Convincing your friends and families to back Bernie over Warren

Donate and support us on Patreon!

I want to preface with saying that Warren is my 2nd choice in this race and I would vote for her with some qualms. Also, obviously pulling from Biden is way more important at this point.

Here's the facts, we need Warren's supporters to defeat Biden. Divided we fall. The major thing that is eating into Bernie's support is that Warren went on a media blitz and is putting out several policies to see whatever sticks. The media with it's billionaire masters, obviously wants to push this divide in the left-wing of the democratic party as far as it can. Now you might ask yourself, how do you combat this? The simple answer is we have to push the facts.

Some people who are convinced on Warren say that she is the quintessential policy candidate. I really don't have faith in the person who called herself a "capitalist to my bones" and didn't take a stand to endorse Bernie in 2016 to actually get some of these things accomplished without doing some form of capitulating (she is already doing it with M4A).

Here are just some things to consider:

1.Bernie has been consistent his whole life on all his policies and fighting for the little guy, Warren was mostly a moderate-republican intill 1996.


2.Bernie helped Amazon workers get $ 15 by continued pressure on Bezos since 2016,, helping 100,000's of workers overnight. He will bring the same ferocity to the White House.

  1. In August 2016, Bernie joined the standing rock protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Warren waited till after the fact in December to show support after the Army Corps of Engineers would not grant the final easement, It was plain exploitation for political points.


  1. In 2014, Warren supported Israel's war on Gaza, where 547 civilians were killed by bombing, 250 of who were minors. Bernie was against that war calling it a "disproportionate response".


Now, obviously Warren might have "evolved" in some of these points, but having the correct view after the fact are not the qualities of a good leader, but are hallmarks of the standard politician. Bernie is creating a movement to change America, that started in 2015. Since then, he has changed the political landscape that has allowed even democratic socialists to run for office and win. We need someone to inspire the United States to become politically active.

If you guys have anymore examples, please post them below

Continued Reading on their differences:

submitted by /u/EuphoriaRush
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – bernie

Bernie is willing to go on Fox News when Warren won’t – these different approaches show why Bernie would be a more effective President and also more likely to beat Trump.

Donate and support us on Patreon!

I read the other day that Warren said she wouldn't go on Fox News, calling it a "hate for profit" racket. You know, I agree with that. Fox News sucks.

But you also know what? Fox News is one of the most popular news channels in America. Whether we like it or not, millions of voters watch it. And as that post about Bernie speaking at Liberty University said, it is important to go out and talk to people with whom you disagree. You can't change minds by only preaching to the choir.

So while going on Fox News may not help Bernie win the Democratic primary, it definitely helps him 1) win the general election against Trump, and 2) change minds that need to be changed. We cannot change America without changing minds. Bernie is clearly the best candidate for changing minds.

If the Democrats want to beat Trump, they will nominate Sanders. Bernie will win in states Democrats haven't won in 50 years. He will rewrite the red-blue state divide and usher in Democratic dominance for the next 20 years.

submitted by /u/BadRoadLouis
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Some points you may find useful in discussions re: Sanders and Warren

Donate and support us on Patreon!

Hi folks,

I've been noticing a lot of commentary and claims in the media and online being made regarding Elizabeth Warren lately that is either inaccurate, missing context, or completely misleading. The fact that these shoddy narratives keep getting spread around tells me that it's intentional, and the implications of them all lead back to what looks to me like an attempt to split Sanders' supporters by feeding them a narrative intended to convince some of them to switch to Warren.

You may have seen some of these same things being said, and not been sure how to respond because the narratives rely on leaving out context or perspective that most people wouldn't notice is missing until someone points it out. So with that said, time to bust 2 big myths about Warren. Hope some of you find this useful in conversations with friends, family, and primary voters you meet.

Myth: In terms of political vision and goals for the presidency, Warren and Sanders are very substantively similar

Negative. While it's true that there's quite a lot of overlap in their policy agendas, Sanders and Warren represent two fundamentally different political visions.

Warren is an expert on regulation and loves policy minutiae because her idea of addressing the problems we face is getting a bunch of Ivy League braingeniuses like herself together and crafting airtight regulatory reforms and impeccably well reasoned policies. In a world where most of the political class wasn't always out to serve the ruling class first and foremost, maybe these policies would even be quickly embraced by our institutions and do a lot of good. But the problem is that you can't reign in the transgressions of capitalism using the levers of a system that's already owned by the capitalist class. Warren deserves credit for embracing better policy goals than the likes of Obama or Clinton, but she fundamentally shares their approach of believing that being extremely smart and qualified means people will listen to you and then if you have a well reasoned argument for your policies, they'll appreciate where you're coming from and cooperate with you in good faith. These are policies that the donor class of both parties oppose – you cannot possibly create a powerpoint presentation good enough to negate that reality and win people over.

Sanders, on the other hand, is not wasting his time on the delusion that DC politics runs on a perceived meritocracy. He also doesn't want to bring a dozen elite academics and professionals into the Oval Office to huddle with him and chart the course of his agenda during his Presidency. He's been in DC for 30 years, and he's well aware that even if he's in the White House, he'll be dealing with a legislative branch that includes few natural allies for his agenda – even among the Democrats. This agenda will be met with hostility from the establishment no matter how accomplished and smart the people behind it are.

That's why Sanders' political message is explicitly one of class struggle. His candidacy makes an appeal to the masses to put aside the concept of politics as a decision you make every 2 or 4 years of who to entrust with power until the next election rolls around, and instead form a grass roots campaign whose goal of electing Sanders to the White House is only the preliminary objective in a much larger project that will use the power of a mass political movement to put unprecedented pressure on the existing power structure and the political class to do the people's bidding or be washed away by the mass movement.

This approach recognizes the reality of our system: that most politicians feel the pressure from ruling class moneyed interests when decided whether or not to support legislation during their term, and if that pressure is in conflict with the wishes of the people, they'll let the expensive campaign team that the moneyed interests are paying for figure out how to deal with that in the next election. Sanders' themes of the need for class struggle and a mass movement is a call for a grassroots campaign beyond election day that demands recognition and states with clarity that states with clarity: "We will not continue to take a backseat between one election day and the next. We are aggressively demanding that you serve the interest of we the people. Your donors may have money to offer, but we are the many and they are the few. If you vote for their interests, you are voting against ours, and we will not forget it nor will we let you forget it." It's an aggressive approach that someone like Warren would never be comfortable with and that much of the establishment likes to dismiss as a fanciful pipe dream, but if millions of people all across the country organize well and show persistence, it will at least create some real agitation in the system and make business as usually very unpleasant for those who choose it.

While the popular narrative is that Bernie has no plan for achieving his policy agenda and Warren stands above all other candidates in explaining how she'll achieve her policies, this is simply untrue – something that I'll discuss in the next myth section. But just know that Sanders absolutely has a plan, and it's what he means when he talks about revolutionizing our politics. The political and media class just flat out refuses to acknowledge this as a plan because it's too foreign to the way they think.

Myth: While Sanders has policy goals with clear intentions, Elizabeth Warren has actual policies and plans for how to make those goals work. Warren's array of detailed and thought out policy papers demonstrate that she is head and shoulders above Sanders and the rest of the field in designing actual plans that will work in the real world

I have to give credit where due here: This is a brilliant scam. The fact that seasoned reporters who have covered previous presidential campaigns are amplifying it tells me that they're either being disingenuous or they have the memory of a goldfish. Here's the deal: Warren has a vastly more comprehensive set of policy papers than the rest of the field because she made a strategic campaign decision to assemble a policy team and start releasing detailed policy papers at the outset of her candidacy.

If people demand to know where Bernie's detailed plans are, you can let them know that he doesn't have them yet because the Spring of the year before the general election has always been the stage of the primary where candidates are testing out their ability to be a competitive contender by focusing primarily on fundraising and introducing the public to the big picture themes of why they're running. So no, Bernie (along with the 20 other people in the field) did not just neglect to consider that detailed policy plans will be needed at some point. And Warren did not prove that her campaign stands alone in its ability to offer detailed plans. Bernie, and everyone else, will be hiring policy teams later this year to start working on detailed plans for his platform. Sanders is not behind the 8-ball on producing detailed plans. Warren just decided to put hers out absurdly early to generate some coverage and discussion of her candidacy, something that her campaign launch and early speaking events failed to do.

This became an absurdly long post so if you're still reading, thanks, and I hope you'll find some of this perspective useful in discussions about why Bernie is still the one we need to get behind.

Just as a note, nothing in this post a meant to denigrate Warren. If Sanders weren't running, Warren would easily be my preferred candidate. I have major concerns about her practical approach to politics and leadership, but given the way the rest of the field has positioned themselves, she is just significantly better than everyone other than Bernie. However, Bernie is equally significantly better than Warren. The point of the two myths I described is to gloss over the actual significant difference between Warren and Sanders (core political values) and make a big deal about a difference that is completely meaningless (who released policy papers first).

submitted by /u/JalenMoneyMills
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – bernie

Does having both Sanders and Warren running split the progressive vote in two, making it more likely Biden will win?

Donate and support us on Patreon!

I wonder if having both Sanders and Warren running makes it more likely Biden will win? It basically splits the progressive vote into two, while the rest of the people will vote for Biden.

I like Warren a lot as a candidate, but I’m worried she functions like Jill Stein did in the general elections by taking votes away from the leading candidate most likely to beat Biden, Sanders.

In all the polls I’ve seen, if you add Sanders’ s and Warren’s votes together, they add up to the percentage planning to vote for Biden. As the race continues, I’m sure Warren is going to continue to go up in the polls, but it's likely won’t ever get enough to beat Biden and Sanders. So it seems she basically takes votes away from the progressive candidate that actually has a chance at beating Biden.

Now I could be very wrong about this. It’s still so early and a lot could change. But if nothing substantial changes, this is the direction it seems things would go.

submitted by /u/watermelonkiwi
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Biggest Differences in Policy Proposals? – Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren

Donate and support us on Patreon!

I'm wondering what the biggest points of contention between Sanders and Warren are. I am looking for actual policy proposals – I've seen several articles that explain the "big picture" difference between the two (i.e. Warren wants to regulate the private sector more while Sanders wants to push certain industries from the private into the public sector, etc.), but they're usually bereft of specifics, if you know what I mean.

&, if you're so inclined, I would love to know what particular differences in these proposals would make you lean for Sanders over Warren.


submitted by /u/BobbyRye
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes