Who Hijacked Our Country

Friday, May 27, 2016

Scary Thought: Is Bernie Sanders the New Ralph Nader?






I still like Bernie better than Hillary, but I'll be voting for whichever one gets the nomination.  We can NOT allow the Great Nightmare of 2000 and 2004 to happen again in 2016:



Labels: ,

13 Comments:

Anonymous Screamin' Mimi said...

Bite your tongue -- Be like Billy, mind your manners! We can't afford to make this same horrible mistake again so soon -- Obama's done as much as he could to undo GWB's damage, but we need more time!

Love the sick humor!

May 27, 2016 at 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bernie can only be the new Ralph Nader if he runs as a 3rd party, in the meantime I think he will force the establishment to make those changes all of us have expected to have been made as Democrats.

Erik

May 28, 2016 at 8:43 AM  
Anonymous Screamin' Mimi said...

Erik, from your lips to God's ear -- I sure hope it works out just that way. I believe Bernie has already pushed Hillary somewhat left-ward -- and that's a good thing!

May 28, 2016 at 9:34 AM  
Blogger jim marquis said...

I have to admit, I'm struggling a bit right now...HRC has my head but Bernie is creeping up on my heart. I feel like my problem might be solved if she took on Elizabeth Warren as VP.

May 28, 2016 at 10:25 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

SM: LOL. Tonight's episode -- "Votes of Fury!" You're right, we need more time to undo Dumbya's damage.

Erik: True, Bernie isn't running on a third party. But too many of his diehard supporters are saying they won't vote if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. I hope they don't follow through with that, or tRUMP could actually get in.

I think Gary Johnson -- Libertarian, ex-governor of New Mexico -- is planning to run as a third party candidate. Hopefully he'll siphon off more votes from tRUMP than from the Democrats.

Jim: Elizabeth Warren is doing an excellent job as designated pit bull -- her attacks on Trump and Wall Street's chokehold on Congress are priceless. If she's Hillary's running mate she'll probably have to tone down the rhetoric. But Warren or somebody else with similar convictions is Hillary's best bet for keeping the Bernie fanatics from boycotting the election.

May 28, 2016 at 6:15 PM  
Blogger jadedj said...

I am a Bernie guy, but the "I'm taking my ball and going home if Bernie doesn't get the nomination" position is insane. That and the increasingly evident dumbed-down Drumpf followers scare the crap out of me. We just can't let it happen.

May 28, 2016 at 6:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom said "If she's Hillary's running mate she'll probably have to tone down the rhetoric"

Why isn't that the running mate's job? Take the low road at times?

Erik

BTW I think Warren is too valuable in the Senate to be a VP, HRC should get maybe a Southerner or something, and probably (there's that word again) a man for Balance sake.

May 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

jadedj: Yup, it's a scary thought. Hopefully the "Bernie or fuggeddaboudit" brigade will come to their senses as the election gets closer.

Erik: I agree, Warren is too valuable in the Senate. There are plenty of other high profile politicians who share Sanders' and Warren's views. Robert Reich, for one example; but there are lots of others too.

May 29, 2016 at 6:14 PM  
Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom, you're misrepresenting Ralph Nader, don't you think? Why do you blame him?

Have you forgotten that the election was stolen in Florida? Don't you remember -- despite a rigged and fraudulent election process -- a bought and partial Court, complicit media, and a rolled-over and dead Democratic Party gave it away without barely a whimper? And you have the audacity to blame Nader?!...

C'mon man, place the blame where it belongs.

I'll vote for Sanders in my state whether third party or not. Personally, I wouldn't even consider casting my ballot for a member of the criminal Clinton cabal. Don't forget, less worse is still worse.

May 30, 2016 at 5:20 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

JG: Mostly I just thought the cartoon was amusing. And there are a few parallels between Nader and Sanders, particularly if too many Sanders supporters boycott the election or vote for a third party. (Yes I'm very familiar with the Florida debacle of 2000.) I'm not blaming Bernie Sanders. As I wrote in the post, I'd rather have Bernie than Hillary.

Beyond that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on "less worse is still worse." A lot of Nader voters said there was no difference between the two parties, and Dumbya proved them wrong. I assume Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, or dismantled decades' worth of environmental and workers' safety regulations.

May 30, 2016 at 2:13 PM  
Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom Harper: "A lot of Nader voters said there was no difference between the two parties, and Dumbya proved them wrong."

Obama has shown them to be right.


"As I wrote in the post, I'd rather have Bernie than Hillary."

And I'd rather we not have Clinton at all. I'll support a third party, whether one initiated by Sanders or the Greens (Jill Stein), or I'll write-in anybody else, but under no circumstances will I condone or support the corporatist status quo -- which is what we get with Hillary Clinton.

May 31, 2016 at 5:30 AM  
Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

A True Progressive hates Democrats more than Republicans in the same vein that a true Conservative hates Republicans more than Democrats.

May 31, 2016 at 6:28 AM  
Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Grung_e_Gene: "A True Progressive hates Democrats more than Republicans in the same vein that a true Conservative hates Republicans more than Democrats."

I'm not sure the descriptor, "hates", is appropriate for every "true progressive". I know I've certainly worked to scrub that debilitating emotion from my psyche. Anyway, your statement rings hollow and has no substantiation.

Despite that -- or possibly because of it -- I have realized that not much differentiates the two major political parties these days. They're essentially the same. In particular, there's no difference when it comes to foreign policy. Mr. Obama has confirmed this over the last seven-plus years. Another Clinton presidency would sanctify the "one-party" domination which is firmly in place.

Is the novelty of having "the first female president" worth the price? Was the continuing dilution of our rights and democratic processes worth the price we've paid to see the "the first black president"?

June 1, 2016 at 3:38 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home