all about getting re-elected rather then doing your job, and a whole bunch of other issues.
Honestly, it's like saying the goal in being a lawyer is to win your case. That's not exactly what you should be trying to do, the goal of being a lawyer is too reach the truth, just like the goal of politics is to help the country succeed.
Orbis Tabula
Member
What a stupid thing to say. I'm sort of glad he's not the nominee if that's what he thinks. You need to win elections to enact changes.
MHWilliams
Member
So politicians should follow the voice of the voters, but the voters are too stupid to vote for the right politicians?
jack_package_200
Banned
Fuck women, racial minorities, and members of the LBGT amirite. Because Bernie didn't win the primary, we need to send a message even if it costs people their rights!
/S
How "low information" of them
What they need is a strong, principled leader, like Jeremy Corbyn.
That isn't really true. Some of the people who had the biggest impact on America and the world didn't do so because they won an election.
excelsiorlef
Member
Well I mean ok but the people aren't his either soooo.
Perfect description of Bernie's problem. He relied far too much on magical grassroots solving all of his problems instead of actually finding realistic, iterative pathways to implementing what he wants.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Um, you do realize he lost the nomination, right?
Also, lol at Ron Paul avatar. Perfect.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Only because of frauuuuuuud
Fancyarcher
Member
Well I can understand still hanging onto the old voting process, since a lot of the current Republicans and Democrats are very old fashioned, but yeah, things would be a lot more simpler if people could just vote, and not to wait in really long lines.
Admittedly, there may be a few cases of people just voting randomly, or clicking on the wrong name, but at this point in a lot of ways, it really can't be worse then the traditional way of voting.
Seems to me many is being obtuse. He is clearly saying the goal is not to just win elections, that is what Republicans do, his goal is to put U.S in the direction he desires and then win elections. It is not hard a strategy to see, with it being a long term goal.
You do not need to always win elections to change things in that, that is your primary focus. You do not have to agree with his way of thinking, but it is a valid way of doing things.
You do not need to always win elections to change things in that, that is your primary focus. You do not have to agree with his way of thinking, but it is a valid way of doing things.
GregLombardi
Member
I'm fine with his statement and his belief system.
I think he should do more to support clinton though.
I think he should do more to support clinton though.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Didn't say voting a party ticket was a sign of lacking intelligence. It's more a norm for a lot of people.
My statements should be read more as the system is in a broken state so a single change alone can fix it. The fault isn't entirely on elected officials because we, as voters, reinforce the behavior.
Man, why are you always so damn right on topics such as these? That was exactly what I was going to say. Booing belongs in elementary school and those who did it are man babies (or women babies).
But at the same time, it's so easy for Bernie to talk about "governing" as he sits easy in one of the most liberal states in the US, and then folds on the few issues in his state are actually conservative about (guns).
But that's what happens when you have to be responsible to your voters, and there's no better way to do that then to have to consitantly face reelection. Is it perfect? Of course not, bit it's the best option available.
The problem is when you lose elections then the other side packs the court and you can't do jack shit when you start winning.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
He's not completely wrong.
Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
I think people are purposely missing his point. Winning is important, but the goal of the Democrat party should be "to make America the best it can be". How that's controverial I'll never know.
In a world where hackers exist I don't know how you would feel that your vote is safe.
Ok. And what about after Clinton wins? Oh wait, there's also midterms. After midterms? Oh look, all those Democrat politicians just started careers as senators. Why would they wanna talk about losing their new promotion so early?
It comes off as incredibly dismissive to ignore issues on one's own side of the aisle simply because there are external threats. I'm pretty sure Bernie was there to see Republicans take the majority in the Senate, and instead of Dems saying "What can we do to improve ourselves so this doesn't happen?", they went "Vote for us so we can get them next time!"
Republicans said the same thing after Obama got elected; look where they are today. They voted in obstructionists and nut jobs because there was an "R" next to their name. If the Democratic party wants to avoid even the potential for a similar situation, they'd do well to acknowledge their own shortcomings instead of further stoking partisan divides to force loyalty.
Well sure, but when you're talking to an assembled group of people that (in principle) change things for a living once they're in office after winning the election, it's hard to blame them for not seeing winning as at least a little important to their process.
jack_package_200
Banned
You know what might help America be the best it can be?
Voting out the republicans
It's controversial here in the same way Clinton's verdict is controversial on Reddit.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Maybe "need" was too strong of a condition. "Winning elections is a far better way to ensure change than losing them due to purity" is a more accurate description of my view.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
don't ever watch a heated uk parliament debate
i don't agree with sanders here. in a different universe where republicans actually wanted to work together with the rest of the legislature to improve lives for americans yes. but in this election, victory is absolutely needed. it would be horrible for human rights, progress and the world in general, if the GOP was rewarded for their obstructionism of the last 8 years.
MHWilliams
Member
It's not controversial. The argument others are countering with is "without winning, you have no power to make America anything."
Correct, albeit said in various extremes.
I said elsewhere, if you have a choice between cutting your hand off or starving to death, which do you choose?
Neither is a great choice, but that's the reality of the situation. Some perceive (perception is the key word here) that Sanders would rather starve to death than cut his hand off, and they dislike that line of thought.
The same way I feel my entire life savings is secure? Set it up with a paper trail and allow people to log in after the election to confirm when / how their vote was counted
Big Baybee
Member
Is controversial because it makes no sense. Saying that winning elections is important is now a bad thing? Shit doesn't change otherwise, no matter how good your thoughts and wishes are.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
they should be one and the same. there's no parsing to be had.
What you talking about, man? If I'm hiring a lawyer the goal better be to win the case. Winning is all that matters to me. Would make more sense if you were only talking about prosecutors.
How the fuck do you figure that against Trump?
But he is wrong. As a politician his JOB is to win elections. What comes after that is largely only consequential to the next job application.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
isnt it misconduct if a lawyer isn't fighting in the best interest of your case? lol. "the truth" only matters so far...
An old man? LOL really? If he can't handle some boos how was he going to handle the GE or even the presidency?
ridiculous
SaviourMK2
Member
I guess Democrats just shouldn't be better than Republicans and think of only re-election
I would not hire a defense attorney who was not interested in winning my case.
That's literally the opposite of what I'd pay them for.
valkillmore
Member
Been a fan of Sanders during the primary, but I don't understand the logic here. I agree with others in this thread that, yes, the goal SHOULD be to win elections, so that, you know, you have the power to enact change. If that somehow is wrong, by his standard, then I don't know what to say. What a strange, strange political season it is.
If constituents reelect an official they are validating that this is what they want. Losing your seat not only removes the ability to impact legislature, but opens up the potential for irreversible damage to be done by elected officials with different priorities. Of course election is going to be a priority for politicians, particularly during election cycles. It's a method for the politician to engage with voters and reassess how they can represent those voters.
But if you are only out there to win elections you will never change anything really. Look at Australia and their gun ban. The people responsible knew, that they would lose the election because of that but they still did it.
I want to win the election, so I will never piss off the NRA. I want to win the election, so I will not go against Wall Street, because I need their money. I want to win the election, so changing anything that really could piss too many people off is out of question. And people wonder why US politics is in such a bad shape.
I want to win the election, so I will never piss off the NRA. I want to win the election, so I will not go against Wall Street, because I need their money. I want to win the election, so changing anything that really could piss too many people off is out of question. And people wonder why US politics is in such a bad shape.
What? Really bad analogy. The goal of a lawyer is to win a case. If I killed someone I don't want my lawyer to get to the truth. I want him to win my case. Elections matter and if you don't win then there are consequences. See 2000, 2004, 2010.
jack_package_200
Banned
VOTE OUT THE REPUBLICANS aka THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTING
This should not be hard to understand
RecRoulette
Member
First it's the booing, next is the "What?" chants
Gordon Shumway
Banned
lol..Nah. You're obviously either joking, or don't know history..
Isn't that taking things too literally though? Isn't it clear that his point is that we shouldn't win for the sake of winning, but we should win for the sake of doing good? People here can be quick to find the worst possible interpretation of anything he says.
And then you will do what exactly, because now if you change to much you will not get re-elected and because it is all about getting elected, you have to stay in business never do too much, but never nothing.
If getting elected is everything, politics is nothing and state, people and everything else is just not important anymore.
the_lizard
Member
Seems like people are completely misinterpreting his sentiments. So many of our lawmakers so caught up in the business of winning elections that they don't do their damn jobs. End up kowtowing to special interests so that they can get funding for their next reelection. It's completely screwed up.
Obviously you have to win elections but you should aim to win them by doing a damn good job and working for your constituents, not corporate interests. Doesn't seem hard to understand at all. The rabid Bernie hate around here is baffling.
Obviously you have to win elections but you should aim to win them by doing a damn good job and working for your constituents, not corporate interests. Doesn't seem hard to understand at all. The rabid Bernie hate around here is baffling.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
This is idealistic and silly. If you want to implement change, how are you going to do this while running for president? There are more productive and logical ways to implement it than running for president.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked