PDA

View Full Version : Don't be gaslighted! Bernie CAN win!



SullivanB
12-15-2015, 10:09 AM
Here's an article worth the reading, especially if you're one of those "progressives" convinced that Bernie can't win and Hillary is the safer bet, if only to have a better idea of just who's crafting those messages of defeatism and inevitability you've bought into, and why. And for those who don't already know, you can learn what it means to be "gaslighted".

The Executive Director of National Nurses United (a labor union representing nurses and, indirectly, other working Americans) and the California Nurses Association has written an article shining the light of day on how the Democratic Party "establishment" and it's corporate bosses have been working overtime to convince us that Bernie Sanders can't win. They're pulling out all the stops to convince us that the country is too far gone and that the desperately needed social change Bernie's been fighting for is no longer attainable, and that fighting alongside Bernie for that better America is just not practical. From now on, settling for whoever and whatever Wall Street, the big corporations and the bought-and-paid-for "leaders" of our own Party have chosen for us is the best we can expect. The article starts



Perhaps you've noticed. Some people and institutions are working feverishly to convince us that real social change is not possible.

Their target is Bernie Sanders and the growing army of his supporters who are fed up with politics as usual and the grip of Wall Street and corporate America on our political, economic and social system.

The theme is to desperately convince us that Sanders can't win. They repeat it over and over, even though Sanders polls as well or better than Hillary Clinton does against every leading Republican candidate.


We've often heard this theme expressed on the forum. It's a message of defeatism, of submission to the will of the corrupt Party bosses and the corporate masters they serve. The choice they make only keeps us on the road to oligarchy, and hurries us along the way. Ironically and despite what we're told, it's a road we don't have to take, as this article well explains. We do have a choice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/dont-let-them-gaslight-th_b_8808480.html

switters
12-15-2015, 10:19 AM
Feel the BernY>

TomF
12-15-2015, 10:24 AM
Sully, I think it's fair to say that the Dems who are concerned about Bernie's electability would still cast their ballots for him if he ended up the Dem candidate. They sure wouldn't vote for Cruz, Trump, or Rubio.

Similarly, I think it's fair to assume that if Hillary ended up the Dem candidate, that you'd vote for her before Cruz, Trump or Rubio too.

ccmanuals
12-15-2015, 10:26 AM
Sully, I think it's fair to say that the Dems who are concerned about Bernie's electability would still cast their ballots for him if he ended up the Dem candidate. They sure wouldn't vote for Cruz, Trump, or Rubio.

Similarly, I think it's fair to assume that if Hillary ended up the Dem candidate, that you'd vote for her before Cruz, Trump or Rubio too.

yep, that about sums it up.

Figment
12-15-2015, 10:32 AM
"gaslighted"???? Where did that one come from?

I bought a Feel The Bern coffee mug a while back, mostly to poke at a couple of coworkers, but as the republican field goes farther and farther over the cliff I'm beginning to think that Bernie is electable after all.

TomF
12-15-2015, 10:52 AM
...as the republican field goes farther and farther over the cliff I'm beginning to think that Bernie is electable after all.That may be so.

BrianY
12-15-2015, 11:38 AM
Putting aside the whole "electability" issue, even though I agree with a lot of what he has to say and I wish that he was in a more influential position (speaker of the house?) I just am not sure that he is cut out to be president. If Hillary does win, I'd love to see him in the cabinet someplace, but I doubt that will happen.

switters
12-15-2015, 11:40 AM
yep, that about sums it up.

Not for everyone.

Keith Wilson
12-15-2015, 11:41 AM
If Mr. Sanders is the Democratic candidate, I'll vote for him with enthusiasm. Likewise Ms. Clinton. Given a choice between the two, I think Ms. Clinton would probably make a better president, but not by much.

SullivanB
12-15-2015, 11:49 AM
Sully, I think it's fair to say that the Dems who are concerned about Bernie's electability would still cast their ballots for him if he ended up the Dem candidate. They sure wouldn't vote for Cruz, Trump, or Rubio.

Similarly, I think it's fair to assume that if Hillary ended up the Dem candidate, that you'd vote for her before Cruz, Trump or Rubio too.

Oh, Tom (seriously heavy sigh), you're probably safe in your assumption, though I'm disappointed in your obviously intentional slight of my man Carson, having left him off your list of the more illustrious Republican candidates. :p

But that's not the point, here. It's something much bigger than individual candidates that this article contemplates and that I'm talking about. And it's something much bigger than this 21st century Republican Party and even the danger that it represents to the American experiment.

First, it's very much a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party that we're talking about, here. But it's more than that. Since the Democratic Party is at present the only vehicle by which the country might realize the kinds of social change Sanders' candidacy represents and so desperately needs, it really is a fight for future of the country.

This little item is important. When we choose between a Bernie Sanders and a Hillary Clinton, those very things are at stake. It's not just the choice between the two parties that makes a difference. And when we readily buy into the Party line telling us that what a candidate like Sanders stands for is not only impractical but impossible, we give up on even trying to do what's best for the country's future. And we're complicit in helping the country along on its way to oligarchy.

Now, if one genuinely believes that what the Party bosses have prescribed for us is right, that a Hillary Clinton and what she'll likely mean for the country is the right way, then the discussion is over. But for those of us who may be settling for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils, be it because the Party bosses and their corporate masters have convinced us that what a Bernie Sanders represents is impractical or impossible, or because we're so damned afraid of the crazy right, or both, then we're making a huge and very dangerous mistake. We're buying into the line that Sanders can't win, without even giving it a chance.

I think the article is worth a read and some serious thought. What this woman has said is right on the money. Sanders' candidacy offers us a genuine opportunity to strike a blow for a better future for the little guy and gal. It's a shame to toss it aside, and to buy into the clearly false premise that Bernie Sanders cannot win this election when he can if we insist that he's the one we, the American people, want.

It's not enough to sit by and say we'll vote for whoever the Party nominates. What's at stake is too important.

TomF
12-15-2015, 11:57 AM
I think that both of America's main parties are "umbrella" or "brokerage" parties, though that's less true nowadays of the Republicans. That inside each, there are what would amount in other places to different parties which operate as factions.

The "heart and soul" of the Democratic party is only somewhat progressive; conventionally, a 2-party system is about competition for the middle ground, not about idealism in the parts away from the center. Bernie and folks like him are perhaps the conscience of the Dem party, but not the "heart and soul." In the same way that in a functional Republican party the folks like William F. Buckley or George Will would its conscience.

One outcome of the increasing rejection of Republicans of that "umbrella" model of their party is that the Dems have shifted to occupy more and more of the ground once held by centrist Republicans, leaving folks whose idealism runs like Bernie's fairly adrift. Paradoxically, the surest way to reclaim an authentic Dem party is for the Rep party to regain its own authenticity.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-15-2015, 12:00 PM
Ex-Senator Clinton for President and Senator Sanders for Vice-President should get the job done.

Much as I would prefer Senator Sanders as President, the main thing is to present a unified platform and to win.

Norman Bernstein
12-15-2015, 12:02 PM
If, when the primaries come around, Bernie Sanders looks like a better bet than Hillary Clinton, I'll most certainly vote for him.

However, if the polling at that time does NOT indicate favorability for Sanders, then I'll vote for Clinton.

Much depends on the likely GOP candidate. If Trump and Cruz fall by the wayside, Marco Rubio could be a formidable opponent... and he's the only one who, at the present time, looks like a potential winner in the latest head-to-head matchups, versus Clinton. I haven't seen a head-to-head for Sanders Vs. Rubio yet.

One thing is for certain, however: I'm going with whichever candidate appears strongest.... and I am NOT going to vote for ideological purity as the only criteria, if doing so looks like a losing proposition.

I frankly am not impressed with Bernie Sanders. Strong ideological candidates, and/or candidates that present themselves as limited-issue people, are not the kind I necessarily want to see in the White House. Bernie Sanders is just such a candidate... outside of economic issues, Sanders has made very little progress in getting across the broad range of issues I believe need to be addressed by a candidate. The very last thing we need is a perpetuation of the gridlock we've experienced for the last 8 years, and between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton is somewhat MORE likely to be able to forge compromises.....

...and if you oppose compromise as a necessary element of leadership, then we are at loggerheads with each other.

Gerarddm
12-15-2015, 01:10 PM
I frankly am not impressed with Bernie Sanders. Strong ideological candidates, and/or candidates that present themselves as limited-issue people, are not the kind I necessarily want to see in the White House. Bernie Sanders is just such a candidate... outside of economic issues, Sanders has made very little progress in getting across the broad range of issues I believe need to be addressed by a candidate. The very last thing we need is a perpetuation of the gridlock we've experienced for the last 8 years, and between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton is somewhat MORE likely to be able to forge compromises.....


Well, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I am very impressed with Bernie and have been over decades ( my father was from Vermont ). I have been very candid in saying however, that unless he makes significant inroads with minority voters, he will not make it. And secondly, and recently,, he needs to credibly assuage voters on this whole national security issue. It NORMALLY is " just about the economy, stupid ", but this cycle is different.

Like many, I will proudly vote for Bernie in my state's primary and work for him and donate to him; and if Hillary prevails, I will vote for her in the general election over any living Republican one can dream up. See my signature.

SullivanB
12-15-2015, 01:33 PM
I think that both of America's main parties are "umbrella" or "brokerage" parties, though that's less true nowadays of the Republicans. That inside each, there are what would amount in other places to different parties which operate as factions.

The "heart and soul" of the Democratic party is only somewhat progressive; conventionally, a 2-party system is about competition for the middle ground, not about idealism in the parts away from the center. Bernie and folks like him are perhaps the conscience of the Dem party, but not the "heart and soul." In the same way that in a functional Republican party the folks like William F. Buckley or George Will would its conscience.

One outcome of the increasing rejection of Republicans of that "umbrella" model of their party is that the Dems have shifted to occupy more and more of the ground once held by centrist Republicans, leaving folks whose idealism runs like Bernie's fairly adrift. Paradoxically, the surest way to reclaim an authentic Dem party is for the Rep party to regain its own authenticity.

I agree with your general description of the parties, but I disagree with your presumption that a Sanders-like agenda would not appeal to that all important "middle ground" you speak of. Assuming that we're talking about moderates who would vote for a candidate like Clinton, we already know that they're not hung up on the wedge issues like abortion, guns, gay rights, etc., where the two candidates' platforms essentially converge.

But on the important issues where there are real differences, I think it's a huge big mistake to just assume that the average American is going to reject the ideas Sanders is touting. His agenda is very good for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Despite the rhetoric of the right and the establishment Dems, his ideas are anything but unAmerican, unreasonable or necessarily unachievable. They might play very well with the Party faithful, as they already seem to be playing with polled independents. To just write Sanders off without first giving him fair play to make his case to the American public is doing a disservice to that public, and to one's self. And that's exactly what's been happening.

TomF
12-15-2015, 02:38 PM
Sanders' ideas aren't so far from where FDR was, many decades ago. But the political spectrum is quite a long ways from where it was in his time.

SullivanB
12-15-2015, 03:01 PM
If, when the primaries come around, Bernie Sanders looks like a better bet than Hillary Clinton, I'll most certainly vote for him.

However, if the polling at that time does NOT indicate favorability for Sanders, then I'll vote for Clinton.

Much depends on the likely GOP candidate. If Trump and Cruz fall by the wayside, Marco Rubio could be a formidable opponent... and he's the only one who, at the present time, looks like a potential winner in the latest head-to-head matchups, versus Clinton. I haven't seen a head-to-head for Sanders Vs. Rubio yet.

One thing is for certain, however: I'm going with whichever candidate appears strongest.... and I am NOT going to vote for ideological purity as the only criteria, if doing so looks like a losing proposition.

I frankly am not impressed with Bernie Sanders. Strong ideological candidates, and/or candidates that present themselves as limited-issue people, are not the kind I necessarily want to see in the White House. Bernie Sanders is just such a candidate... outside of economic issues, Sanders has made very little progress in getting across the broad range of issues I believe need to be addressed by a candidate. The very last thing we need is a perpetuation of the gridlock we've experienced for the last 8 years, and between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton is somewhat MORE likely to be able to forge compromises.....

...and if you oppose compromise as a necessary element of leadership, then we are at loggerheads with each other.

Your announcement that you're "... NOT going to vote for ideological purity as the only criteria..." is of no consequence, here, given that no one has suggested that you or anyone else do so. Indeed, I feel the same way but, so what? The same applies to that last pronouncement, since no one has suggested that compromise is not a necessary element of good government or good leadership in government. Those are called red herrings.

Your suggestion that "...Clinton is somewhat MORE likely to be able to forge compromises..." with the Republicans is ludicrous. A notable aspect of a Clinton nomination will be the extreme hatred the Republicans have cultivated and will demonstrate for Clinton. It's visceral with them, every bit as deep as their hatred of Obama because of his blackness. It's obvious that they'll double down on their obstruction and ugliness with a vengeance.

It's true that Sanders does not have the degree of politician's slickness that seems to come naturally to Mrs. Clinton, and some may fault him for that. I do not. On the other hand, some may perceive the Clinton slickness in a more suspicious light. I do. I agree that Sanders has come up short on dealing with some important issues, part of which is his own fault, though he's working to correct his mistakes.

His reluctance to confront Clinton with regard to her deficiencies and weaknesses is a serious mistake that he may never fully resolve. That kind of confrontation is healthy and it would much better educate the public on Sanders' views and agenda.

Of course, much of the perceived differences in the "gravitas" of the two come down to the facts that Ms. Clinton has essentially been running her campaign for the presidency for many years. She's had years to get her act together. Sanders has had only a few months to get his in order. It shows in both instances. It is what it is. Then, there's the reality that Sanders' effort is being hampered by the Party bigs, even now, while Clinton's is being enabled.

Your assessment of Rubio is spot on. He's probably the most intelligent of the Republican field, and he's certainly the most articulate and capable speaker and debater. He's one to be more concerned about as a potential winner in the general.

Reynard38
12-15-2015, 05:41 PM
Sanders or I'm going sailing that day.

Tom Montgomery
12-15-2015, 06:30 PM
I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Presidential Primary Election.

I will vote for the Democratic Presidential Nominee in the General Election whoever it is.

No Republican candidate is acceptable to me.

John Smith
12-15-2015, 06:33 PM
Sully, I think it's fair to say that the Dems who are concerned about Bernie's electability would still cast their ballots for him if he ended up the Dem candidate. They sure wouldn't vote for Cruz, Trump, or Rubio.

Similarly, I think it's fair to assume that if Hillary ended up the Dem candidate, that you'd vote for her before Cruz, Trump or Rubio too.

ABsolutely! I'll be more than happy to vote for Bernie, but I don't think he can win. He will find himself running against Reagan. The people will be bombarded with Reagan tell us Socialism and Socialists are evil. There's a treasure cove of clips/video/printed quotes.

This country worships Reagan, and Bernie can't beat Reagan. IMO

John Smith
12-15-2015, 06:35 PM
Putting aside the whole "electability" issue, even though I agree with a lot of what he has to say and I wish that he was in a more influential position (speaker of the house?) I just am not sure that he is cut out to be president. If Hillary does win, I'd love to see him in the cabinet someplace, but I doubt that will happen.

I think he is a great senator. He may be in the best position to get what he wants accomplished from his senate seat.

IMO, he and Hillary to a large extent agree. If she's in the white house and he's in the senate, we have both of them fighting for those things. If he's in the white house and she's retired, we only have him. I'd like to keep them both.

John Smith
12-15-2015, 06:38 PM
If, when the primaries come around, Bernie Sanders looks like a better bet than Hillary Clinton, I'll most certainly vote for him.

However, if the polling at that time does NOT indicate favorability for Sanders, then I'll vote for Clinton.

Much depends on the likely GOP candidate. If Trump and Cruz fall by the wayside, Marco Rubio could be a formidable opponent... and he's the only one who, at the present time, looks like a potential winner in the latest head-to-head matchups, versus Clinton. I haven't seen a head-to-head for Sanders Vs. Rubio yet.

One thing is for certain, however: I'm going with whichever candidate appears strongest.... and I am NOT going to vote for ideological purity as the only criteria, if doing so looks like a losing proposition.

I frankly am not impressed with Bernie Sanders. Strong ideological candidates, and/or candidates that present themselves as limited-issue people, are not the kind I necessarily want to see in the White House. Bernie Sanders is just such a candidate... outside of economic issues, Sanders has made very little progress in getting across the broad range of issues I believe need to be addressed by a candidate. The very last thing we need is a perpetuation of the gridlock we've experienced for the last 8 years, and between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton is somewhat MORE likely to be able to forge compromises.....

...and if you oppose compromise as a necessary element of leadership, then we are at loggerheads with each other.

How does Rubio get past his quote in my sig?

Tom Montgomery
12-15-2015, 06:46 PM
The myth of Ronaldus Magnus is laughable. The good stuff starts at 2:54.


https://youtu.be/vBnJ2OR3GZs

Boater14
12-15-2015, 07:38 PM
Old movie, Gaslight. Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. He was driving her crazy messing with their gaslight. When someone's playing with your head your being gaslighted. Memory's hazy, someone tweet my explanation.