Professor Bearitas said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not sure what Bernie could pass through congress even with owning majorities in both houses. He's further apart from his party on policy than Trump was with Republicans.

---

His supporters aren't going to stop voting after 2020 you know.

---

Cool?

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not sure what Bernie could pass through congress even with owning majorities in both houses. He's further apart from his party on policy than Trump was with Republicans.

---

His supporters aren't going to stop voting after 2020 you know.

---

Cool?

---

I think the idea here is that Bernie sees his cause as a "movement" meant to extend beyond his personal term as President. He wants American politics to bend further towards his preferences.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not sure what Bernie could pass through congress even with owning majorities in both houses. He's further apart from his party on policy than Trump was with Republicans.

---

His supporters aren't going to stop voting after 2020 you know.

---

Cool?

---

I think the idea here is that Bernie sees his cause as a "movement" meant to extend beyond his personal term as President. He wants American politics to bend further towards his preferences.

---

Well yeah, but I don't think that changes whether Bernie wins or not.

Moreover, how does that address my statement about Bernie having trouble passing anything even if his party owned super majorities.

Anarchistbear said:

---

One thing Elizabeth Warren is good at is taking down privileged *******s. Not only Bloomberg but watch her destruction of the Wells Fargo ******* . It's a pity she's never understood what she's good at.

---

Her anti-corruption message is probably her strongest, but she moved to messaging medicare for all, which was a mistake.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not sure what Bernie could pass through congress even with owning majorities in both houses. He's further apart from his party on policy than Trump was with Republicans.

---

His supporters aren't going to stop voting after 2020 you know.

---

Cool?

---

I think the idea here is that Bernie sees his cause as a "movement" meant to extend beyond his personal term as President. He wants American politics to bend further towards his preferences.

---

Well yeah, but I don't think that changes whether Bernie wins or not.

Moreover, how does that address my statement about Bernie having trouble passing anything even if his party owned super majorities.

---

It does address your second point. Bernie and his fans want to bring long-term changes beyond just passing bills in the next term.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not sure what Bernie could pass through congress even with owning majorities in both houses. He's further apart from his party on policy than Trump was with Republicans.

---

His supporters aren't going to stop voting after 2020 you know.

---

Cool?

---

I think the idea here is that Bernie sees his cause as a "movement" meant to extend beyond his personal term as President. He wants American politics to bend further towards his preferences.

---

Well yeah, but I don't think that changes whether Bernie wins or not.

Moreover, how does that address my statement about Bernie having trouble passing anything even if his party owned super majorities.

---

It does address your second point. Bernie and his fans want to bring long-term changes beyond just passing bills in the next term.

---

I certainly woulldn't disagree. You could say the same about Trump, or really any other renegade non establishment candidate

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not sure what Bernie could pass through congress even with owning majorities in both houses. He's further apart from his party on policy than Trump was with Republicans.

---

His supporters aren't going to stop voting after 2020 you know.

---

Cool?

---

I think the idea here is that Bernie sees his cause as a "movement" meant to extend beyond his personal term as President. He wants American politics to bend further towards his preferences.

---

Well yeah, but I don't think that changes whether Bernie wins or not.

Moreover, how does that address my statement about Bernie having trouble passing anything even if his party owned super majorities.

---

It does address your second point. Bernie and his fans want to bring long-term changes beyond just passing bills in the next term.

---

I certainly woulldn't disagree. You could say the same about Trump, or really any other renegade non establishment candidate

---

True. The big difference is that Bernie actually does have significant support from young people.

My thoughts from the debate:

1. I can't stand Bloomberg. He actually has less charisma than Trump. I loved it when Bernie mentioned that maybe his employees had something to do with creating his wealth. He was a fish out of water. He should have run against Trump in the GOP primary last time.

2. Biden sounds like he is too old for the job. I realize he is actually younger than Sanders, but this is a man who seemed out of it too much of the time relative to his opponents.

3. Mayor Pete will not be the nominee this time. He is positioning for a future career and even he knows it. Much luck to him, because he has potential, but he's not getting my vote over the others.

4. Amy is a credible candidate, but she is out of her depth here. Seems like a good legislator, but not necessarily a good commander-in-chief.

5. Warren has a lot of things going for her, but her biggest problem is that she's not Bernie Sanders. She is competing for the same voters and for the most part they won't choose her over him.

6. Bernie is the clear front-runner. In fact, I am going to call it right now. Bernie Sanders will be the Democrat candidate in 2020. I don't know if he will beat The Donald, but he has an army of supporters, he has a 4 year head start on the others, and he resonates with people.

Bernie 2020!

dimitrig said:

---

My thoughts from the debate:

1. I can't stand Bloomberg. He actually has less charisma than Trump. I loved it when Bernie mentioned that maybe his employees had something to do with creating his wealth. He was a fish out of water. He should have run against Trump in the GOP primary last time.

2. Biden sounds like he is too old for the job. I realize he is actually younger than Sanders, but this is a man who seemed out of it too much of the time relative to his opponents.

3. Mayor Pete will not be the nominee this time. He is positioning for a future career and even he knows it. Much luck to him, because he has potential, but he's not getting my vote over the others.

4. Amy is a credible candidate, but she is out of her depth here. Seems like a good legislator, but not necessarily a good commander-in-chief.

5. Warren has a lot of things going for her, but her biggest problem is that she's not Bernie Sanders. She is competing for the same voters and for the most part they won't choose her over him.

6. Bernie is the clear front-runner. In fact, I am going to call it right now. Bernie Sanders will be the Democrat candidate in 2020. I don't know if he will beat The Donald, but he has an army of supporters, he has a 4 year head start on the others, and he resonates with people.

Bernie 2020!

---

If Bernie gets the nomination, he had better effing win the election, or this will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

And I'll say right now, if he does get the nomination, I will jump onto his bandwagon so hard, it had better have the beefed-up suspension, because even though I won't vote for him in the California Primary, I will be 100% behind the Democratic nominee from the convention until the election. This, compared to the childishly naive Bernie supporters I've heard over the past few weeks, who remind me of my 7-yr-old daughter yesterday:
Me: You get two cookies.
Her: I want three cookies.
Me: Nope, you get two cookies.
Her: Then I don't want any cookies!
Me: Okay, now you have no cookies.

READ THIS. Go ahead and read it.

Big C said:

---

If Bernie gets the nomination, he had better effing win the election, or this will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

---

I don't agree with this. First, I don't see any other candidates as having a better chance than Bernie. Second, if Bernie gets the nomination and loses the election then it just means Trump could not be beaten. Ask Hillary Clinton about how the distribution of voters is playing havoc with our Presidential elections. At least this time I am guessing the nominee will visit some of those Midwestern states. I am really curious to see how Nevada votes tomorrow.

okaydo said:

---

READ THIS. Go ahead and read it.

---

Good article. It even had an "Arrested Development" reference.

Big C said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My thoughts from the debate:

1. I can't stand Bloomberg. He actually has less charisma than Trump. I loved it when Bernie mentioned that maybe his employees had something to do with creating his wealth. He was a fish out of water. He should have run against Trump in the GOP primary last time.

2. Biden sounds like he is too old for the job. I realize he is actually younger than Sanders, but this is a man who seemed out of it too much of the time relative to his opponents.

3. Mayor Pete will not be the nominee this time. He is positioning for a future career and even he knows it. Much luck to him, because he has potential, but he's not getting my vote over the others.

4. Amy is a credible candidate, but she is out of her depth here. Seems like a good legislator, but not necessarily a good commander-in-chief.

5. Warren has a lot of things going for her, but her biggest problem is that she's not Bernie Sanders. She is competing for the same voters and for the most part they won't choose her over him.

6. Bernie is the clear front-runner. In fact, I am going to call it right now. Bernie Sanders will be the Democrat candidate in 2020. I don't know if he will beat The Donald, but he has an army of supporters, he has a 4 year head start on the others, and he resonates with people.

Bernie 2020!

---

If Bernie gets the nomination, he had better effing win the election, or this will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

And I'll say right now, if he does get the nomination, I will jump onto his bandwagon so hard, it had better have the beefed-up suspension, because even though I won't vote for him in the California Primary, I will be 100% behind the Democratic nominee from the convention until the election. This, compared to the childishly naive Bernie supporters I've heard over the past few weeks, who remind me of my 7-yr-old daughter yesterday:
Me: You get two cookies.
Her: I want three cookies.
Me: Nope, you get two cookies.
Her: Then I don't want any cookies!
Me: Okay, now you have no cookies.

---

Oh literally go **** off with that comparison. You sound like a bitter Bloomberg supporter who just realized the emperor has no clothes.

Sanders at the town hall compared it to the war effort of World War II. We had no war industry when Japan attacked us. In two years, we mobilized the entire country, redid our entire industrial sector, built the necessary equipment, and defeated Nazi-ism in two years. If you make something a priority besides fighting endless wars and financing the engines of destruction (which nobody ever ever EVER asks how we're going to afford), tax the rich so at least they're paying the same percentage or a little higher of their share of the pie as regular Americans, reduce everybody's health care costs, there's no telling what we could accomplish with different national spending priorities.

"Frankly, I'd rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders. Because Sanders has real followers, whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not. I happen to think it's terrible what he says. But he has followers. Bloomberg's just buying his way in."

--Donald Trump

dimitrig said:

---

"Frankly, I'd rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders. Because Sanders has real followers, whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not. I happen to think it's terrible what he says. But he has followers. Bloomberg's just buying his way in."

--Donald Trump

---

If tRump is a 3D chess player, I wonder what he really means by that?

bearister said:

---

If tRump is a 3D chess player, I wonder what he really means by that?

---

T is a DDD chest player. The president chosen by god to lead Republicans was playing that game with a busty porn star while his wife was home with their newborn.

Trumpberg is a new thang.

dimitrig said:

---

okaydo said:

---

READ THIS. Go ahead and read it.

---

Good article. It even had an "Arrested Development" reference.

---

They both are crabby old guys, on the more extreme ends of their parties. They also waive their hands around a lot and scream. That is where the similarities end. Sanders is much more articulate for starters.

Sanders has the organization, engaged base, and name recognition from running before. The left part of his paryy's base likes him. The moderates are divided among too many candidates. With Warren falling off the rails, Sanders should win, or at least win enough to win a contested convention.

It is not like either party has perfect candidates. Trump is erratic enough to hand the Dems the election. But you can't depend on that, so Bernie needs to sell his ideas to swing voters in certain states, and Democratic voters who are too turned off to his ideas presently to get out and vote against Trump.

Challenge accepted by man completely lacking in live, real-time charisma, likability, and presidential debating skills.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Challenge accepted by man completely lacking in live, real-time charisma, likability, and presidential debating skills.

---

Bloomberg LP went over the records. No conflict of interest there.

Fun fact: Dick Van Dyke was in high school when Bernie Sanders was born.

RINO

What are you guys talking about? A Bloomberg vs Trump run for the presidency will be epic. I'm all in. Two guys who've called women "horseface" (Sarah Jessica Parker?) and "fat and disgusting" is MUST SEE TV.

GBear4Life said:

---

What are you guys talking about? A Bloomberg vs Trump run for the presidency will be epic. I'm all in. Two guys who've called women "horseface" (Sarah Jessica Parker?) and "fat and disgusting" is MUST SEE TV.

---

Uh, GBear4Life, horse face is none other than Johnny Elway. Forever. Don't let politics get in the way.

"The Play ruined MY Big Game."

OdontoBear66 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

What are you guys talking about? A Bloomberg vs Trump run for the presidency will be epic. I'm all in. Two guys who've called women "horseface" (Sarah Jessica Parker?) and "fat and disgusting" is MUST SEE TV.

---

Uh, GBear4Life, horse face is none other than Johnny Elway. Forever. Don't let politics get in the way.

---

Can there be more than one?

"Why the long face?"

Professor Bearitas said:

---

Big C said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My thoughts from the debate:

1. I can't stand Bloomberg. He actually has less charisma than Trump. I loved it when Bernie mentioned that maybe his employees had something to do with creating his wealth. He was a fish out of water. He should have run against Trump in the GOP primary last time.

2. Biden sounds like he is too old for the job. I realize he is actually younger than Sanders, but this is a man who seemed out of it too much of the time relative to his opponents.

3. Mayor Pete will not be the nominee this time. He is positioning for a future career and even he knows it. Much luck to him, because he has potential, but he's not getting my vote over the others.

4. Amy is a credible candidate, but she is out of her depth here. Seems like a good legislator, but not necessarily a good commander-in-chief.

5. Warren has a lot of things going for her, but her biggest problem is that she's not Bernie Sanders. She is competing for the same voters and for the most part they won't choose her over him.

6. Bernie is the clear front-runner. In fact, I am going to call it right now. Bernie Sanders will be the Democrat candidate in 2020. I don't know if he will beat The Donald, but he has an army of supporters, he has a 4 year head start on the others, and he resonates with people.

Bernie 2020!

---

If Bernie gets the nomination, he had better effing win the election, or this will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

And I'll say right now, if he does get the nomination, I will jump onto his bandwagon so hard, it had better have the beefed-up suspension, because even though I won't vote for him in the California Primary, I will be 100% behind the Democratic nominee from the convention until the election. This, compared to the childishly naive Bernie supporters I've heard over the past few weeks, who remind me of my 7-yr-old daughter yesterday:
Me: You get two cookies.
Her: I want three cookies.
Me: Nope, you get two cookies.
Her: Then I don't want any cookies!
Me: Okay, now you have no cookies.

---

Oh literally go **** off with that comparison. You sound like a bitter Bloomberg supporter who just realized the emperor has no clothes.

Sanders at the town hall compared it to the war effort of World War II. We had no war industry when Japan attacked us. In two years, we mobilized the entire country, redid our entire industrial sector, built the necessary equipment, and defeated Nazi-ism in two years. If you make something a priority besides fighting endless wars and financing the engines of destruction (which nobody ever ever EVER asks how we're going to afford), tax the rich so at least they're paying the same percentage or a little higher of their share of the pie as regular Americans, reduce everybody's health care costs, there's no telling what we could accomplish with different national spending priorities.

---

Thanks for the suggestion to go **** off, but I believe you missed my point. Who I find childishly naive are the Bernie supporters who won't vote in November if they're guy doesn't get the nomination. Like the world wouldn't be a better place if Gore had officially beaten Bush and if Clinton had officially beaten Trump.

I'm no Bloomberg supporter. I'll probably vote for Warren on March 3rd (probably while smiling at the people on this board who don't like her). In the fall, I'll be all-in for whoever gets the nomination and if Bernie Sanders were to become President, I'd probably smile even more. He may be somewhat further to the left than I am, but hell, maybe that would balance out some of the s*** we will have had in the White House for twelve of the last twenty years.

Speaking of ****ing off, since you brought up the subject, that's what anybody who is eligible to vote in a purple state can do, IMO, if they don't vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

Wow, this was on I-80

okaydo said:

---

Wow, this was on I-80

---

...and Bernie Backs the University Without Walls!

Big C said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

Big C said:

---

If Bernie gets the nomination, he had better effing win the election, or this will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

And I'll say right now, if he does get the nomination, I will jump onto his bandwagon so hard, it had better have the beefed-up suspension, because even though I won't vote for him in the California Primary, I will be 100% behind the Democratic nominee from the convention until the election. This, compared to the childishly naive Bernie supporters I've heard over the past few weeks, who remind me of my 7-yr-old daughter yesterday:
Me: You get two cookies.
Her: I want three cookies.
Me: Nope, you get two cookies.
Her: Then I don't want any cookies!
Me: Okay, now you have no cookies.

---

Oh literally go **** off with that comparison. You sound like a bitter Bloomberg supporter who just realized the emperor has no clothes.

Sanders at the town hall compared it to the war effort of World War II. We had no war industry when Japan attacked us. In two years, we mobilized the entire country, redid our entire industrial sector, built the necessary equipment, and defeated Nazi-ism in two years. If you make something a priority besides fighting endless wars and financing the engines of destruction (which nobody ever ever EVER asks how we're going to afford), tax the rich so at least they're paying the same percentage or a little higher of their share of the pie as regular Americans, reduce everybody's health care costs, there's no telling what we could accomplish with different national spending priorities.

---

Thanks for the suggestion to go **** off, but I believe you missed my point. Who I find childishly naive are the Bernie supporters who won't vote in November if they're guy doesn't get the nomination. Like the world wouldn't be a better place if Gore had officially beaten Bush and if Clinton had officially beaten Trump.

I'm no Bloomberg supporter. I'll probably vote for Warren on March 3rd (probably while smiling at the people on this board who don't like her). In the fall, I'll be all-in for whoever gets the nomination and if Bernie Sanders were to become President, I'd probably smile even more. He may be somewhat further to the left than I am, but hell, maybe that would balance out some of the s*** we will have had in the White House for twelve of the last twenty years.

Speaking of ****ing off, since you brought up the subject, that's what anybody who is eligible to vote in a purple state can do, IMO, if they don't vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

---

Who do you think you are to speak on behalf of what you think Bernie supporters will do? Have you met many? Have you ever talked wtih them in person? Or is your whole perception of Bernie supporters tied to Twitter, reddit, and the rest of the Wild West of the internet where people like to be more confrontational because there's no risk in it for them?

I voted for Sanders in 2016. I was thrilled that his voice became part of the national conversation, but I didn't expect him to be in the race for long. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to see how good of a fight he put up against the corrupt Clinton machine and her fake Democratic values. Now I'm hearing he consider running in 2012 against the milquetoast defender of the investment banker, Obama. Nice man, but sold out trying to prove he could be the great conciliator.

But little as I like Hillary, I loathed the idea that a guy like Donald Trump could ever get nominated. I didn't hesitate to vote for Hillary. Of course in California, my vote didn't matter as much as it did in other states and Hillary has blamed other people for her poor campaigning skills ever since (to this very minute in fact). So don't you presume to go and tell me what Sanders supporters would do. I'm actually in conversation with them daily and know exactly where we stand. And if you're going to misrepresent us as a bunch of spoiled brats, then yeah I'm gonna give you a hearty f*** you. You don't get to pull that and not expect blowback.

As for Warren, I was happy to be the first and loudest voice on this board calling her out for the fraud that she is. She continues to cling to identity politics as she starts accepting super PAC money again now that she's run out of all of her Senate campaign money and continues to imply that Sanders is taking Super PAC money when he's not. I'll always be grateful to her for the public service she did in taking down that fraud Bloomberg, but she compromised whatever values she claims to hold months ago. Like so many others, she wants to be in power more than she wants to have values that she stands behind.

There is no nuclear option for Sanders supporters if someone wins the nomination fair and square. There aren't enough of us to defeat Trump without moderate support. But do us dirty in a back-room deal to nominate Bloomberg as the last guy standing just because he has the money to outlast actual Democrats and you will get four more years of Trump. So for those of you hoping for Bloomberg to save you, don't hold out any hope that he's your white horse savior to take down Trump because it ain't happening. We'll vote for an actual Democrat, but we won't vote for dirty DNC poltics. We'll burn the party down if it decides to be as corrupt as the Republican Party.

" MEMORANDUM

TO: Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren

FR: Jon Cowan and Matt Bennett [two of the co-founders of Third Way, the think tank]

RE: Stand up to Bernie or You and We All Lose

At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party and the nation to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November. ...
We have seen this movie before. While there is no moral equivalence between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (none whatsoever), there is similarity between this moment and the 2016 Republican race. When Chris Christie took on Marco Rubio in their debate, it mortally wounded both candidacies and gave Trump a clear path to the nomination." Axios

Professor Bearitas said:

---

Big C said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

Big C said:

---

If Bernie gets the nomination, he had better effing win the election, or this will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

And I'll say right now, if he does get the nomination, I will jump onto his bandwagon so hard, it had better have the beefed-up suspension, because even though I won't vote for him in the California Primary, I will be 100% behind the Democratic nominee from the convention until the election. This, compared to the childishly naive Bernie supporters I've heard over the past few weeks, who remind me of my 7-yr-old daughter yesterday:
Me: You get two cookies.
Her: I want three cookies.
Me: Nope, you get two cookies.
Her: Then I don't want any cookies!
Me: Okay, now you have no cookies.

---

Oh literally go **** off with that comparison. You sound like a bitter Bloomberg supporter who just realized the emperor has no clothes.

Sanders at the town hall compared it to the war effort of World War II. We had no war industry when Japan attacked us. In two years, we mobilized the entire country, redid our entire industrial sector, built the necessary equipment, and defeated Nazi-ism in two years. If you make something a priority besides fighting endless wars and financing the engines of destruction (which nobody ever ever EVER asks how we're going to afford), tax the rich so at least they're paying the same percentage or a little higher of their share of the pie as regular Americans, reduce everybody's health care costs, there's no telling what we could accomplish with different national spending priorities.

---

Thanks for the suggestion to go **** off, but I believe you missed my point. Who I find childishly naive are the Bernie supporters who won't vote in November if they're guy doesn't get the nomination. Like the world wouldn't be a better place if Gore had officially beaten Bush and if Clinton had officially beaten Trump.

I'm no Bloomberg supporter. I'll probably vote for Warren on March 3rd (probably while smiling at the people on this board who don't like her). In the fall, I'll be all-in for whoever gets the nomination and if Bernie Sanders were to become President, I'd probably smile even more. He may be somewhat further to the left than I am, but hell, maybe that would balance out some of the s*** we will have had in the White House for twelve of the last twenty years.

Speaking of ****ing off, since you brought up the subject, that's what anybody who is eligible to vote in a purple state can do, IMO, if they don't vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

---

Who do you think you are to speak on behalf of what you think Bernie supporters will do? Have you met many? Have you ever talked wtih them in person? Or is your whole perception of Bernie supporters tied to Twitter, reddit, and the rest of the Wild West of the internet where people like to be more confrontational because there's no risk in it for them?

I voted for Sanders in 2016. I was thrilled that his voice became part of the national conversation, but I didn't expect him to be in the race for long. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to see how good of a fight he put up against the corrupt Clinton machine and her fake Democratic values. Now I'm hearing he consider running in 2012 against the milquetoast defender of the investment banker, Obama. Nice man, but sold out trying to prove he could be the great conciliator.

But little as I like Hillary, I loathed the idea that a guy like Donald Trump could ever get nominated. I didn't hesitate to vote for Hillary. Of course in California, my vote didn't matter as much as it did in other states and Hillary has blamed other people for her poor campaigning skills ever since (to this very minute in fact). So don't you presume to go and tell me what Sanders supporters would do. I'm actually in conversation with them daily and know exactly where we stand. And if you're going to misrepresent us as a bunch of spoiled brats, then yeah I'm gonna give you a hearty f*** you. You don't get to pull that and not expect blowback.

As for Warren, I was happy to be the first and loudest voice on this board calling her out for the fraud that she is. She continues to cling to identity politics as she starts accepting super PAC money again now that she's run out of all of her Senate campaign money and continues to imply that Sanders is taking Super PAC money when he's not. I'll always be grateful to her for the public service she did in taking down that fraud Bloomberg, but she compromised whatever values she claims to hold months ago. Like so many others, she wants to be in power more than she wants to have values that she stands behind.

There is no nuclear option for Sanders supporters if someone wins the nomination fair and square. There aren't enough of us to defeat Trump without moderate support. But do us dirty in a back-room deal to nominate Bloomberg as the last guy standing just because he has the money to outlast actual Democrats and you will get four more years of Trump. So for those of you hoping for Bloomberg to save you, don't hold out any hope that he's your white horse savior to take down Trump because it ain't happening. We'll vote for an actual Democrat, but we won't vote for dirty DNC poltics. We'll burn the party down if it decides to be as corrupt as the Republican Party.

---

Most of my contact with Bernie supporters consists of talking with my wife. (Yes, we speak in person.) She claims that she will support any Dem candidate in the fall, but that many others will not. I have no perception of Bernie supporters via social media, save this board. Dunno if this qualifies as the "Wild West of the internet", but I did notice one Bernie supporter riding through here dropping f-bombs.

I have to dispute your claim to be the first one on this board to call out Elizabeth Warren, as you just joined us four days ago. Ha ha! Kind of ironic, you asking me, "Who do you think you are... "

Since you are in daily conversation with Bernie supporters, you surely know that, if he does not get the nomination, some will still vote for the Dem nominee in November, while others will not. I do not claim to know what the percentages would be, but perhaps a person with your insight and connections could tell us? The ones that will vote for the Democratic candidate, hey, great. The ones that won't are either ideologically pure to a fault, or childishly naive. Probably a bit of both. I never used the term "spoiled brat", as I was saving it for those who anonymously drop the f-bomb on people who aren't too far away from themselves politically, but are just not close enough.