Low info? That seems to be your go to anytime someone has a different opinion than you. You must have quite the view up on your horse.

Has he moved his movement forward? Absolutely. But he sold out to do it. You state that like that was his only option. It wasn't. He could have continued moving his movement forward 33rd party or not supporting Hillary. Those were options as well. Now he is attached to Hillary and part of the club. You say it is politics, but he represented an honest politicians, one of the very few and didn't do things because "that's how it works." If no one did things different nothing would change.

There is a lot of danger in the message that no matter how corrupt we get or how many things we do wrong, we got to hear Trump. The danger is you become numb to your own parties problems without demanding more. It is a great line that the democrats have fed their voters. No matter what we got to beat Trump. Yeah, I know we didn't run fair campaign and tried to sabotage Bernie, but listen, we got to beat Trump so don't worry about it. I may have compromised naational security, but we got to beat Trump so let's not lose our focus. Okay so I hired Schultz who represents everything wrong in politics today, but hey, you, over here, we got to beat Trump so keep your head forward and don't worry about all these little things that are going on.

Just shows how powerful the narrative is. You've been pounding away at it too.

I feel you have taken my points personally. I'm just providing my analysis. I'm merely pointing out my background with the candidate. I've been following him long before he even declared his candidacy. That's all I'm pointing out. I appreciate and respect your position.


The reasons that Bernie lost, in my opinion, was that the younger Bernie bros showed up to the rallies but, as younger kids are want to do, when it came to actually taking time to inconvenience themselves to stand in line and vote, they stayed home.


So Bernie lost based on turnout. He lost. That's our system. Because he lost, his agenda would be usurped by the winner. The fact that Clinton is moving forward on his agenda is selling out?? How exactly? Should he have done the political suicide Cruz did??? You can believe that, if you want. But that is, in my opinion, just plain dumb.


The fact is that by taking your ball and going home, like Ted Cruz and the bush's did, is that you kill off your agenda. If you cash out of the game, you have no stake in shaping it.


I think Bernie understands this. Again, I'm not calling anyone out, but those people that claim to be Bernie bros, but in fact are not going to vote for Clinton are low info voters. They are the ones that show up to the rallies to be seen, but are not willing to do the grunt work of actually turning out and voting. Those yahoos were of no consequence, in reality, during the primaries because they never voted anyways. So for them to make a stink now is of no consequence either... That's all I'm saying.


At the end of the day, I'm seeing people critiquing Bernie, who would did not vote for bernie in the primary, and were not going to vote for either democratic candidate in the general election come November. So forgive me if I take their critiques with a grain of salt right now.

---

Bernie got boo'd at the DNC when he said vote for Hillary. That is his own critiquing him.... 

---

Yet you refrain from any mention of the DNC going all in for Clinton. You also seem to be lumping any Bernie Bro (which I am not) that didn't vote and using that as an argument for all Bernie Bros not voting. Based on turnout that doesn't make sense. What Bernie was able to do even as the DNC tried to undermine him was nothing short of amazing in politics. I think you underestimate the impact the national media has on elections. The DNC didn't underestimate it.


Those who are Bernie or Bust probably share many of the views I have. You can be both informed and be Bernie or Bust. It was important what Bernie represented and unfortunately, he can not represent that aligned with Clinton.


This isn't a Ted Cruz situation. The RNC wasn't being accused of being an armchair of any particular candidate. The DNC didn't respect what our political process is supposed to be. That isn't taking your ball and going home. That is fighting against corruption within the party system. Now, he has to fall in line.

---

I disagree.

 

I think that 20% is probably a little low, but much closer to accurate than the 80% you suggest.  The large majority of those who were most vocal in their support of Bernie Sanders are millennials.  They bought into his message because he was anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism, anti-corporate America....  While their candidate was certainly malleable enough to abandon all of these stances by endorsing Clinton, I would doubt the young ideologues are going to be anywhere near as willing to abandon their core beliefs.  

 

A good portion of his former supporters simply won't vote.  They're not motivated enough if they don't have a candidate pandering to them. 

 

Another large bloc of his supporters will register protest votes against Hillary by voting for candidates like the Green Party, Libertarians, Socialist candidates, and yes, even Trump. 

 

I honestly think the best case scenario for Clinton in capturing the Sanders vote is around 25-30%.  They're not going to be nearly as willing to sell out as their candidate was.

 

I think that is a bit of wishful on the part of most conservatives.

 

The Washington Post had article earlier on this very subject.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...base-isnt/

---

;

;

All I was implying is that maybe student debt wouldn't be such an issue if borrowers lived more within their means and were more responsible. 

 

How does one put a price on a credit hour anyway? I am assuming it has to be enough to cover the cost of faculty, maintenance, etc. If the gov't starts funding these institutions to make the first 2 years "free", where exactly do you think that money is coming from?

 

Edit: Also, what about the people already up to debt to their eyes? Is the gov't going to mandate the banks to forgive the loans? How is that going to work?

So first off, all your points are pretty valid.


My experience was that the minority, and I'm talking maybe 5 of the students I helped enroll, used their grants or loans for something other than for tuition or books or costs of going to school full time. I remember one dummy going to Vegas with his pell grant disbursement. I worked as an advisor for almost 5 years, I enrolled on average about 75 to 100 students each quarter... I saw the 1040s of every family i enrolled, and I knew what they were doing with their disbursements. Yes, like I said, maybe 3-10% of those using grants and loans are abusing the system. But, when you consider the cost of tuition and books, and the fact that you have to enroll for at least 4 classes per semester to qualify for grants and loans, it's hard to waste your money on anything but school and possibly housing, depending on your financial situation. And remember, these disbursements only come out to you twice a year, and usually the tuition amount is already carved out. Which usually only allows for a few hundred bucks left over that the student actually sees...


The argument you make regarding the costs of a university as it relates to cost per credit hour is something we debated in that other thread a few months back. The problem is, in my opinion, that there is not a single solution to get us back to a reasonable tuition cost to families. Those on the right mention that as loans go up, the administration of the schools begin to increase their costs. While I think that's partially true, I think that there are studies that show other factors that also affect rising costs---including the decreasing support of state funding to state universities as well as the increasing drive to use a business model by the universities for what should be considered a public good.


And the question regarding those graduates that already are swimming in debt, my wife and I are about to be one of those types. My wife is graduating in February having earned her bachelors and masters in education. She will start working as a teacher in 2017 with a starting salary of $32,000 a year. She will have a $53,000 student loan debt that we will be strapped with. Will I be super stoked if her loan sticks and subsequent students will have a lesser cost? Heck no. But... Nobody said life was fair. And at least my kids and grand kids won't be strapped like my wife and I was. It's the movement towards progress that's important. But in politics there are compromises that need to be made in order to move forward. And I'm ok with that.

---

I think Hilldawg is gonna get destroyed in this race..

---

The Clinton campaign has moved toward Bernie on tpp, on affordable college education, and on citizens United.

 

Bernie gutted himself and has no credibility.  Hillary will always side with the corporate / Wall St. / Globalists.  She's been selling America to the highest bidder since 1992.  She will sign TPP for her masters and free college will be provided to illegals like Astrid Silva, not to Americans.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. But many people--thank goodness-- disagree. I actually think you are in the vast minority. Contrary to your opinion, education is not worthless.


Did you listen to Michele Obama speak last night. I agree with her, education leads to innovation. The society that has the highest rates of educated people will lead the world. Education is an investment. You have to invest in your people.

 

Education leads to conformity and debt slavery.  Most real innovation comes from those who break the rules. 

 

There is a lot of danger in the message that no matter how corrupt we get or how many things we do wrong, we got to hear Trump. The danger is you become numb to your own parties problems without demanding more. It is a great line that the democrats have fed their voters. No matter what we got to beat Trump. Yeah, I know we didn't run fair campaign and tried to sabotage Bernie, but listen, we got to beat Trump so don't worry about it. I may have compromised naational security, but we got to beat Trump so let's not lose our focus. Okay so I hired Schultz who represents everything wrong in politics today, but hey, you, over here, we got to beat Trump so keep your head forward and don't worry about all these little things that are going on.


Just shows how powerful the narrative is. You've been pounding away at it too.

 

Well stated and this is why people are sick of politicians. 

 

Hey, we'll lie, cheat, and our standard procedures are actually felonies!  We just back-stabbed half the party!  Now help us bring this level of criminality to the White House!

---

Yet you refrain from any mention of the DNC going all in for Clinton. You also seem to be lumping any Bernie Bro (which I am not) that didn't vote and using that as an argument for all Bernie Bros not voting. Based on turnout that doesn't make sense. What Bernie was able to do even as the DNC tried to undermine him was nothing short of amazing in politics. I think you underestimate the impact the national media has on elections. The DNC didn't underestimate it.

Those who are Bernie or Bust probably share many of the views I have. You can be both informed and be Bernie or Bust. It was important what Bernie represented and unfortunately, he can not represent that aligned with Clinton.

This isn't a Ted Cruz situation. The RNC wasn't being accused of being an armchair of any particular candidate. The DNC didn't respect what our political process is supposed to be. That isn't taking your ball and going home. That is fighting against corruption within the party system. Now, he has to fall in line.

I don't know man, I think that I called Shultz a rat, a republican (which is a pretty big insult for a liberal like me to lay on another so called member of the Democratic Party), and got what she had coming her way.


I think I've made myself clear as to my disdain for the dnc and the actions under Shultz.


If there is a question you want me to answer directly, I'm more than happy to.


i appreciate the position that the media has a huge influence on public opinion. Heck, it was the media that allowed for such free and positive press for trump that allowed him to spend such little and steam roll the gop primary.


But let me give you a reason for my disdain on the Bernie bros--- in 2007 it was the same media and dnc machine that was pushing for Hillary. It was insane how much in bed everyone was in bed for the clintons back in 07-08 during the run up to the primaries. The difference was that the Obama movement was real. The turnout was real. Obama had huge rallies---but those rallies also turned into votes on Election Day. Bernies's supoerters came to the rallies but didn't show up on the day of election.


That, is why he lost. Yes, it is no doubt a fact that the dnc did everything they could to hamstring Bernie. And Shultz, that duplicitous rat was the ring leader of that. But I think it's inaccurate to complain that the system was "rigged". The odds of Bernie winning was not good to begin with. The fact he did so well is a testament to the issues he was pushing.


Yea, I'm not stoked about his loss. But it's politics, the votes matter.


Let me ask you... You say that Bernie supporters cannot align with Clinton... Why? Did you listen to his speech last night? From what he said last night, what makes you think Bernie's movement cannot be included into the democratic campaign of the nominee that did win?

---

haha because Bernie's entire movement was against everything Hillary stands for

---

Bernie sold out and is now ordering his followers to sell out.  This is how politics works, he says.  Disgusting.

---

haha because Bernie's entire movement was against everything Hillary stands for

Such as?

---

So why does Al Franken, a sitting US Senator, get a pass on calling Bernie Sanders a cranky Jew? Can anyone imagine what would happen if a Republican said the same thing?

You do remember what Franken did for a living, right? He probably gets a pass for that reason.

---

The Sarah Silverman and al Franken thing was a complete disaster. And Paul Simon looked and sounded awful.


But Corey booker and Michelle Obama killed it. When you compare the two conventions on day 1, the poop show award goes to the gop, and it's not even close.


As a Bernie bro, I'm elated that that Curley haired republican disguised as the democratic chair was pushed out. And while that made waves on Sunday, it did not overshadow day 1, in my opinion. Cnn isn't even discussing it anymore.

Of course they're not. CNN's reporters asked the DNC for permission to run those stories, and the DNC said no.

---

Such as?

 

Money in politics. Corruption. Trade. Foreign Policy. Fracking.

---

Anchorman, Bernies's voters can by all means vote for Hillary. But she represents the establishment, big corporations, wall street, dishonesty, greed, control and power. As a Bernie supporter, voting for that type of person to get minor concessions which she isn't required to do (why would anyone trust Hillary), to me, goes against Bernies message that resonated with so many.


I would be curious to see the level the DNC went then and now in regards to Obama. You mention the odds were against Bernie. Your damn right they were and the DNC made sure of it. We will never know the impact it had on voters showing up and if things would have been different. That doesn't matter though. What matters is that the process is fair. And yes life's not fair, but isn't the whole Democrat message we need to try and make it more fair? We demand equality until we don't?


So Schultz is a rat and Schultz is Hillary's good friend and there is very compelling evidence that Hillary worked with her to undermine Bernie's campaign then what does that make Hillary? Ah and let's not forget Hillary brought the rat on board.


Also, Schultz is the scapegoat, but this was not just her doing. There were many involved. And yet, no one else seems like they have to answer to anyone. It's almost like they believe if they pretend this email thing didn't happen it'll all just go away. The American people deserve better.

---

Anchorman, Bernies's voters can by all means vote for Hillary. But she represents the establishment, big corporations, wall street, dishonesty, greed, control and power. As a Bernie supporter, voting for that type of person to get minor concessions which she isn't required to do (why would anyone trust Hillary), to me, goes against Bernies message that resonated with so many.

I would be curious to see the level the DNC went then and now in regards to Obama. You mention the odds were against Bernie. Your damn right they were and the DNC made sure of it. We will never know the impact it had on voters showing up and if things would have been different. That doesn't matter though. What matters is that the process is fair. And yes life's not fair, but isn't the whole Democrat message we need to try and make it more fair? We demand equality until we don't?

So Schultz is a rat and Schultz is Hillary's good friend and there is very compelling evidence that Hillary worked with her to undermine Bernie's campaign then what does that make Hillary? Ah and let's not forget Hillary brought the rat on board.

Also, Schultz is the scapegoat, but this was not just her doing. There were many involved. And yet, no one else seems like they have to answer to anyone. It's almost like they believe if they pretend this email thing didn't happen it'll all just go away. The American people deserve better.

Did Hillary Clinton state these things? Did she state that she is for corporate welfare? Did she say she was for greed? Did she say she was for Wall Street?


Let's be careful about framing a campaign versus the campaign's actual position and message.


I've asked you and other posters in this thread if you listened to bernies's speech.... I still haven't gotten a straight answer from any poster. It's important to at least find common ground on facts in order to have a productive debate.


I'm on a tablet device, and I refuse to do research on these things, but I agree that it would be very interesting to see how hard the dnc in 2007 and 2008 worked for Hillary. My recollection, and I remember that campaign very well is that the media and dnc were all hands on deck for Hillary. There were no wiki leaks about it, but man, it was pretty brutal. I'm not sure if you remember, but in June there was a dnc round table that was partially televised in Michigan, where the leaders of the dnc were trying to wrestle the nomination away from Obama after it was clear that he won. It was an all out coup attempt--IN JUNE!!! so yeah, from my recollection, it was just as bad, if not worse. The only difference here was that Obama actually got the votes.


I hate to keep harping on this point... But it's the basis of our democracy. The polls and the rallies are all well and good... But voter turn out wins the election. Bernies's supporters--- and let me remind everyone that I'm the ultimate in "evil liberal" on this board--- did not turn out in greater numbers than the Hillary supporters.


Every Tuesday I was letting the expletives fly as Hillary kept winning in numbers that seemed mis-aligned with the polls. But the realization came to me that the turnout failed Bernie.


The so called rigged system has existed for at least 30 years. To cry foul now is weak, in my opinion.


Again, did you hear bernies's speech? He painted the picture of the realities of the American system since Reagan. He ended with stating that the system is unjust to the working class. He made the point that while it pains him the most that he lost, that the movement must continue. The struggle is real. And while the ideal candidate was not nominated, the wise person realizes that the good should not be he enemy of the perfect.

---

Hillary and the DNC hatched a scheme using George Clooney to get around individual donation limits:

 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fea...gn-w430814

 
It shows that the primary season was very far from a fair fight. The Sanders camp was forced to fund all of its own operations, while the Clinton campaign could essentially use the entire Democratic Party structure as adjunct staff. The DNC not only wasn't neutral, but helped with oppo research against Sanders and media crisis management.

 

---

 

The DNC now has its THIRD Chairperson in the past 48 hours.  This sure is going smoothly. 

---

Hillary and the DNC hatched a scheme using George Clooney to get around individual donation limits:

 <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814'>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814</a>

 It shows that the primary season was very far from a fair fight. The Sanders camp was forced to fund all of its own operations, while the Clinton campaign could essentially use the entire Democratic Party structure as adjunct staff. The DNC not only wasn't neutral, but helped with oppo research against Sanders and media crisis management.

 

---

 

The DNC now has its THIRD Chairperson in the past 48 hours.  This sure is going smoothly.

That's interesting. Where does trump stand on campaign finance reform?

---

Bernie sold out and is now ordering his followers to sell out.  This is how politics works, he says.  Disgusting.

 

Another missive from Mother Theresa.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

No American flags on the DNC stage but they built a nice wall:

Not enough U S A chants.


Clearly a problem.

---