Why are ex-Bernie Sanders fans refusing to listen to him now?

Because we know that the DNC required him to officially endorse Clinton in order to participate in the convention, and that he has not conceded.

We feel that the DNC should change their minds, because not only is Bernie better than Clinton in 1000 ways, but he is much more likely to beat Trump.

We don’t believe that he is actually meaning for us to support Clinton over him. Not wanting Trump is just “no duh”. We resent the DNC and Clinton for forcing him to “endorse” Clinton in order to participate, just as we endorse them for all the other abuses of power and corrupt money.

We particularly resent people who write, as you just did, “Why they HAVE to back Hillary.” We’ve already had way more than enough of that message, that we’re well beyond the point of “we will never back Hillary”.

As for Angie’s points:

First, it is 100% false that he was threatened.
How on Earth does Angie know that? Given the constant bullshit coming out of establishment media and from the DNC, and the myriad of stories of Clinton manipulation tactics, and the nature of money & power influence, the evidence seems strongly in favor of massive dishonest pressure and abuse of power being used. When we consult what Bernie said before the endorsement, and reports from people closer to Sanders, and posts about historical precedents such as FDR, there is 0% chance I am going to believe Angie posting that this is 100% false.

Second, no, there is nothing that is going to indict Hillary or keep her from becoming president.
Again, totally unbelievable, given the quality of establishment reporting, the favoritism seen everywhere, and what we experienced during the primary. We believe the primary was not only unfair but rigged. We’ve seen enough that we want actual investigations and proof otherwise.

Third, Bernie Sanders will not run for third-party no matter what, for the same reason that he endorsed Hillary Clinton: he made a promise not to run third-party. He is an honest man, and he will not break that promise.
Given that I place 0% faith in his “endorsement” of Clinton, and that Clinton and the DNC have been dishonest, we feel Sanders can have full integrity and honesty without breaking such a promise to cheaters who didn’t do anywhere near their duties. e.g. The DNC is supposed to be impartial in selecting the best DNC candidate, and this clearly was not what it did – in fact, it looks like they not only utterly favored Clinton throughout, and despite of Sanders being the best against Trump, they seem also to have interfered with the process in many ways that are or should be illegal.

People who are true supporters of Bernie Sanders will respect his hard work on the DNC platform, because of him it is the most progressive they have ever had in the history of their existence, and the only way it (which is 80% of everything Bernie was fighting for to begin with for us) can get into the White House and all of his hard work have a chance at coming to fruition is if we make sure Clinton gets into the White House.
80% is shit, when the 20% contains TPP/TPIP, fracking, for-profit prisons, warmongering, etc etc etc. We are pissed at people who suggest that we aren’t honoring Bernie if we don’t give up what we care about to support the corrupt scumbags who are in the pocket of corrupt world-poisoning corporations. As for the other “80%”, I don’t trust Clinton to actually follow through except where she needs to or it is politically expedient.

Bernie Sanders has effectively set up Clinton for political betrayal she does not make good on her promises to adhere to the D&C platform that Bernie helped create, and it would guarantee she would be denied a second term if she failed to implement those things on the platform. HRC is a lot of things, but she is not stupid.
Ok great. If Sanders has a plan where he feels he’ll be most effective inside the Democratic party, cool beans. Still no freakin’ way many of us are supporting Clinton for president.

If Clinton does not get into the White House, we have slapped Bernie Sanders in the face and turned our back on him like traitors.
We don’t agree at all on that.

There is no way a third-party can win this late in the election year, even Ralph Nader, king of third parties, has said that.
Which is a sucky belief about our sucky voting system and our sucky corrupt political parties, and the level of buy-in there. Still not enough to have many of us vote for Clinton over Stein.

People have become delusional at a psychotic level, as in, unable to grasp reality, when it comes to our love for Bernie Sanders, and we need to become more sane and wise up at what is really happening.
We disagree and are annoyed by this message, too.

The reason Bernie Sanders is keeping his delegates to go to Philadelphia is because he wants to hold the DNCs feet to the fire the way he did Hillary Clinton’s feet to the fire in order to get the concessions for the platform, and he wants to go further and change the rules of the DNC so that superdelegates are closer to being eliminated and anyone of any party can vote in a primary from now on.
Ok, I’m sure that’s a secondary goal to being the nominee, and perhaps far more “likely”. Sanders supporters are sick of corruption and bullshit. By now, because of how the DNC, the media, and Clinton and her campaigners have behaved during the primary, and because we want honest actually-democratic actually-progressive non-corrupt representation, we are not having corrupt bullshit any more. Clinton and the current DNC have disqualified themselves from credibility by their own words and actions. They are irredeemable. By being honest and progressive and showing up for the party that pretends to be more progressive, we will make it more progressive and continue to call out the corruption and bullshit. The stains Clinton and the DNC have from this primary don’t just wash out. And we don’t stop speaking the truth just because we’re afraid a racist clown in an orange toupee might beat the corrupt lying sleazebag progressive-ish-y-when-convenient “out only choice” Clinton.

Bottom line: Bernie is not going to run third-party, he is not going to win at the convention, he has no intention of doing so, and you don’t have to like Hillary, but you damn well better respect what Bernie Sanders has done on your behalf, and you are throwing it all away if you do not make sure that Hillary Clinton gets into office so that she can implement the things that she has pledged to implement of Bernie’s platform.
What a sick attempt to twist our “respect” for Sanders into a requirement to support Clinton. I love seeing how much that is failing every time I log into Facebook. The person who believes Clinton’s “pledges” is the delusional one.

Can. Of. Worms.

I agree with your Angie, @Dutchess_III, and I find it obnoxious that people who trusted him enough to have him be POTUS don’t trust him now. The high horse “standing on principles” and “voting my conscience” crowd smacks of privilege. Jill Stein, although quite an admirable person, has no chance of winning the election. She couldn’t win a gubernatorial election, she couldn’t win previous attempts as president, she won’t win now.
How does that saying go? “The only thing that evil needs to flourish is for good people to sit by and do nothing.”

The issue has become prevention. My conscience will have me voting prevention. No, it’s not ideal for anyone, but I don’t think Clinton is a demon, and there’s more at stake here.

The damage that the Orange Man could do to international relations could last decades and cause unimaginable harm. SCOTUS positions are for life. Do we want him appointing guys like Pence to the Supreme Court? And how many decades will he set back basic citizen rights for women? Brown people? Non Christians? And Congress. Are they going to vote for the outliers running for congressional seats as well to prove some kind of point? The office of POTUS has term limits. Others don’t.

As many articles as I see someone post about how Nader supporters didn’t influence the Bush-Gore outcome, I see twice as many that discuss how they did. Google it, some might be surprised.

Waiting for the white, privileged, “I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils” folks to come aboard now, not gonna stay for that, I’ve heard it all before.

Good Q, @Dutchess_III.

^I’m going to give my opinion and call people names, then stick my fingers in my ears?

^GA… Can’t wait to try that on the new girlfriend.

@Dutchess_III: “Why are ex-Bernie Sanders fans refusing to listen to him now?”

I supported Bernie for what he has fought for and what he proposed. I didn’t adopt positions because of something Bernie has said. Does that help? In other words, I wouldn’t vote for Clinton because Bernie told me to.

@canidmajor – The Nader myth is a matter of pure math and logic. It requires the elimination of both in order to subscribe to it.

And as for “privilege” – it’s strange to hear cries of privilege coming from the “vote for Clinton” crowd. Do we really need to rehash how a vote for Clinton is the very definition of privilege?

EDIT: Also, let me just state that I’m not an ex Bernie Sanders fan. I still support him and his efforts.

I don’t have the patience to read that long posting. So I’ll answer with my analysis to your question.

The Bernie backers, by and large, are ideologues. People who latch onto something as an ideal, no matter how unrealistic it is. As a rule, they’re younger, but that doesn’t matter. it’s more likely that they are relative neophytes to the political world. They don’t have a history or understanding of political compromise.

In their own way, this disaffected bunch of Bernie backers is quite similar to the early stages of the Tea Party – they were for an ideal, even though the ideal was totally unrealistic. And they held onto that even as the Tea Party movement morphed around them. Yes, I am drawing a parallel between the Bernie fundamentalists and the Tea Party.

So now, Bernie, a politician, knows how the political game has to be played. His backers, however, do not.

I’m guessing it’s because blindly trusting anyone is something most Sanders supporters (and, probably, Sanders) are not likely to do.

Not sure this will link

https://i.redd.it/iea9soh1eu8x.jpg

Just because I supported Bernie for POTUS does not mean I answer to him or that I have to obey his call. What is this? Religion?

I will never vote for Hillary. Never.

Well, I refuse to believe that Clinton has done anything to warrant indictment, just because a bunch people say she has, republicans who are trying to pull the votes away from her…and, obviously, it’s working. She’s been cleared. I think she will make a respectable president. Maybe not the best, but better than Bush, and immeasurably better than Trump. Those are our only two choices. Sure, there are others you can vote for but they will not win.

I don’t go in deep enough to actually know things for sure, but Bernie supports her and President Obama supports her. That’s going to to be good enough for me.

@Zaku ”First, it is 100% false that he was threatened.” How on Earth does Angie know that? How does anyone know that he WAS?

Watch the video I posted at the end of the post. I haven’t seen it because I don’t want to disable my ad blocker. She said it’s about 5 minutes long, and will answer a lot of questions.

“How does anyone know that he WAS?”
– I’ve seen several different sources (none with any authority other than not being pro-Clinton media) saying various versions of how the DNC and/or its “rules” require Sanders to endorse Clinton at this point in order to keep his status with the DNC and/or have his delegates appear as delegates, etc., and that he as not actually resigned. This after Sanders himself promised he still had a chance of being the nominee and would show up at the convention for that chance as well as to influence the party on the issues, etc. I haven’t seen anyone, except possibly “Angie” refute that. I think maybe the only difference is what Angie considered a threat per se. Seems to me when you require someone to make a public statement or else their status will be severely affected, that that counts as a threat. I also would not at all put it past the big-money sources for Clinton to make other threats – and the only reason I might not expect them not to make violent threats is due to risk and less effectiveness compared to all the political and other indirect threats they can make.

She honestly may have done something to warrant indictment. So what? The alternative is Trump. The choice couldn’t be any more clear.

We literally had a candidate whose platform was “Feed the hungry, care for the sick, and stop all the stupid wars” and we couldn’t count on the American public to nominate him.

At this point, you idiots deserve whatever you get. I don’t know what I’m voting in November. If it were an option my vote would be “No Confidence”.

I’m just going to leave this here.

It’s worth the read whatever your Bernie/Hillary stance. Seriously.

@Darth_Algar It’s a nice article. I’ve been a fan ever since her Women’s Rights are Human Rights speech nearly 20 years ago.

Even with that, I was wavering as a possible Johnson supporter as I live in California and I agree with @DoNotKnowMuch that we need a robust third party. However, I just found out about Johnson’s view on vaccines so I’m back squarely in the Clinton camp.

@Seek Yep.

@Seek wow. So you’re calling me names now?

::eyeroll::

Yes. You’re also a doo-doo head. And a nerdbomber. Nanny-nanny boo boo.

@Zaku can you please hook me up with the sources you cite as listing “requirements” for Sanders to endorse Clinton?

Excellent article @Darth_Algar. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock….
I have found this to be unbelievably true. People often start out with “But everybody knows….”

@Dutchess_III Mostly it’s Facebook spew, which is hard to track down because there’s so much of it, and unless I copy it to a file or share it, it becomes quite hard to find anything. I did a scan, copying quotes, but then I visited the Snopes article on the subject , which contained most of the things I had seen, except for the background that a week or two before the endorsement, Sanders pledged to keep fighting through the convention, and there were stories about how the DNC was rejecting all of Sanders’ platform points that differed from Clinton, was not opposing the TPP, and then news reports before it happened, that Sanders had endorsed Clinton.

All that seems clear is that there was a negotiation, where Sanders said he was endorsing Clinton, but did not officially concede the campaign for nomination, and that Clinton’s support for some of his platform points, and the participation of Sanders’ delegates, were in one way or another part of that negotiation. There seems to be no official language about it being a threat, a rule or a requirement, but then if Sanders said “I’m endorsing Clinton but only under threat”, that wouldn’t be doing his part. So while we can’t claim there was an explicit threat, it still feels effectively like coercion.

I think he endorsed her after insisting that she include many of his own proposals in her platform, in writing and in front of witnesses. So maybe the shoe was on the other foot. Maybe he threatened not to endorse her if she didn’t.

Yes. Wasn’t it Bourne and/or Khan who said something about diplomacy being warfare in disguise.

I wouldn’t go around insisting to friends that it was 100% false that Clinton was threatened by Sanders with not endorsing her if she didn’t adopt his policies. In fact, I agree there is an element of threat to both sides of that negotiation.

But of course, that’s the point. The Sanders endorsement isn’t a concession of the nomination, and it’s not a genuine endorsement. Similarly, we don’t believe Clinton is a real supporter of the points she conceded. Which gets back to the answer of why we aren’t turning into Clinton supporters because of what Sanders said in the most disappointing part of that speech.

Well Trump would be far more of a disappointment.

Yeah… Ex Bernie supporters? I still support him, strongly, but that doesn’t mean I have to do everything he does. I have my own and beliefs and Clinton is just more of the same. And seriously… Not voting for her reeks of privilege? Please. The candidate we supported would have done everything in his power to make America an even playing field. Clinton won’t. Not even close.

Speaking of privilege, the two candidates we have left who are being forced down our throats both reek of privilege. Privilege that Bernie was fighting against.

Well, it’s going to be one of the the two.

Yes, I would have voted for Bernie too, but that point is moot. And I stand with him when he ways that we MUST keep Trump out of the White House. There is only one way to do that.

People are being myopic if they don’t believe getting these concessions was Bernie’s plan all along. He didn’t enter this race with the aim of actually winning the nomination. He entered it to pull the Democratic party more towards his side of the left and to lay a foundation upon which further progressive policies can be built. You’re not sticking with him by refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee. You’re not sticking with him by insisting that he run on a third party. You’re not accomplishing anything by impotently voting for Jill Stein or anyone else. Frankly, all you’re doing is undermining what Bernie Sanders, the man that you claim to support, has accomplished so far.

Bernie Sanders knows how the game is played. It’s too bad so many of his followers don’t.

Hear, hear, @Darth_Algar! I think you nailed it. May I share?

I, for one, will back Bernie’s play.

@Dutchess_III ” May I share?”

Feel free to.

@Darth_Algar: “It’s too bad so many of his followers don’t.”

I suspect that all of his followers do.