Like it or not, Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign is over.
Like it or not, Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign is over. In my opinion, his best course of action is to take what little momentum he has left and try to influence the election of progressive candidates to Congress and state governments across the country.
However, Sanders and some of his supporters still believe he has a chance at the convention. Let's be plain here: he doesn't. Not for the presidency, at any rate.
He sparked a revolution among younger voters and those voters will vote, not only in this election but in future ones as well. It's time for him to take his momentum and influence real change. You don't have to be the president to do that.
In short, he needs to adjust to changing conditions before he becomes a caricature of himself.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11881130/bernie-sanders-politico
However, Sanders and some of his supporters still believe he has a chance at the convention. Let's be plain here: he doesn't. Not for the presidency, at any rate.
He sparked a revolution among younger voters and those voters will vote, not only in this election but in future ones as well. It's time for him to take his momentum and influence real change. You don't have to be the president to do that.
In short, he needs to adjust to changing conditions before he becomes a caricature of himself.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11881130/bernie-sanders-politico
Comments
Some think its fun to come on Google Plus and seek affirmation for whatever ridiculous thought(s) that comes to their minds, but when one put their thoughts out their in public sector, not only should they expect to be challenge on their views, one should be prepared to offer a thoughtful, cogent explanation of them well.
" fiascos at the voting booths across country "
What "fiascos"? Explain. Cite your source, explain.
By the way, your data set should demonstrate significant irregularities that have been verified. The word "significant in statistics means your p-valule (fiascos at the voting booths across country) is either equal to or less than the null hypothesis, meaning an affect on outcome of the primaries in favor of Sen. Sanders as you implied.
If these questions make you feel uncomfortable, please let me know so that we can end this discussion.
" It has felt rigged " No disrespect to you sir/madam, how you felt is not proof. You should consider thinking about matters systematically rather in a heuristic fashion. Doing so minimizes the chances of false beliefs being formed.
This is what I call a cop out. My friend everyday scholars write theses. Do you think anyone will take them seriously if after they posited their thesis statement and then wrote afterwards "now professor you figure out how arrived at this" The answer is of course no. Sir you made the statement, the burden of proof is upon you, not me. Capisce?
" If you think my references are unclear "
Stating this " being handed every unfair advantage by her friend every unfair advantage by her friend DWS and the DNC " is not clear. What advantage? I don't know what exactly it is you're referring to. Here is an example of how it should be done. DWS did this, that and the other thing, and that is why Senator Sanders lost. You see.
This way your thoughts are clear and we can discuss whether or not their is some merit to what it is you're contending.
" Read how they profited and continue to do so off the ruination of others. It's your vote, and you should use it the way you see fit. The fact you can't seem to deal with the fact that others don't wish to do the same speaks a lot to the kind of person you are. "
I am beginning to see that you're not really a thinker at all. And here is why. I re-posted what you've written above for reason. Firstly you do realize this is a whole new assertion you're making. Secondly, how could it be a "fact" that I cannot "seem" to deal with how others vote when you and I never discuss this? I never asserted or implied any such thing. If I did so please cite from the post in which you think I did. Let me remind you what the topic of discussion has been because you seem to have forgotten. You made the inane comment that " she was gifted the nomination ". The only person that has strayed from this discussion up until now is you my friend.
Between you and I, the only one that can't seem to be bothered is you. It is a simple matter of providing the information that helped you to arrive to your conclusion. I am beginning to believe that you made your ridiculous statement because you thought it was something fun to say. As I stated to another poster, try thinking about matters systematically rather than in heuristic fashion. Your arguments will be more convincing if you provided supporting information to back up your claims. Telling someone to go surf the web and figure out how you arrived at your thinking is a fools errand and smacks of laziness on your part. I thought my previous post regarding that matter would have enlightened you. I do not know your level of education, but when one proposes a hypothesis, one should seek to prove that it is so. If they do, they share the information and those who look at it should be able to scrutinize and verify their results. This type of reasoning is why you and I are able to communicate on the internet, drive our cars, take medication, etc, etc. That being said, I think I wasted enough time trying to coax this information from you. So if your next response to me isn't more thoughtful or least somewhat profound it shall be duly ignored.
Nullis In Verba, words to live by.
It's looking like he's possibly planning to expose the cheating and the corruption at the Convention. We'll see what happens.