Fears Of Sanders Win Growing Among Democratic Establishment

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Scary to contemplate, but so far, a chunk of the field has been competing to go lefter than Bernie.

a reply to: Gandalf77

OR, he VP to her Potus. Or Pete in there somewhere. Aside from policies, we have to admit that there are factors that play beyond those. There is the sex factor and the age factor as well whether or not we would like them to be, they are.

Myself, I trust Sanders enough to believe that when the time comes to select a nominee, he will evaluate the whole picture, both Dem and Republican and make a decision based on how best to put Trump out of office. I would not be surprised to see Biden do so as well. Though I do not think much of him, I at least think he is a party loyalist and should he not be polling well, support another who he too believes could beat Trump.

a reply to: rickymouse
Name one thing Sanders has done for America in his 30+ years in Congress.

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: rickymouse
Name one thing Sanders has done for America in his 30+ years in Congress.

Reforming veterans benefits comes to mind.

a reply to: ketsuko

But I think it does. Over the last several decades the opportunities for women have been gaining wider avenues for success. Hence, more women are seeking higher education as the road to individual fulfillment and expression instead of holding themselves to that previous cultural standard for women. This however to my mind does not lessen the choice to NOT strive in those directions. It's the choice that is important.

I heard an old Elvis song this morning from a movie called Franky and Johnny. Know that old song? In that song, Elvis sang a line about the purpose of a woman. Romantic sure but it struck me as rather archaic. ''The lyrics were, '' the purpose of a woman is to give her love to a man. Trite sure and sentimental and all but you know, when we get down to it it is rather objectifying...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Scary to contemplate, but so far, a chunk of the field has been competing to go lefter than Bernie.

The man must have had blinders on when honeymooning in Soviet Russia.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ketsuko

But I think it does. Over the last several decades the opportunities for women have been gaining wider avenues for success. Hence, more women are seeking higher education as the road to individual fulfillment and expression instead of holding themselves to that previous cultural standard for women. This however to my mind does not lessen the choice to NOT strive in those directions. It's the choice that is important.

I heard an old Elvis song this morning from a movie called Franky and Johnny. Know that old song? In that song, Elvis sang a line about the purpose of a woman. Romantic sure but it struck me as rather archaic. ''The lyrics were, '' the purpose of a woman is to give her love to a man. Trite sure and sentimental and all but you know, when we get down to it it is rather objectifying...

Its probably archaic to you because the song is from a different era. Yet most women do give their love to a man. And, according to one study, and yes it is only one, women that were mothers and wives felt more fulfillment and purpose than women that chose a career over any of that.


The choice is out there, what more do we need to do? Most women when presented with STEM opportunities do not take them anyway. Yet we get to hear about the Patriarchy.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's like the flak LEGO got when they made their sets for girls.

They tried sets more like boys play with, and girls weren't buying into it. So they sat down with girls and studied *how* they play with LEGOs. They discovered that girls would build with them, but they like to then play with their creations. Girls like little buildings and playsets with lots of options, not vehicles and active things.

So LEGO built their girl line which has more like buildable doll house type playsets girls can then play with and customize that way.

Note: The girls are still having to build, engineer, and create, so it's still a viable STEM toy.

But the feminists were predictably angry because the girls weren't playing and building like boys. They were doing it in domestic ways when given the choice.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Patriarchy has ruled for thousands of years. Yes? No? For thousands of years cultural and social norms have defined the limits of individual achievement within it, barring of course those rare individuals who through excelled for one reason or another. Yes? No?

That song did not say that women give their love to a man which is true. It did not say that men give their love to a woman which is also true. That song said '' the PURPOSE of a woman is to give their love to a man. Can you see the difference I see here? One is mutual expression while the other is defining women's existence in terms of what and only what she can do for a man. Can't you see how that can be seen as that as patriarchal?

But yes, I have heard of that study as well. But saying that women who stay home are more fulfilled then women who choose careers to me is like comparing apples and oranges. My point is the choices available to women. As well that is saying all women are the same, because they are not, just like all men are not the same. I'm only trying to make the case here that women in the past did not even rise to the level of being able to question their lot in life where as now that is changing. I think for the good. So,,, isn't it time to work towards a woman potus?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: rickymouse
I used to like Bernie, but he has gone too far left now. The Democrats should be worried that they do not have a sane candidate running for president, Bernie is probably the sanest of the bunch even with his problems. I think Bernie should give up, his health is not that great anymore. I do not think anyone should even be considering Biden, apparently he is close to as corrupt as Hillary was.

H-how does one get farther left of Bernie? Stalin?

My oldest daughter has been a Bernie supporter for years, I never thought she would admit that Bernie is going to far left, but she said that she does not think Bernie would be a good choice anymore because he has gone way to far left. I feel the same way, I actually believe that a little Bernie would be good, but he is all wound up now and would try to shove socialism down everyone's throat instead of working to take us a little closer, like with socialized medicine. I have known that Our medical field was not the best for forty years, I learned about greed in it when I was in Pre-med studying to be a doctor. I did not like what I was seeing so quit and tried to switch into a different profession, but all my credits would not transfer into electrical engineering so I just quit college and learned many professions.

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: rickymouse
Name one thing Sanders has done for America in his 30+ years in Congress.

Well, I can say what he hasn't done, he never slept with Monika or started any wars.

originally posted by: crayzeed
It has been muted that the Dems might go for an up market celebrity like Reagan (though he was Rep.). The person most noted for this honour is non other than Oprah Winfrey. I hear she's very pally with Ms Clinton.

Oh gawd...even when the Bushes twice turned me into a Democrat, I woukd have voted for "Whichever Republican" (even a Bush) over Oprah. She mayhave a huge following among the talk show watcher crowd, but I think the people who either can't stand her, or think she would make a HORRIBLE POTUS far outnumber the people who think her shtick translates to the Oval Office.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: crayzeed
It has been muted that the Dems might go for an up market celebrity like Reagan (though he was Rep.). The person most noted for this honour is non other than Oprah Winfrey. I hear she's very pally with Ms Clinton.

Oh gawd...even when the Bushes twice turned me into a Democrat, I woukd have voted for "Whichever Republican" (even a Bush) over Oprah. She mayhave a huge following among the talk show watcher crowd, but I think the people who either can't stand her, or think she would make a HORRIBLE POTUS far outnumber the people who think her shtick translates to the Oval Office.

Oprah: "And you get a tax increase ... And you get a tax increase ... And you get a tax increase ..."

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's like the flak LEGO got when they made their sets for girls.

They tried sets more like boys play with, and girls weren't buying into it. So they sat down with girls and studied *how* they play with LEGOs. They discovered that girls would build with them, but they like to then play with their creations. Girls like little buildings and playsets with lots of options, not vehicles and active things.

So LEGO built their girl line which has more like buildable doll house type playsets girls can then play with and customize that way.

Note: The girls are still having to build, engineer, and create, so it's still a viable STEM toy.

But the feminists were predictably angry because the girls weren't playing and building like boys. They were doing it in domestic ways when given the choice.

See, and I remember having a discussion here a LONG time ago with a member, about how she didn't want her daughter being forced to conform to gender roles. So she would force her daughter down the boys aisle and force her to pick a toy.

The irony was lost on that one.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Patriarchy has ruled for thousands of years. Yes? No? For thousands of years cultural and social norms have defined the limits of individual achievement within it, barring of course those rare individuals who through excelled for one reason or another. Yes? No?

That song did not say that women give their love to a man which is true. It did not say that men give their love to a woman which is also true. That song said '' the PURPOSE of a woman is to give their love to a man. Can you see the difference I see here? One is mutual expression while the other is defining women's existence in terms of what and only what she can do for a man. Can't you see how that can be seen as that as patriarchal?

But yes, I have heard of that study as well. But saying that women who stay home are more fulfilled then women who choose careers to me is like comparing apples and oranges. My point is the choices available to women. As well that is saying all women are the same, because they are not, just like all men are not the same. I'm only trying to make the case here that women in the past did not even rise to the level of being able to question their lot in life where as now that is changing. I think for the good. So,,, isn't it time to work towards a woman potus?

The patriarchy is today in the western world what it was hundreds and hundreds of years go. Yes? No? And the only limits I see these days are those "Peers" and "Influencers" stating that if you don't think like them, you're not truly black, or brown, or a women.


And no its not time for a woman potus if her only qualification is that she has a vagina, natural or man-made. If there was a woman in the last election that was not Hillary Clinton, and aligned with my sensibilities on the issues, the fact that she was a woman would not have stopped me from voting for her.

Of course, she'd then have to beat out Trump

Its funny im pushing people to support sanders on twitter,BUT im going to turn on him when he gets the nomination because no way he beats Trump in a general election.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Give me a female candidate with my conservative values and I will vote for her. It would be the same for a black or Hispanic candidate. I vote issues not sex organs.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

And no its not time for a woman potus if her only qualification is that she has a vagina, natural or man-made.

If I accidentally indicated that I thought that a vagina was the ''ONLY'' qualification for potus then I did not express myself well. My position, once again, is that historically, women have not had avenues to political success simply because they were not allowed to travel them. Social and cultural restraints and all you know.

But back to the vagina thing. Yes, there are those who would vote for a woman only because of that and I do not support that. However, as there are those who would vote on that issue alone, and likely a fairly large percentage, it would be a politically realistic demographic to pursue.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Wardaddy454

And no its not time for a woman potus if her only qualification is that she has a vagina, natural or man-made.

If I accidentally indicated that I thought that a vagina was the ''ONLY'' qualification for potus then I did not express myself well. My position, once again, is that historically, women have not had avenues to political success simply because they were not allowed to travel them. Social and cultural restraints and all you know.

But back to the vagina thing. Yes, there are those who would vote for a woman only because of that and I do not support that. However, as there are those who would vote on that issue alone, and likely a fairly large percentage, it would be a politically realistic demographic to pursue.

And that demographic should refrain from voting entirely, else they be taken advantage of.