Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "Bernie: “If I Run in 2020.. It Would Be Within The Democratic Party”" video.

Bernie Sanders 2020! Better late than never.
152
It is much easier and makes more sense to run and win as dem. Then he can reform the party and give us a major party worthy of support.
14
Regarding, "threaten it with the rise of a genuine, progressive third party" I think you are being foolish if you think this will change them. The only thing that is going to change the "democratic" party is if a progressive like Sanders wins the nomination and changes it from the inside. Regarding, "With his unwillingness to abandon them" It isn't about saving them. It is about the fact that they are not going anywhere anytime soon and it is about the fact that a hostile takeover of the party is best way to get what we want.
11
The party will do everything they can to fuck him over but you overestimate the number of tricks in their bag. They used them all last time and he still almost won even though when he entered the race he was virtually unknown. The game has changed because he is not unknown anymore. He has the name recognition of a rock star and is the most popular politician in the country. There are not enough dirty tricks to stop him in 2020.
8
Bryan regarding, "they are beyond reform." They are a dumpster fire but that is, in part, because Hillary "won" the nomination. If Sanders wins in 2020 the corporate dems can be purged the same way progressives were recently purged. There are also many reforms the leader of the party can unilaterally make. They will try to screw him over again but ultimately they will fail this time. The game has changed.
8
I gave this a thumbs up but to be clear I'm not from Boise.
7
He knows they will try but the game has changed and they will fail.
7
They will try but the game has changed.
7
I love Gabbard and think she should be on the short list of running mates for Sanders. But I think Sanders is the logical choice in 2020 because of name recognition and popularity for the top of the ticket.
6
Regarding, "Clinton 2016 ....because the name recognition and popularity for the top of the ticket...sounds familiar ?" Um.. not exactly because you are comparing Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. And Hillary Clinton was never popular even if she had name recognition. The bottom line is that you want to take the advantages Sanders has and toss them in the garbage so that you can get a candidate who has the same disadvantages Sanders had in 2016 which were likely the difference between him winning and losing. And for what? Do you think Gabbard would be so significantly better as President that you are willing to risk losing for it? I sure as fuck don't. The establishment still has their dirty tricks and partly the reason I do not expect they will work in 2020 is because Sanders can level the playing field with his name recognition and popularity.
6
So you care more about party labels than about the people those labels are attached to. I will never understand such a position.
5
Bryan regarding, "the nomination" Ultimately primary voters are going to have a say in the matter. Regarding, "the super delegates will steal it from him" The establishment is corrupt but they are not stupid. If they use superdelegates to usurp the will of the voters (like they have never done) they will ensure the downfall of the party. That isn't the purpose of superdelegates. They are there to shape the narrative of the election. They were there so that the corrupt corporate media could put up all the delegates up on the same graphics when Sanders is up pledged delegates to make it look like Hillary is crushing him and inevitable. Regarding, "I don’t see how it’s changed" Sanders was down 60 points when he entered in 2016. Now he has the name recognition of a rock star and is rightfully the most popular politician in the country. These are very important facts in a world with the corporate media is reluctant to give any one who isn't establishment the time of day but Sanders current popularity makes him impossible to ignore. Regarding, "Tom Perez..." The DNC is a dumpster fire and is going to continue to be until a progressive takes over the party. Sanders is in an ideal position to do so.
5
Mark regarding, "certain defeat" I'm going to let you address your own point... "would rather lose to Republicans than see that happen." They don't care about winning. They care about maintaining the status quo and keeping the money flowing. They do not fear 3rd parties. They know they have the entire system rigged top to bottom just like the party is rigged internally. Regarding, " Dems will not allow a progressive to win" Fortunately for us it isn't only up the the establishment and primary voters have a say in the matter and there is no reason to think he won't clean house there in 2020. That is the key to getting a party worth a damn... win the nomination.
5
"new dirty tricks"? I assure you they were already doing everything they could in 2016 and still almost lost to a guy who was down 60 points when he started. And yes they will dump lots and lots of cash into the election but fortunately for us cash doesn't vote.
4
It's hard to believe next time won't be different. When he entered the race in 2016 he was unknown and down 60 points. Still he only lost because of shenanigans. In 2020 he will have the name recognition of rock star, will rightfully be the most popular politician in the country, and will be the clear favorite. There are not enough dirty tricks in their playbook to stop him.
4
I trust Bernie but I do not follow him blindly. I respect Sanders supporters, in part, because they are not just sheep.
4
lucky you should care more about supporting good people and care less about a party label.
3
Maybe, but why take the harder road during the general election? And why sacrifice the ability to reform the "democratic" party from the inside?
3
etikk regarding, "I truly think they are too old." The only evidence you cite for thinking this is a number... not any sort of reasoning that they can't do the job. Regarding, "it wears people out" Yes. It is a tough job. It does wear people out. These facts are still true for the young. Regarding, "two terms is eight years" You are getting ahead of yourself. We elect presidents in 4 year terms. Regarding, "I thought it was madness last year when Drumpf and Killary were in the general election" So did I but not because of anything to do with their age. Regarding, "What about finding a younger progressive candidate? Tulsi f ex" I love Tulsi and think she should be on the short list of people Sanders should consider for running mate. But if she were running for the top of the ticket in 2020 she would be plagued by the same problems Sanders had in 2016. Name recognition is supremely important in this country, especially when the corporate media is not going to give non establishment candidates the exposure they deserve. In 2020 it would be less important if the corrupt corporate media is covering Trumps empty podium while Sanders speaks in front of record crowds but it would be much, much more important if they are covering Trump's empty podium while Gabbard is speaking in front of record crowds because our uninformed public doesn't know who she is for the most part. She would be perfect for the bottom of the ticket and if Sanders can't do the job then she can step in. That is why we have a VP.
3
I don't think you understand the power the nominee of the party has. He would be able to practically reinvent the party as he sees fit as long as he wins. Not only that but if he becomes something other than a dem while in office then the dems that are also in office (and not going away) all of a sudden lose all incentive to wok with him and he kills his ability to pass legislation. That said he should make good appointments to the FEC and change the rules to level the playing field in elections as much as possible.
3
Brian regarding, "I think you're overestimating the power of a party nominne." I think you are underestimating it. The party nominee gets to essentially pick the party leader who picks the people under them and so on. I'm betting you are aware of progressives currently being purged from the party but the fact of the matter is that the corporate dems can be purged just the same way. The party leader also has the ability to essentially unilaterally make decisions for the party as demonstrated by... https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91226631 That is the type of shit the party leader can virtually single handedly. To be fair the DNC went back on this solely for the purpose of benefiting Hillary Clinton but it demonstrates the type of thing the party leader can do. Regarding, "Drmocratic Party would never let one guy take away their piggy bank without a fight" Nobody is saying they are not going to fight. They are going to do everything they can to stop Sanders and company but ultimately they are going to lose. It isn't about working side by side with them. It is about taking over the party hostile takeover style.
3
lucky regarding, "totally against both parties." You want to be against both major parties? Fine. They both suck. Neither represent the people. I wasn't talking about supporting parties. I was talking about supporting people. You should be supporting good people regardless of a party label. There are good people who think the best way of getting the change the country deserves is by working to overtake the party. You are doing yourself and the causes you claim to care about a disservice by refusing to support people who want to use different tactics than you would prefer even if their goals are the same. Regarding, "You didn't see them objecting to upping our defense by over $700 billion no problem for you, right?" You talk about parties like they are people. They are not. There were some people, like Sanders, who voted against that bill. That is what is important to me. Not the party label he affiliates himself with. Regarding, "You're a fool how many times are you going to get played?" You mistakenly think I am looking to work the oligarchy. I'm not. I'm trying to take over their party. Regarding, "if you put your hand on a flame and it burned your hand how many times are you going to put your hand back on that flame?" You seem to think it is more important to try to punish the flame than think it is important to do what is best to get what you want. Regarding, "it has nothing to do with party." Clearly it has everything to do with party when you care more about a person's party label than about the person. What you advocate is no different than what partisan dems and partisan republicans do. They care about party labels and ignore all the important things that they should care about. Regarding, "you're falling for the party shit not me." Clearly you were not listening to me. I don't care about parties. That is your thing. I care about people. Regarding, "It doesn't matter how good the person might be who is running if they run in the Democratic Party." How can you not realize how stupid this sounds? Seriously. Please take some time and reflect on this statement. Regarding, "I adore both of them but they will be chewed up and spit out if they stay in the party" You adore them both but you are kicking them to the curb because you have bitten before. You sound like a person who says they will never fall in love again because they were hurt by someone in the past. Regarding, "nothing will ever change in our favor if someone goes into that party." So, if only, those couple people would call themselves some other meaningless label that would change something? It wouldn't. What is important, which you clearly are blind to, is that the objective is to get as many good people in government as possible and their party labels are not at all what is important. Currently there are only a handful. We need more and I don't care what party label they wear. Regarding, "Do you seriously think our politicians make our laws here?" Not really. How far off topic do you need to go? Regarding, "The Dems..." You talk about them as if they are a monolith. You talk about them as if they all think the same. You talk about them as if they are all the same. They clearly are not and you sound silly and being lazy when you think you can know everything about someone because of a stupid party label. Regarding, "Wake the fuck up its because of people like you who keep voting for the same damn party and thinking something wonderful is going to happen." Wake the fuck up, its because of people like you who keep thinking in terms of only party labels that we got into this mess in the first place. Stop thinking something wonderful is going to happen when you have no plan for winning. Winning elections isn't everything but I assure you it is pretty fucking important. Regarding, "It took both parties to get us where we are today I guess you're happy being governed by oligarchs." Yes it did take both parties and I'm not happy being governed by oligarchs. It's just that I am willing to support the people fighting against the oligarchs even if they have the audacity to call themselves a democrat. It really is not that hard to understand. Regarding, "So you keep voting for the Dems you keep voting for the Republican you keep taking it up the ass not me!" So what is your idea of not taking it in the ass? The ability to feel good about not voting for either major party while they still fuck you just like they fuck everyone else? You care more about punishing the parties than you care about people. Wake the fuck up and stop being such a bitch. Act like you care about the things you care about instead of what you actually do which is caring about punishing the parties. I'm going to put this all in caps because it is important and you really need to understand it. PEOPLE ARE WHAT IS IMPORTANT! Stop focusing on parties.
2
lucky I think we agree on pretty much everything other than the tactics we think are best to get what we want. I think you are being silly to not support good people because of the label, so much so that I was willing to write so much. Focus on people not their party label. For example I support Sanders because I think HE represents me. He doesn't represent me more or less depending on the party label he wears. And as soon as I think HE doesn't represent me anymore I will stop supporting him.
2
Regarding, "If he makes it past the primary somehow, I suppose I could vote for him" The democratic establishment appreciates you not using the ability you have to shape their party and vote in their primary. Regarding, "but it will never happen." It definitely won't if enough people are willing to not even try like yourself. Fortunately I do not think this will be the case. Regarding, "They said that they can make a back room deal to prevent him from becoming president even if he does get the majority." No they cannot. I think you are referring to the court case where the DNC argued in court that they could pick the candidate if they want. They can but they don't. And instead they hold a primary which they are bound to. And even if they could, which they can't, nothing would be a quicker way to kill the party and that ultimately would be a win in and of itself even if not ideal.
2
Huh? Superdelegates account for about 15-20 percent of all delegates currently (the percent may very well change before 2020). They are not there to usurp the will of the voters. They are there to frame the election. They are there so that the establishment candidate can seem inevitable. They are there so that the corporate media can put all delegate totals up and make it look like the establishment candidate is crushing. The establishment is corrupt but they are not stupid. If they ever use superdelegates to usurp the will of the voters and use them to give the nomination to a candidate who got less pledged delegate support they would very likely be setting in motion events that would KILL the party. And even if that situation would be perfect it would clearly be a huge win. For I am of the belief that the "democratic" party isn't going anywhere anytime soon but if they use superdelegates like that my belief about them not being killable would change very quickly.
2
The game has changed since 2016 when Sanders was virtually unknown.
2
etikk, kennet beat me to it. I don't care about age and neither should you as long as the person is capable of doing the job and so far there is zero reason to think Sanders can't do it. I think that you saying he is too old is just a way of trying to smear a person that you are looking for any and every way to smear.
2
etikk regarding, "You want me to give evidence for thinking 80 years is a little over due for a potus?" The bottom line is that your argument boils down to the number and only the number. You are not offering any arguments as to why he can't do the job other than his age. What is the magic age to you? When is that magic line that I should stop caring about whether or not I think they can do the job and only start caring about how old they are? Don't answer this. I don't actually care. I care about whether or not I think they can do the job and there is no reason to think Sanders can't do the job. Regarding, "about the corrupted unDemocratic party f ex?" The party is fucking dumpster fire without the benefit of keeping you warm and is going to continue to be so until a progressive wins the nomination and reforms the party from the inside out. Regarding, "You think Bernie can save them?" It isn't about saving them. It is about taking them over hostile takeover style and making them what they should be and should have been for some time but haven't been. Regarding, "Do you think "we" can change the system through elections?" I want to hope so and I'm going to continue to try to do so until I'm certain we can't. You aren't suggesting we should just quit trying are you? Regarding, "Do you think the oligarchs wont cheet the next time?" Yes they are going to cheat and rig and do everything they can to hold onto their power but there is good reason to think they are going to lose in 2020. Regarding, "USA (and the world for that matter) is beyond saving within the frames of elections and politics in it's current form." So what are you proposing?
2
Yes they will throw everything at him including the kitchen sink but they don't have enough dirty tricks to stop him in 2020.
2
strongheart regarding, "What is your source to make such a claim?" Sanders was down 60 points when he entered the race in 2016 and still only "lost" by a hair. In 2020 he will enter the race with the name recognition of a rockstar and as rightfully the most popular politician in the country. There are not enough dirty tricks in their playbook to stop him as clearly the game has changed.
2
Lucky regarding, "you are fighting a losing battle by trying to fix either of the two parties from the inside" I disagree. I do not claim it will be easy. I do not claim it will be fair. I just claim it is possible and far easier than trying to start a new party from scratch or get the public on the side of the green party. And not only do I think it is the easiest way to get a party that actually represents the people but it would also end a corporate party. It is a 2 for 1. Regarding, "you dont understand what I am saying" I'm pretty sure I do. You position is not all that uncommon in forums like this. Regarding, "its not the politicians who were elected, that are making our laws" This is true only because we have the wrong politicians elected. Regarding, "The members of the DNC..." You don't need to convince me that the party is dumpster fire and the great majority of democrats should be voted out of office. We agree on that. The place where we differ is that I can see value in people who continue to run as democrats and do not think that all people under that label are to be treated the same way. Regarding, "so please tell me what good he is serving." Well, Sanders is one vote in getting what we all want... an end to citizens united. Sorry if you thought he could do it all on his own. He can't. You know what he might be able to do all on his own? Take over the "democratic" party. The winner of the parties nomination holds immense power to shape and direct the party. One of the reasons the party is so fucking terrible at the moment and is going to continue to suck for the time being is, in part, because Hillary Clinton "won" the nomination. The reason Tom Perez is the chair and not Ellison is because Hillary "won." The reason corporate dems were purging progressive dems is because THERE ARE STILL PROGRESSIVES FIGHTING FOR THE SOUL OF THE PARTY. And them being purged was a setback but it is hardly the end of the war. If Sanders or another true progressive wins the nomination in 2020 they get to pick the chair and that chair gets to pick the people under them and so on. Corporate dems can be purged the exact same way progressives were purged but to do that we need a progressive to win the nomination. Sanders is perfectly positioned to do so in 2020. The establishment is going to do everything they can to try and stop him. And I would appreciate it if you, a progressive, help Sanders instead of holding a grudge against the party and refusing to try to shape them. Regarding, "why would she want to continue to run in a party..." Because she, like me, think that taking over the party is the way to go. You realize the party is rigged internally. It is. But so is the entire fucking game. The game is also rigged against third parties so it isn't as if you have a path that doesn't also involve overcoming bullshit. Regarding, "Your way makes no sense, it just keeps us hanging by a thread without any chances of any changes being made in our favor... We need a third party." My way makes no sense? Jill Stein got about 1 percent of the vote against 2 of the most despised HUMANS in the country. I'm not sure why you think your way makes sense. But still I encourage you to go out and build viable 3rd parties. Even if people like me succeed in overtaking the "democratic" party we still should have good, strong 3rd party options to, if nothing else, pull the major parties to the left. BUT THEY ARE RIGHTFULLY PLAN B. WINNING IS IMPORTANT! And they are not going to be winning the presidency in 2020. Sorry but that is just fucking reality. Regarding, "Punishing the flame?" Yes. Because you care more about the flame (the "democratic" party) than you care about the people. Stop caring so much about a fucking label. CARE ABOUT THE PERSON. Fuck. It really is not so hard to understand. Regarding, "it doesn't matter how great a candidate might be," No. Just stop. There is nothing you can say after this that would make any fucking sense. The only thing that matters is how great a candidate is. Regarding, "because the majority of PEOPLE in the Dem party" I'm not talking about the majority of people in the party. The majority of the people in the party suck balls. But I'm not talking about the majority of people. I'm talking about good people. People that represent you but have the audacity to do so labeled as democrats. Support them or you are only refusing to support people who represent you. Regarding, "are going to continue to work for their donors, NOT us." What about the justice democrats whose donors ARE THE PEOPLE? Are you going to turn a blind eye to them? Regarding, "the few, and I mean very few, individuals that actually work for and represent us aren't going to get anything accomplished" Yes they need help but not supporting them is hardly helping. And even if Sanders isn't able to pass bills all by himself it sure as fuck helps to have him around so that he can continue to win the battle of ideas like he has currently been doing with medicare for all. Regarding, "I am trying to prevent some horrific things from happening .. Lets not talk about winning, ok?" Let's not talk about winning? Are you fucking kidding me? Winning is the only way you are going to prevent "horrific things from happening." Because the fact of the matter is that you are doing NOTHING other than feeling good about not voting for dems and patting yourself on the back for not being "fooled" by the party when in fact you are only being a fool who thinks they know all they need to know by looking at a party label. Regarding, "Time for a third party." They have always been there. You aren't saying anything new. And you don't seem to realize how rigged the entire game is including being against 3rd parties. Regarding, "I was a registered Democrat for forty years, that came to an end in 2016." You feel betrayed by a shitty presidency by Obama. You feel betrayed by a party that rigged it's primary. Fine. I get that and agree with that. But if you think the answer is to not support good people because they are still democrats then you are fucking insane. Stop thinking about party labels so much. Think about people. Support good people and let the rest of the bullshit fall where it will.
1
strong regarding, "Why take the hard road? Because the two party system..." You don't need to argue that the 2 party system is joke. It is. But the system is rigged to prevent 3rd parties from succeeding the same way the "democratic" party is rigged against progressives. I would be all for building a new party or, because I think the Green party is what the "democratic" party should be, supporting them. BUT WINNING IS IMPORTANT. Taking over the "democratic" party is twofer if we succeed. It would kill the destructive influence of the corporate dems and give us a major party. It is clearly the logical way to proceed to me. That said please continue to build good 3rd party options. I will be voting for them when the major parties produce shit candidates. I happily voted for Jill Stein in 2016. BUT THAT IS PLAN B! Plan A is getting a progressive at the head of the "democratic" party because that is the most logical plan to get what I think we both want. Regarding, "You say Bernie is the most popular pol." Yes. He is. But it didn't happen overnight. He is currently as popular as he is because campaigned with class during the 2016 election. He is currently as popular as he is because he can't rightfully be blamed for Trump winning. Regarding, "we lost four years by him not separating from the Dems" Nothing would have hurt his (and ours, I think) cause by him being blamed for Trump winning. That is, in part, why Hillary wants to blame him. Because she knows it would be devastating for progressives. But it doesn't work because everyone knows it WASN'T Bernie's fault. Regarding, "Now or never for Independent party." You go ahead and try to build another party. I'll try to takeover the "democratic" party. And we can meet in the middle. We don't have to commit to one or the other. If the dem nominee is a corporate shill like Harris or Booker I will be voting for someone else. But like I said I think that is rightfully plan B. Regarding, "It's about more than one election" I don't disagree with this. But realize that your path is just as rigged as mine is. There is not going to be an easy solution for either of us. I just think mine is easier and therefor much more logical.
1
strong regarding, "Bernie chose to break his promise to us that he would not concede until the convention." Sander fought and campaigned while all the peasants got to vote. Isn't that what we are suppose to care about? Aren't we the side that cares about the people voting and not the superdelegates and party insiders? He "lost." No the game wasn't fair but ultimately Hillary had more pledged delegates than he did. He can't lobby for superdelegates before the convention and then credibly call for them going away. Regarding, "not addressing the election fraud, the purging of registered Dems, & now the unending stream of shady dealings that are revealed everyday, has left him looking very compromised." I don't need Bernie Sanders to tell me that he got fucked over because I know he did. And the people that still claim the primary was fair are not all of a sudden going to see the light and suddenly realize how fucking unfair things are if Bernie comes out and cries about the rigged process. Americans fucking hate whiners even when their whining is justified. One of the reasons he is currently the most popular politician in the country is because he got fucked over and still acted like the class act he is. Him crying about how unfair the process is would have CHANGED NOTHING, and at great cost. Sanders is smarter than that. Regarding, "He's not as believable as he was last year, as it's hard to comprehend his silence on the increasing dirt being exposed that is/was done by Dems." He is the least important person to bitch about him being fucked over. There is no one that is in a more biased position than him because it was him getting fucked over. Hillary as well with her whining. Even Hillary supporters had an impossible time justifying their fallen queens actions on her blame everyone but herself book tour. The politicians are the wrong people to be talking about how the process affects them. That is for us to talk about. They are OUR votes after all. Regarding, "Being associated with Dems will be poison" The party fucking sucks but if I were a gambling man, and I am, I would be willing to be the house that the democratic nominee wins the presidency in 2020. That means that what is important is who that nominee is. It needs to be a progressive like Sanders and not a corporate stooge like Harris, Booker, or Biden. Regarding, "going Green" I identify as with the Green party far more than any other party. But winning is important even if it isn't everything. And Jill Stein got about 1 percent in 2016 therefor I think this is a terrible plan.
1