Bernie Sanders 2020 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14989128
This is great news. The Democrats are moving far left and the neo-liberals have only Joe Biden as a hope at this point.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14989133
blackjack21 wrote:Joe Biden as a hope at this point.



Diamond Joe Biden for president!

A few years ago he was arrest for selling pot behind the Lincoln Memorial.
User avatar
By Beren
#14989196
skinster wrote:OK dude who thinks Kamala Harris has any kind of chance of winning.

Sanders would very likely have won the last U.S. election against Trump.

Kamala Harris has a bigger chance of winning than Sanders does, I actually believe Sanders' campaign will have run out of steam pretty early. He couldn't even beat Hillary in the primaries, and it wasn't even close, so I wonder if he could have beaten Trump.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14989260
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... beat-trump

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz rejected Democratic complaints that his Independent 2020 campaign will guarantee President Trump's re-election, and said Democrats themselves will guarantee a Trump victory by nominating a "radical left" nominee.

"The stakes are too high to cross our fingers and hope the Democratic Party nominates a moderate who can win over enough independents and disaffected Republicans, and even fellow Democrats, to defeat Trump next year," Schultz wrote in a blog post Monday. "That any opponent can oust Trump, no matter how far to the radical left they are, is a fallacy."

“Those so concerned about a centrist independent being a spoiler should perhaps ask another question: Will the eventual Democratic nominee be the party’s own version of a spoiler?” Schultz wrote.

The Democrats need someone who can stand up to the far-left madness in the party and if not this guy, then who? I think he might be providing an important public service if he runs.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14989282
Beren wrote:Kamala Harris has a bigger chance of winning than Sanders does, I actually believe Sanders' campaign will have run out of steam pretty early. He couldn't even beat Hillary in the primaries, and it wasn't even close, so I wonder if he could have beaten Trump.

The primaries were rigged. How short is your memory.

I think Sanders is too old, but I'd probably vote for him anyway (in the primaries).
#14989284
blackjack21 wrote:This is great news. The Democrats are moving far left and the neo-liberals have only Joe Biden as a hope at this point.


Creepy Uncle Joe, the inappropriate toucher? :lol:

I would relish seeing him run.
By Hindsite
#14989305
Beren wrote:Kamala Harris has a bigger chance of winning than Sanders does, I actually believe Sanders' campaign will have run out of steam pretty early. He couldn't even beat Hillary in the primaries, and it wasn't even close, so I wonder if he could have beaten Trump.

The Democrats had the super delegates that gave Hillary an unfair advantage against Sanders. Trump pointed that out and I understand that they no longer have super delegates. I heard that Sanders still has a lot of campaign money left over from the last time. Harris will have to do good early to attract campaign donors or she is done.
User avatar
By Beren
#14989306
Crantag wrote:The primaries were rigged. How short is your memory.

Even his party refused his candidacy, maybe because it wasn't his party, which made his candidacy politically not viable. Although if he'd been such a great candidate indeed, he'd have been unstoppable. Both Trump and Sanders could be so effective because they opposed Clinton, however, while Trump was successful Sanders failed.
Last edited by Beren on 20 Feb 2019 07:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14989307
Beren wrote:Even his party refused his candidacy, maybe because it wasn't his party, which made his candidacy politically not viable. Although if he'd been such a great candidate indeed, he'd been unstoppable. Both Trump and Sanders could be so effective because they opposed Clinton, however, while Trump was successful Sanders failed.

I said at the time that I wanted Sanders to run as an independent, at the time of his primary loss. I do realize he might have had to agree that he wouldn't do so. The reason I wanted Sanders to run as an independent is that I correctly predicted that Trump would beat Hillary. I voted for Hillary, but I also detested her. I'm not even sure things would have been better under Hillary. Trump is causing a ton of damage, but the difference could be in the fact that Trump is incompetent whereas Hillary is competent. Nonetheless, I did vote for Hillary, hoping she'd be better than Trump on the balance, and I don't regret it. But again, I predicted that she would lose to Trump.

When Sanders entered, he was the only opposing candidate to Clinton. There were a couple of people that were token candidates. Who even remembers them. They were no-hopers by design. The Clintons apparently owned the DNC at that time.

Sanders was more than a long shot. On paper, he was a long shot. In practice, the game was rigged and he was never given a fair shake, at all.

He would have beat Trump, I have no doubt.
User avatar
By noemon
#14989309
Beren wrote:Both Trump and Sanders could be so effective because they opposed Clinton, however, while Trump was successful Sanders failed.


Sanders did not oppose Hillary at the national level but at rigged party elections and Hillary beat Trump in the popular vote, so this is like completely wrong. Sanders has policies that can grab a lot of headlines and a lot of Americans such as university fees and debt, healthcare and his anti-war campaign was appropriated by Trump and is largely the main reason he actually won the elections.
User avatar
By Beren
#14989310
noemon wrote:Sanders did not oppose Hillary at the national level but at rigged party elections and Hillary beat Trump in the popular vote, so this is like completely wrong.

It rather seems to me like completely factual, but it hardly matters. :lol:
User avatar
By noemon
#14989311
Party elections and national elections are so factually different, that it is mind-boggling that it hardly matters to you.
User avatar
By Beren
#14989313
noemon wrote:Party elections and national elections are so factually different, that it is mind-boggling that it hardly matters to you.

Beren wrote:Both Trump and Sanders could be so effective because they opposed Clinton, however, while Trump was successful Sanders failed.

This is a factual statement, the last part of it especially, no matter how you spin it.
User avatar
By noemon
#14989314
Beren wrote:This is a factual statement, the last part of it especially, no matter how you spin it.


Pointing out the very obvious difference between DNC party elections and national elections is not spin, but an actually factual statement.

http://www.adrants.com/images/grand_c[…]

the MSM and a few dozen other sources such as NA[…]

College Admissions Scandal

https://i.redd.it/5zdq8me81do21.p[…]

Well, I will focus solely on this story in this t[…]