Arsonist's New Book: "I Can Put Out The Fire"

"Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was a beginning, not an end. In his new book, America's most popular political figure speaks about what he's been doing to oppose the Trump agenda and strengthen the progressive movement and how we go forward as a nation."

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250163264

Thanks for the plug

Just remember there was a time when George Washington...........Benjamin Franklin....Thomas Jefferson et al were all considered Revolutionaries.  I suppose arsonists would fit too.

Investigation reveals the cause was self-immolation.

Exhibit A:

paulsurovell said:
Investigation reveals the cause was self-immolation.
Exhibit A:

Do you actually understand what you post?

Or can you tell us, without the benefit of hindsight, how this wasn't the correct strategy?

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
Investigation reveals the cause was self-immolation.
Exhibit A:

Do you actually understand what you post?
Or can you tell us, without the benefit of hindsight, how this wasn't the correct strategy?

Yes. @drummerboy  -- Bernie's first supporter on MOL, who enouraged others including me to support Bernie -- is not an Arsonist.

Investigation reveals that the cause was not Arson, but self-immolation.

Exhibit B:

It's been two years.  Can we simply agree that HRC is not highly likable and ran an awful campaign and for those two reasons alone lost?  Focusing on emails or Russian interference distracts from the basic reasons for why she lost and cause of to respond in unhelpful ways.  For example, we are now demonizing Russia to an unnecessary degree.

tjohn said:
It's been two years.  Can we simply agree that HRC is not highly likable and ran an awful campaign and for those two reasons alone lost?  Focusing on emails or Russian interference distracts from the basic reasons for why she lost and cause of to respond in unhelpful ways.  For example, we are now demonizing Russia to an unnecessary degree.

 Nope. Can't agree with an analysis that is pretty off base.

Since 1952 the Presidency has shifted between the Parties every 8 years with only one exception.

In 1988 the VP, George H.W. Bush, ran and was elected President. He served only one-term having been defeated for re-election. And the last time that had happened was 1836-1840!

Wondering what MOL folks are thinking about HRC''s latest remarks about Euro need to curb immigration as a way to put out populist fire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/europe/hillary-clinton-migration-populism-europe.html

LOST said:
Since 1952 the Presidency has shifted between the Parties every 8 years with only one exception.
In 1988 the VP, George H.W. Bush, ran and was elected President. He served only one-term having been defeated for re-election. And the last time that had happened was 1836-1840!

 Well you remember what things were like in 1836

there were a whole lot of reasons that Trump won the presidency.  But it's not just silly to suggest that Sanders' candidacy was the reason, it's flat out wrong.  Polls after the primaries ended showed that Sanders supporters were more likely to say that they were going to vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters were going to vote for Obama in 2008.  And polls after the election indicate that the Sanders supporters did in fact vote for Clinton at higher rates than Clinton supporters voted for Obama. The eventual nominee never gets all of the party's votes in the general election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.7bdb88c7e62e

GL2 said:
Wondering what MOL folks are thinking about HRC''s latest remarks about Euro need to curb immigration as a way to put out populist fire.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/europe/hillary-clinton-migration-populism-europe.html

 I did not like it one bit.

LOST said:

GL2 said:
Wondering what MOL folks are thinking about HRC''s latest remarks about Euro need to curb immigration as a way to put out populist fire.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/europe/hillary-clinton-migration-populism-europe.html

 I did not like it one bit.

This kind of thing, more than any other reason is why Clinton lost in '16.  She lost because a lot of people stayed home instead of voting. And that was because a lot of progressives never trusted her pivot to the left.  She has always been too willing to accept the right wing talking points. And in this case, it's worse, she's accepting the fascists' talking points.