The Definition is Defiance

[angrychair]

Establishment Politician
"Establishment" is not about for how long you have served but how you have served.
No politician is perfect. Not Sanders. Not Clinton. No one.
All are flawed. How and who we choose still matters though.
At the end of the day it also isn't about a specific politician but about a certain set of ideals and how closely a political or public figure clings to those ideals.
In an apples to apples comparison between HRC and Sanders, I, as well as many others, would choose Sanders.
Not because he has all the right answers or can fix all our problems or accomplish all the things he wants to do. It is because of his vision, the direction he wants our nation to move in, is closer to those ideals that matter to those that support his efforts

While at least some of HRC's words and actions seems in alignment, the reality far to often comes up short.
On minimum wage.
On education.
On Citizens United and campaign finance reform.
On taxes.
On renewable and green energy R&D.
On Corporate prisons.
On Wall Street corruption and abuses
On the drug war.
On invasions, nation-building or over-throwing the governments of foreign nations.
On her particular art of the deal, her willingness to compromise to get the 'win'.
These differences, some subtle, some not so subtle, are why much of Sanders vision for our nation, though imperfect, is the best way forward.
Sanders doesn't own that vision nor did he create it. Nor is his vision perfect or in complete alignment with my own. Those type of ideals, his and people like me, predate us and will remain long after we are gone. Those ideals are no different than the the ideals I have embraced since I became politically and socially aware as a child.
They are the measuring stick I hold every politician, public figure, community, friend, coworker, and family member to task on. No matter who they are, where they come from or letter after their name.

*Inclusiveness
*Acceptance
*Understanding
*Climate change is real. Address it with real reforms.
*Income inequality is real. Address it with real reforms.
*Financially burden-free health and dental care.
*Financially burden-free education.
*Internships and apprenticeships for most career fields, not just skilled trade and labor jobs.
*No more SuperPACs, "dark money" or bundlers and repeal Citizens United.
*No more MIC wars or puppet governments or nation-building.
*Living Wage.

This list could go on but I've found if I have to take a lot of time explaining it, you don't get it and likely never will.

This is my last comments related to this Clinton vs. Sanders issue.

I leave you all with my new tag line:
"It's easy to talk about the virtues of compromise when you are not the one being compromised."
Angrychair

[tonyt53]

1. You and many other may choose Sanders, but many more have and will choose Hillary.

[angrychair]

4. Doesn't make it a "right" or "wrong" choice

Just a choice.
Both Parties choose a candidate for president every four years.

Doesn't mean the candidate we wanted will win or that the best candidate for the job will win. It is also worth noting that the "candidate we want" and "best candidate for the job" are not always the same thing.

Our eventual president, no matter what Party they come from, is always a reflection of where and who we are as a nation, an imperfect reflection but one just the same.
I hope for the best and stay true to my ideals.

It's easy to talk about the virtues of compromise when you are not the one being compromised."
Angrychair

[RobertEarl]

2. He leads by example

Bernie is the best politician - people power wise - to come along in 40 years.

He makes brown-nosers uncomfortable and therefore they lash out in attacks.

America needs Bernie. Were America wise, it would totally support him and make him president.

[LoverOfLiberty]

3. Well, America will have to settle

for Clinton or Trump.

[RobertEarl]

8. Appearances can be deceiving

Whatever. If that happens it just means we have to fight harder and longer. Whereas if America does the best, half the fight will be over and we'd be a lot closer to equality and peace.

[BobbyDrake]

5. Paul Wellstone's ghost might disagree with you there, and I'd support him doing it.

Stop trying to make "Bernie = Jesus" happen.
It's not going to happen!

[TheKentuckian]

9. Doesn't have be Jesus, just isn't Evan Bayh or DiFi.

[CorkySt.Clair]

11. You mention Wellstone.

I wonder how many Sanders supporters are aware that he voted for DOMA?

This is proof even truly great individuals have flaws, lapses in judgement that will dissapoint us.

I remember as a kid how dissapointed I was to learn that even FDR had flaws. Like when he put American citizens into camps because of the shape of their eyes, or that he sat on his hands on lynching.

He's still a hero. I have his portrait on the wall in my home office. But as they say, nobody's perfect.

[bvar22]

14. Go back and read it again.

One of the main premises of the OP is that Bernie is NOT perfect...



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[Lord Magus]

13. If that were true he would've won. True "people power" is voting.

Millions more people voted for Hillary than for Bernie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Well said. K&R

[Old Codger]

7. Absolutely

No other way to do it if you love our country and it's people...all of it's people not just the rich...

[felix_numinous]

10. Thank you Angrychair

I don't know what happens to some people, this whole phenomena of compromising our national identity as a free country does not compute in my brain.

There must be a psychological reason, but I suspect whole generations have accumulated enough CONDITIONING to eclipse and replace what former generations were taught--civics. Conditioning is not education, in fact it can be used to repress independent thinking.

I think people need to be de-programmed of this, and wish there were experts that could work on it.

[eastwestdem]

12. Disagree with your premise. Your list makes it sound like she is against those things.

Totally false.

[angrychair]

15. No, it does not

It is not that she is against these things, she just is not her concern to fix these things.
Example:
You don't have 18 SuperPACs, millions of dollars in "dark money", large money 'bundlers' and create a PAC to specifically take advantage of a loophole in the law to be able to legally coordinate between your campaign and your SuperPACs if you were really against Citizens United and really for campaign finance reform.

Yes, there is an excuse but there is always an excuse, a reason...a compromise.

it is all about getting the 'win' getting concessions and getting a little of what we want. The problem is that is exactly what it is, a little, while the compromise had little to no impact on the other party to the compromise. It didn't impact their millions or billions one bit.
That is not actually what a compromise is supposed to be. As I have stated and will continue to say:
"It's easy to talk about the virtues of compromise when you are not the one being compromised."