Home | About | Donate

Backed by Army of Small-Dollar Donors, Sanders Camp Forges Ahead


#1


#3

Even if crooked Hillary wins the nomination for POTUS we have to remember it takes time to form a political, revolution and win. And we can still build for 2020. And that is why Bernie, in my view, needs to take his candidacy to the Democratic Convention.


#5

Bernie's loss in NY is a cloud with a silver lining. That he loses the nomination to Hillary is a good thing, if he's serious about continuing his revolution.

If he won the Democratic nomination and the presidency he would be a pawn of the DNC, and we would see a continuation of the Obama administration. His revolution would be dead.

If he loses the Democratic nomination, he would be free to leave the Democrats and associate with an established party to the left of center (Green Party?). This would allow him to press ahead with his revolution, taking most of his followers to the new party and building that party as a viable alternative to the "two" (really one) party system.

Bernie has the young people with him, and they would probably work like beavers to build Bernie's new party. This, along with protests, boycotts etc, could change the US political landscape forever.

It is better that Bernie loses the Democratic nomination now and builds a third party of the people for the future.

With warhorse Hillary as president in 2017, provided a taunted enemy does not level the country beforehand, Bernie's new party could be in a position to elect congress critters in 2018 and the president in 2020.


#6

Boy is this a downer, an article on his funding followed by angst quotes on what to do if (when)Bernie loses, a strange brew. I'll leave the long term to the clairvoyants, but I'm not optimistic about a new pollitical movement emerging.

"In the short term, Sanders needs to keep setting out what he’s fighting for: not just the policies he will probably never be in a position to implement..." Now that's a go getem Bernie statement. Wow, a "if/when" piece, the first of the day, with the emphasis on when Bernie concedes.


#7

Keep fantasy alive.


#8

Right it is all about the movement building, it would be nice if Sanders gets elected president. Sanders contribution has been about awakening the people's passions about taking back their government from the gangsters of the 1%.


#9

Winning would have been great for Bernie. Hillary losing in a closed primary, in "her home state" with the problems voters had voting would have been "Yuge". But the Delegate math reality of it is it wouldn't have done much. She got 30 more delegates from winning. I realize I am running out of time to keep saying this, but with more than 1600 delegates left, losing 30 delegates in a state that would have been monumental to even tie in I think isn't that bad. He is still only 200 and change down and still looking to more progressive, and less restrictive areas. As long as people don't think it's over because he lost NY, it isn't over.


#10

I haven't seen the arithmetic implications of the fraud in Brooklyn and elsewhere in NY state, but if Sanders can make a credible case that, without the fraud, he would have tied or even won narrowly, then he really owes no allegiance to the Democratic Party, and he should feel free to go on after the coronation of HRC and run independently (or with the Greens) for the presidency.


#11

I agree. As with all instances of election stealing in our "democracy," the means by which the "win" was secured may be acknowledged but are forgotten, shoved under the rug - even on websites like CD.

With rampant "irregularities" and purging of voters, in a real democracy the "win" would be put on hold pending investigation and legal remedies. But not in the good old US of A. It's just onward and upward and think about tweaking the system "later."

Sorry for all the quotation marks, but it seems words do not mean have their traditional meanings anymore.


#12

I would encourage Bernie to say, loud and clear and with zero ambiguity, "Having given this much thought, I've changed my mind and can't in good conscience ever support Hillary Clinton."

Then list, say, half a dozen of the hundreds of reasons why. There is no reason besides moronic tradition that he can't do this, unless I missed some vital history lesson in my 68 years.

In fact, anything less would undercut the seriousness of everything he claims to stand for. We are talking fight or die, a bona fide revolution, not some new age lip flapping.

Were he to actually stand behind Clinton, he'd be one of the grandest hypocrites on the planet, and I'd personally be writing in Jill Stein--and at least be able to live with myself.


#13

I agree this conciliatory gestures CD is pursuing in the last two days is worrisome to me. We can not afford to soft paddle in the face of a grave danger and a very likelihood of a Hillary presidency.


#14

Now these are ideas I support. You can't will a revolution into existence, and it can't be achieved by wrapping yourself around a single campaign or individual. Maybe you've seen John Oliver's show on the utter trash that get elected, unopposed, in local and state elections.


#16

If you want a new political movement then pull up your pants and work for it. You thought Bernie was going to do it all for you?


#17

I wonder what the odds in Vegas are presently for marshall law to exist in all 50 states by 2020.


#18

Bull shit, don't preach to me, I"ve read your nonsense, and that is all it is.


#19

You don't know the arithmetic, but you know there was fraud. The purge of voter rolls involved people who moved, and people who had not voted for several elections. For those who haven't voted before, that is not fraud. It is routine. It got a lot of attention in Brooklyn, a borough of over 2 million, because of the shear size.

Clinton carried Brooklyn by 20%, larger than the 16% statewide. As a conspiracist, what possible advantage does she gain by reducing votes where she is strong rather than, say Poughkeepsie? Sanders has won some great victories, none of which I believe a result of fraud. This fraud nonsense simply distracts from the real need to protect voting rights and make voting easier. And the need for candidates at all levels that might make voting more worthwhile.


#20

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign said nothing about how the State Department under Clinton signed off on a $4.2 million arms deal with the manufacturer, Remington Arms Company.

Remington Arms has been owned by the Bush Crime Family since the Civil War. Hillary is a nothing but Bush Operative, imho, fomenting war around the world to peddle bullets. Also, Marco Rubio was funded by the Mercer Family, which are direct relatives of the bush family. Ted Cruise was funded by the Koch brothers who intermarried into the bush family. Both men, Harriman and Bush owned the Bush family crime bank: Brown Brothers Harriman, who got caught along with bush's Union bank funding the Nazi Rise to power and building up the Nazi war machine.

Then of course Jeb (exclamation point) Bush ran himself.

Old Poppy Bush had damn near every candidate but Bernie Sanders in his back pocket. Did you see the old sonofabitch smirking in the darkened room behind Trump at the Repuke debate where Trump attacked GWB and Jeb Bush's mother?

Was it staged? I'm uncertain. The Bush crime family has a long history of controlling both parties. In the early part of last century, Aveil Harriman, was in charge of the Repuke Party the same exact time that Prescott Sheldon Bush was in charge of the Democratic Party Machine (he later switched and became a Repuke.) This was GWB's Grandfather who was caught trading with the enemy (Hitler).

Business as usual. They do the same thing today. How come nobody ever wants to talk about the hundreds of transactions between Bush's Carlyle Group and the Bin Laden Brothers Contracting for Industry? (Now the Bin Laden Group). You know, the brothers of Osama Bin Laden? What about GWB's financial partner at Arbusto Oil, Salem Bin Laden? (the brother of Ossama Bin Laden.)

Huh?

Anyone wanna explain that to me? Why nobody but me talks about that all these years?


#21

6 months ago the idea that Sanders could get over 40% against Clinton in New York would have been devastating for her. With success comes rising expectations and a higher bar. He needed to win. Sanders knows that, which is why he fought so hard there.


#22

Political work is nonsense? Go back to sleep. Someone will wake you for the revolution.


#23

I have supported Jill Stein in the past even though I am not naive enough to believe she can win, but with the no choice between Hillary and Trump at least I do not have to feel like a moron voter and can vote with a clear conscience.