Bernie Sanders- Does He Have A Chance?

[PsYcHo]

He said people should vote for Hillary because she would be a better President than Trump, which whether or not you agree with that opinion, is not inherently pro-establishment. Yes, Hillary is apart of the establishment, and Bernie Sanders is against the establishment.

I think you are considering Bernie from the point of view of a staunch liberal. From that perspective, of course the way he handled being tossed aside by the establishment is better than his rallying against Hillary.

The way I'm considering it (having vast prejudices against both conservatives and liberals), he was an outsider candidate who wasn't part of the establishment (like Trump was). The fact that he immediately acquiesced to the establishment once they threw him under the bus shows that, much like Trump, he pretended to be a strong, independent candidate when in fact he was just strong enough to call them out on their bullshit, but timid enough (like Trump) to immediately fall into lockstep when it became apparent that the only way to "keep playing the game", he had to act like he agreed with them all along.

You must remember that among voters, 45% are going to vote with the party regardless of how incompetent, immoral, or downright stupid their candidate is. The elections are really decided by those 10% who are not tied to a party. I am one of those 10%, and after the last election nothing Bernie Sanders could say would make me vote for him; his promises are as genuine as El Cheeto's.

For example, I am a liberal who is against conservative beliefs. However, I would rather have a moderate conservative President than Mao Zedong. This does not mean I am no longer overall a liberal and overall against conservative beliefs. See what I mean?

Then are you against conservative beliefs, or do you merely disagree with them? I'm neither liberal nor conservative, but I side with each depending on the topic, as long as it doesn't conflict with my beliefs regarding true freedom. Conservatives are pro gun, I'm with that. They are also (when it is convenient) pro-small government. I'm with that too. But how can a small government build a giant wall and police it?... Liberals are pro-LGBT rights, and I'm sure all for that. But how does forcing a small business person to bake a wedding cake promote true equality?..

Choosing the lesser of two evils is something I once thought as the most moral path, but more recently, I've come to see it as still choosing evil. I'm not sure the best path, but I don't think I can side with another "evil". I'd rather not vote, or vote for a candidate who won't win (because of those 45% of ignoramuses), and hope that one day those 45%ers wake the f up and pay attention.

Additionally, having wealth does not determine whether or not you would be a good President in my eyes, although Bernie Sanders has a lower salary than average in Congress. However, since you brought up the three mansions, please provide evidence that they exist...

I riff on Bernie for his wealth only because he is a "Democratic Socialist". If he decided to leave morality to the people, instead of trying to make it something the government forces on people, I'd truly like the guy. But since you asked http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-slams-billionaires-gets-reminded-he-owns-3-houses/article/2620865

Btw - If Bernie spent his money to fund politicians, that might actually be against his message. His campaign was against the current campaign finance system that allows that.

Wait, (and I may be wrong here), but didn't all the campaign contributions that Bernie received go to fund Hillary's campaign after she(and the democrats) rigged the primaries against him?

Bernie had a message, and if he had basically thrown the middle finger at Hillary and acknowledged how they stole the nomination from him, he would be not just likely, but definitely able to campaign against Trump in 2020. Now,.. I don't think he'd get the support of enough people to win the primary, let alone the election.

[EquALLity]

I think you are considering Bernie from the point of view of a staunch liberal. From that perspective, of course the way he handled being tossed aside by the establishment is better than his rallying against Hillary.

What?

The way I'm considering it (having vast prejudices against both conservatives and liberals), he was an outsider candidate who wasn't part of the establishment (like Trump was). The fact that he immediately acquiesced to the establishment once they threw him under the bus shows that, much like Trump, he pretended to be a strong, independent candidate when in fact he was just strong enough to call them out on their bullshit, but timid enough (like Trump) to immediately fall into lockstep when it became apparent that the only way to "keep playing the game", he had to act like he agreed with them all along.

How does it show that, though? As I explained, not always supporting the more anti-establishment candidate doesn't mean you're not anti-establishment. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I would argue that despite not being a traditional republican, Trump is not anti-establishment. He has done nothing to fix corruption in government, when he said that he would... He lies constantly, as the establishment politicians do, and he supports political corruption. Do you believe he is anti-establishment?

You must remember that among voters, 45% are going to vote with the party regardless of how incompetent, immoral, or downright stupid their candidate is. The elections are really decided by those 10% who are not tied to a party. I am one of those 10%, and after the last election nothing Bernie Sanders could say would make me vote for him; his promises are as genuine as El Cheeto's.

Actually, due to the electoral college, I think elections are decided by those people who live in swing states. Your vote is irrelevant if you live in California, New York, Texas, and most states. Your vote matters if you live in Florida and other swing states, and in those states, non-partisan peoples' votes matter, as do things like voter passion from the left and right and gerrymandering.

Then are you against conservative beliefs, or do you merely disagree with them? I'm neither liberal nor conservative, but I side with each depending on the topic, as long as it doesn't conflict with my beliefs regarding true freedom. Conservatives are pro gun, I'm with that. They are also (when it is convenient) pro-small government. I'm with that too. But how can a small government build a giant wall and police it?... Liberals are pro-LGBT rights, and I'm sure all for that. But how does forcing a small business person to bake a wedding cake promote true equality?..

Choosing the lesser of two evils is something I once thought as the most moral path, but more recently, I've come to see it as still choosing evil. I'm not sure the best path, but I don't think I can side with another "evil". I'd rather not vote, or vote for a candidate who won't win (because of those 45% of ignoramuses), and hope that one day those 45%ers wake the f up and pay attention.

I am against most conservative policies, meaning I don't want them to be our policies because I disagree with them. Of course, I know that conservatives aren't wrong about literally everything, but generally I am pretty liberal.

I disagree. Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is what I think you should do if you only have two options.
If you don't live in a swing state, and you don't vote, vote third party, or write in a candidate to make a point, then I understand and may do that myself. But if you live in a swing state, you should choose who you think is the lesser of two evils. Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil... but they are less evil, therefore they are better than the other candidate, and it's either the lesser evil or the more evil.

I riff on Bernie for his wealth only because he is a "Democratic Socialist". If he decided to leave morality to the people, instead of trying to make it something the government forces on people, I'd truly like the guy. But since you asked http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-slams-billionaires-gets-reminded-he-owns-3-houses/article/2620865

I know that he owns three homes, but you said he owns three mansions, which is different.

Wait, (and I may be wrong here), but didn't all the campaign contributions that Bernie received go to fund Hillary's campaign after she(and the democrats) rigged the primaries against him?

I've never heard that, but if you have evidence I will look at it. But I don't believe that would not be the same as him giving his personal money to the campaign.

Bernie had a message, and if he had basically thrown the middle finger at Hillary and acknowledged how they stole the nomination from him, he would be not just likely, but definitely able to campaign against Trump in 2020. Now,.. I don't think he'd get the support of enough people to win the primary, let alone the election.

He did acknowledge that though, and basically the entire country is aware that the democratic primary was sketchy BS.

I disagree that Bernie Sanders is unpopular, as you claim. After the election, and people saw his campaigning for Hillary Clinton, polls still demonstrated that he was the most popular politician in the entire country. Trump, in contrast, has consistently had historically low approval ratings. Bernie Sanders is clearly more popular than Trump.

[PsYcHo]

I think you are considering Bernie from the point of view of a staunch liberal. From that perspective, of course the way he handled being tossed aside by the establishment is better than his rallying against Hillary.

What?

Basically I mean he(Bernie) did what he thought was the "lesser of two evils", instead of raising hell and cursing the Democrats, he threw his hat in the ring against Trump. I would have kept my respect for him had he told both candidates the truth. (You're both terrible people, and America will suffer because your egos are all that is leading you to run for such an office. The American people would be better served by a chimpanzee throwing darts at a list of possible legislation, with veto power given to an orangutan with different colored darts.)

The way I'm considering it (having vast prejudices against both conservatives and liberals), he was an outsider candidate who wasn't part of the establishment (like Trump was). The fact that he immediately acquiesced to the establishment once they threw him under the bus shows that, much like Trump, he pretended to be a strong, independent candidate when in fact he was just strong enough to call them out on their bullshit, but timid enough (like Trump) to immediately fall into lockstep when it became apparent that the only way to "keep playing the game", he had to act like he agreed with them all along.

How does it show that, though?

His readiness to fold shows that he either A. only being anti-establishment because he wanted to in fact control the establishment, B. Too weak to make any difference in the establishment.

As I explained, not always supporting the more anti-establishment candidate doesn't mean you're not anti-establishment. Do you disagree with this?

A year or two ago, I would likely have agreed with you, along the lines of "lesser of two evils". Now, I'm only voting for someone who aligns close enough to my personal morality that I don't feel dirty voting for them. If the rest of society decides to pick one of the two evils, then I'll just sit back and watch the world burn while they blame "the other side", and end up with the President/Government they deserve. (Like Trump)

Also, I would argue that despite not being a traditional republican, Trump is not anti-establishment. He has done nothing to fix corruption in government, when he said that he would... He lies constantly, as the establishment politicians do, and he supports political corruption. Do you believe he is anti-establishment?

I believed that he was more anti-establishment at the time, and there are a few areas where (as far as passing legislation) where he is slightly better than I believe Hillary would have been, but no, he's an egotistical asshat who cares more about playing the game than actually changing Washington politics.

You must remember that among voters, 45% are going to vote with the party regardless of how incompetent, immoral, or downright stupid their candidate is. The elections are really decided by those 10% who are not tied to a party. I am one of those 10%, and after the last election nothing Bernie Sanders could say would make me vote for him; his promises are as genuine as El Cheeto's.

Actually, due to the electoral college, I think elections are decided by those people who live in swing states. Your vote is irrelevant if you live in California, New York, Texas, and most states. Your vote matters if you live in Florida and other swing states, and in those states, non-partisan peoples' votes matter, as do things like voter passion from the left and right and gerrymandering.

I used to be very anti-electoral college, but now I think it is a (flawed but necessary) barrier against mob rule. If all things were decided with "democracy", do you think the south would have ever allowed integration? Just because more people think something is good, doesn't mean that it is good, or moral. This is one of the Checks and Balances that I agree with. Sometimes the mob IS right, but many times, they are not. (You see people. Do you really thing the majority of them should be able to decide how others should live..?)

Choosing the lesser of two evils is something I once thought as the most moral path, but more recently, I've come to see it as still choosing evil. I'm not sure the best path, but I don't think I can side with another "evil". I'd rather not vote, or vote for a candidate who won't win (because of those 45% of ignoramuses), and hope that one day those 45%ers wake the f up and pay attention.

I disagree. Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is what I think you should do if you only have two options.
If you don't live in a swing state, and you don't vote, vote third party, or write in a candidate to make a point, then I understand and may do that myself. But if you live in a swing state, you should choose who you think is the lesser of two evils. Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil... but they are less evil, therefore they are better than the other candidate, and it's either the lesser evil or the more evil.

I must respectfully, but vehemently, disagree with you here. This is the exact type of thinking that has led us to, and kept us with, the sorry ass two party system that we are forced to choose from as Americans. While I know you have the best of intentions by voting for the least evil, we DO have a choice. There are third parties, but no one pays them any attention. And why not? Because people conditioned to the two party system keep parroting that it's better to vote for Hitler-lite, than Hitler-Supreme, because no other candidate is backed by as much lobbyist moneys as these two! Apologies for the bold and Hitler references, but we do have a choice not to vote for one of the two evils. There are other candidates, but we are so conditioned to only focus on Democrat or Republican that it is a standing joke to even consider another option.

I know that he owns three homes, but you said he owns three mansions, which is different.

Not to a homeless person.

[EquALLity]

Basically I mean he(Bernie) did what he thought was the "lesser of two evils", instead of raising hell and cursing the Democrats, he threw his hat in the ring against Trump. I would have kept my respect for him had he told both candidates the truth. (You're both terrible people, and America will suffer because your egos are all that is leading you to run for such an office. The American people would be better served by a chimpanzee throwing darts at a list of possible legislation, with veto power given to an orangutan with different colored darts.)

He told the truth as he saw it, that Hillary Clinton was the better candidate. You disagree, but that's just an opinion. He didn't sell out his own principles.

His readiness to fold shows that he either A. only being anti-establishment because he wanted to in fact control the establishment, B. Too weak to make any difference in the establishment.

What readiness?

A year or two ago, I would likely have agreed with you, along the lines of "lesser of two evils". Now, I'm only voting for someone who aligns close enough to my personal morality that I don't feel dirty voting for them. If the rest of society decides to pick one of the two evils, then I'll just sit back and watch the world burn while they blame "the other side", and end up with the President/Government they deserve. (Like Trump)

You shouldn't vote based on how it makes you feel, but based on the consequences of your vote.

I believed that he was more anti-establishment at the time, and there are a few areas where (as far as passing legislation) where he is slightly better than I believe Hillary would have been, but no, he's an egotistical asshat who cares more about playing the game than actually changing Washington politics.

Just because you personally believed that Trump was anti-establishment doesn't mean that's what Bernie Sanders believed. Bernie Sanders didn't believe Trump was anti-establishment in the way that Bernie was anti-establishment.

I used to be very anti-electoral college, but now I think it is a (flawed but necessary) barrier against mob rule. If all things were decided with "democracy", do you think the south would have ever allowed integration? Just because more people think something is good, doesn't mean that it is good, or moral. This is one of the Checks and Balances that I agree with. Sometimes the mob IS right, but many times, they are not. (You see people. Do you really thing the majority of them should be able to decide how others should live..?)

You mean, you support the Electoral College because it's the lesser of two evils?

I don't think we should get wrapped in a conversation about the Electoral College. Regardless of whether or not you support it, it's true that your vote typically only matters if you live in a swing state.

I must respectfully, but vehemently, disagree with you here. This is the exact type of thinking that has led us to, and kept us with, the sorry ass two party system that we are forced to choose from as Americans. While I know you have the best of intentions by voting for the least evil, we DO have a choice. There are third parties, but no one pays them any attention. And why not? Because people conditioned to the two party system keep parroting that it's better to vote for Hitler-lite, than Hitler-Supreme, because no other candidate is backed by as much lobbyist moneys as these two! Apologies for the bold and Hitler references, but we do have a choice not to vote for one of the two evils. There are other candidates, but we are so conditioned to only focus on Democrat or Republican that it is a standing joke to even consider another option.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton aren't as bad as Hitler... And either it's valid to support the lesser of two evils or it's not, doesn't matter what extreme situation you use.

I am not completely against third parties. There are countries, such as the UK, that have many more functioning parties than the US. However, currently in the US in modern Presidential elections, typically only the republican or democratic candidate will win. If you care about helping the country, you should vote for the lesser of two evils.

You only have two outcomes, and one is less bad and the other is more bad. You should choose the one that is less bad if you want the outcome to be less bad, not more bad.
What about this do you disagree with?

Not to a homeless person.

It's different in reality though... This is why you should fact check everything.

[PsYcHo]

You shouldn't vote based on how it makes you feel, but based on the consequences of your vote.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton aren't as bad as Hitler... And either it's valid to support the lesser of two evils or it's not, doesn't matter what extreme situation you use.

I am not completely against third parties. There are countries, such as the UK, that have many more functioning parties than the US. However, currently in the US in modern Presidential elections, typically only the republican or democratic candidate will win. If you care about helping the country, you should vote for the lesser of two evils.

As you mention, currently there are two parties in US modern elections. You as a college/almost college student are younger than I, and already you have accepted that you only have a real choice between two parties, when your generation should be the ones who see how flawed our two party system is, and what it has led to. Trump is the President right now. Please tell me at least that fact gives you pause about the efficacy of sticking to the two party system...

If it truly were that we only had two options to consider, then yes, I would concede that voting for the lesser of the two evil persons is the better path. But we only believe that we have two choices, because both (very terrible) parties spend hundreds of millions of dollars convincing us that it is so.

I'm trying to make people see that there is another option, (voting third party) and I find it troubling that from the septuagenarian to the college student, I always hear "but third party candidates never win!" Me- So would you vote for a third party candidate who was better than the other two if you thought they would win? Everyone- "Well of course, but they won't win.."..... It's enough to make me want to eat the damn tide pods..

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

I am not an American but have decided to add my two pence to this issue.

As many will remember, during the 2016 campaign, I backed Green Party candidate Jill Stein. This is because I agree with PsYcHo that the American people would be better served by a chimpanzee than by Shillary Clinscum or Orange Man. Jill Stein on the other hand, I agree with on most issues, and is somebody who would work to the best of her ability for the American people to be happy. My main disagreement with her is on science issues, due to her anti-GMO and anti-nuclear power stance. However, these issues I consider to be of less importance than foreign policy and fiscal policy, which I strongly disagree with the dotard and the dotardess on.

As to there being a "lesser of two evils" between Hillary the Banshee and Trump the Dump, you can not get very far with voting repeatedly for the "lesser of two evils". It will end you up in a situation such as the 1924 Presidential election, where both the Republican candidate (Calvin Coolidge) and the Democratic candidate (John W. Davis) were right-wing conservatives. The Progressive candidate, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr. by contrast was a left-winger who even advocated for gradual nationalization of the railroads. He only won his home state. This is where decades of voting for the lesser evil gets you.

So why am I still enthusiastic about a Bernie Sanders candidacy in 2020? Well, the way I can see it, he had two choices of what he could have done:

a) Endorse Jill Stein. This would boost her support considerably. However, the best that could be hoped for would for her to get 5% of the vote or more, and this would likely make Trump more likely to win, and ruin any other chances Bernie or the progressive movement could have in the future as the media would say that it was all their fault, that they were Russian puppets, etc.

b) Endorse Hillary Clinton. This would be a more helpful tactic for the progressive movement in the long run as if Trump wins (which Bernie could most likely tell would be likely due to the American's dissatisfaction with the establishment and Trump successfully portraying himself as anti-establishment despite being just as much a part of the establishment as Hillary) because Bernie can play this to his advantage as many people will say that he would have beaten Trump if he had won and then he can run in 2020.

I personally would have still endorsed Jill Stein in this scenario because I think it would have actually mostly split the Trump vote rather than the Hillary vote from those who were voting him due to actually liking the dotard and those who were voting him due to dissatisfaction with the American political establishment. It could have led to a similar situation as happened in 1912, where the progressive candidate (Theodore Roosevelt / Jill Stein) ruins the chances of the Republican candidate (William Howard Taft / Orange Man) leading to a Democratic presidency (Woodrow Wilson / Hillary Clinton), and the fact that a progressive candidate makes so much gains inevitably shifting American politics to the left.

However, I can understand, given the risk involved in endorsing Jill Stein, why Bernie would have thought it better to endorse Hillary. Of course, there is also the possibility that if he didn't endorse Hillary he would end up found dead the next day with the coroners deeming it a mysterious suicide by five gunshots in the back of the head.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is despite personally disagreeing with his endorsement of Hillary, I can understand why he saw it best to do it, and it will ultimately play to his advantage in the 2020 Democratic nomination as he is seen as a candidate who can beat Trump, whereas the Democratic establishment has now lost credibility.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

You disagree, but that's just an opinion.

If this is true, then what would stop PsYcHo from saying the same in response?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

You disagree, but that's just an opinion.

If this is true, then what would stop PsYcHo from saying the same in response?

You've put their name in quotation marks. Is that intentional?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

You've put their name in quotation marks. Is that intentional?

No, I’ll edit it

Edit: it doesn’t seem like I can do it on mobile

[EquALLity]

As you mention, currently there are two parties in US modern elections. You as a college/almost college student are younger than I, and already you have accepted that you only have a real choice between two parties, when your generation should be the ones who see how flawed our two party system is, and what it has led to. Trump is the President right now. Please tell me at least that fact gives you pause about the efficacy of sticking to the two party system...

I don't chalk up any President we've ever had to being the President just because of the two party system. There are other reasons why Trump became President. Despite the two party system being in place, he still could've lost if we didn't have the Electoral College, for example.

With that said, I don't like the two party system. But that is the system that we have.

If it truly were that we only had two options to consider, then yes, I would concede that voting for the lesser of the two evil persons is the better path. But we only believe that we have two choices, because both (very terrible) parties spend hundreds of millions of dollars convincing us that it is so.

Just because the reason why we have the two party system is bad doesn't mean that we don't have the two party system... Due to money in politics, among other factors, third party candidates are ignored because they can't raise as much money, and that's bad. But because they can't raise as much money and even get into national debates, voting for them in a national election when they are polling extremely low relative to the other candidates doesn't make sense.

I'm trying to make people see that there is another option, (voting third party) and I find it troubling that from the septuagenarian to the college student, I always hear "but third party candidates never win!" Me- So would you vote for a third party candidate who was better than the other two if you thought they would win? Everyone- "Well of course, but they won't win.."..... It's enough to make me want to eat the damn tide pods..

As I've said, I don't like the two party system, but it's the system we have, and third party candidates have never had a chance in national elections. Do you disagree?

If there was an election where a third party candidate got into national debates, and/or they were getting a lot of support in polls, then I would consider voting for them. But I wouldn't vote for a candidate who I knew wasn't going to win.