Should Sanders be given a speaking slot at the DNC if he refuses to endorse

[IceSpear]

No, but he's obviously going to endorse her eventually.

[IceSpear]

Yes. He ran a competitive campaign, won over 20 state contests, and has several million followers, many of whom are still on the fence as to whether they can even vote for Clinton in good conscience (I personally cannot and will not). Whether he endorses the nominee or not, he should have a chance to make his case and list the concessions he would like to see from the nominee before he can encourage his followers to vote Clinton. It is also worth pointing out that Clinton does not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright, and therefore even if Sanders trashes Clinton, he should still get a speaking slot, because he deserves to be able to make his case to the superdelegates. Yes, Clinton is ahead (via questionable campaign tactics and overwhelming establishment backing), but she has not hit 2,383 outright, and Sanders continues to poll better than her against Trump, along with the fact that he is from the scandal of indictment.

Jfern, is that you?

But muh general election polls! Polls do not translate into votes.

No, he should absolutely NOT be given a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention if he doesn't endorse the nominee. Take your ball and go speak at the Green Party National Convention. Jill Stein would love to have you there, even though she thinks you're too conservative to call yourself a socialist. Lol

Your same argument above could have been used eight years ago; of course, had Hillary NOT endorsed Obama, she would have been put on the guillotine. Once again, the double standard is beyond sickening. Hillary won the nomination fair and square. You sound like a sore loser just trying to cry foul because your candidate lost. Better luck next time, kiddo.

Bernie Sanders only became a "Democrat" because he knew there was no way for him to win as an independent or to hitch his wagon to the Jill Stein Train. He talks about how both parties are corrupt and entities of Wall Street and yet he sought to exploit the party for his own benefit. He's also hoping to be on the ticket with her, which raises the question, "Why would he want to be on the same ticket with someone so corrupt and morally bankrupt as Hillary Clinton," as you and others in the Jfern Asylum have repeatedly whined.

As for the superdelegates, Bernie should have done his homework before deciding to run as a Democrat. Political parties have every right to make their own convention rules; if you don't like it, you can either run under a different party or seek to change the rules for future elections, which seems to be what Sanders is attempting to do now, and that's all fine and dandy by me. Sanders talks about how the system is rigged because of the superdelegates, but now you're suggesting that he should be given a speaking slot at the convention to try to convince those same cheating superdelegates who are rigging the system to basically overturn the will of the voters and back a candidate who is behind in the popular vote and who is behind in the pledged delegates? Can you say, "hypocrite?" That's really an insult to everyone, including myself, who cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. When will you all on the far left learn that everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton was not bribed by Wall Street to vote for her? I'm sure that's a conspiracy theory being floated out there in the fantasy land of The Young Turks/Daily Kos/Reddit.

Your argument for why he should be given a speaking slot is just weak, sour (and salty) grapes and merits little credibility.

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.

B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.

C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.

D.) Parties can set rules for the convention as they please, but they should keep in mind that Sanders has amassed a giant movement behind him and if we feel our candidate has been cheated and/or that the ultimate Democratic nominee is insufficiently progressive, your candidate will be the one who loses millions of potential voters to another candidate.

Obama did not have a majority of pledged delegates either. Nor would any candidate in a remotely contested race due to the fact that superdelegates make up so much of the total. This is a nonsensical argument.

And you kind of prove the point here that Bernie loses leverage every day. It was at its peak on June 7th, but after Hillary clinched the nomination and got endorsements from Obama/Biden/Warren etc., Trump imploded, and Hillary surged in the polls, many of the Bernie supporters are already beginning to rally around her. As time passes, more and more will gradually do so. Soon the only people who are left will be those that are so deranged with Hillary hatred (like you) that his endorsement would mean nothing to them, and even being on the ticket would mean nothing to them since it would just mean he "sold out." Meaning his endorsement would then be effectively worthless.

[IceSpear]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

"Me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton no matter what! Stein 2016!"

"If Clinton doesn't do X, Y, and Z, me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton! Stein 2016!"

I see you aren't very skilled in the art of negotiation.