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

[Lyin' Steve]

He shouldn't be given a speaking slot period.  At some point you have to draw the line and say his behavior thus far has been sufficiently unacceptable.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

Oh my god we got another Bernie child on the forum.  And he's more lucid than jfern.

Let's see how long it takes before he just starts insulting everyone like Chickenhawk and all those Bernie surrogates on twitter.  I'm guessing about twenty posts.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

The thing is, people remember McCarthy and Brown as tremendous assholes for what they did.  Nobody today remembers Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign fondly, he's remembered as bitter, petulant, and caught up in a one-sided feud with Clinton that Clinton couldn't care less about.  Eugene McCarthy's 1968 temper tantrum is the case study everyone points to for how someone could completely screw up a convention and presidential race, and he had far more of a case than Bernie given that the race was in complete flux after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.  The only reason Ted Kennedy isn't viewed as negatively is because most people are aware that Carter was a dick to Kennedy throughout his presidency.

What is Bernie's justification for going to the convention?  Clinton has been extraordinarily kind and gentle with him throughout the primary process, not running a single attack ad against him.  His claims of the party stealing the nomination from him and being unfair to him or not respecting his supporters are just a bunch of insubstantial fluff and he knows it.  McCarthy and Kennedy at least had motivations for refusing to endorse.  What is Bernie's motivation?  Is he just Jerry Brown '92 redux?  That's the most irritating thing about his issuing of demands and his insistence on going through to the convention.  He doesn't seem to have any actual good reason to do it other than that he wants attention (a.k.a. "the movement must survive", "the revolution must continue", whatever) or, as the Politico article inside his campaign revealed, that he's just bitter and angry at Hillary Clinton and the DNC in a one-sided way.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

They think we only voted for Hillary because we were poorly informed or misinformed and didn't know enough about Hillary and Bernie to realize that Bernie is jesus and Hillary is the devil.

In reality, since we both have thousands of posts on Atlas and don't hide in a Reddit echo chamber, we're probably far more informed than most of the Bernie supporters, and we're both well aware of Hillary's flaws and Bernie's strengths.  And yet we voted for Hillary anyway.  We must just hate America.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?  We're only talking about an endorsement prior to the convention here, after the convention it's less than useless because he'll have already robbed Hillary of her convention bump by causing (or passively permitting, more his style, which is as good as causing) discord and mayhem.  Sanders has repeatedly promised to "take this fight to the convention."

EDIT because you edited your post.  Saying that Hillary is better than the Republicans and that Trump is terrible is NOT the same as an endorsement or saying he'll endorse her.  In particular, if he continues to avoid saying that he was wrong and Hillary isn't actually an evil corporate shill like he's been telling everyone she is since October, he's letting his supporters continue to think that, which is going to lead a lot of them to stay home or vote for third party candidates.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?

Dead wrong.

"...On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Sanders

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she and Bernie Sanders' campaigns have "been reaching out to each other" and that both Democrats will eventually unite to defeat Republican Donald Trump in November.

Are you saying Hillary Clinton was lying about this?

You are very naive if you think that Sanders 'taking this to the convention' is the same thing as what Ted Kennedy did in 1980.  But it fits the narrative you are trying to push, so I understand.  You just deserve to be called out on the disingenuous concern trolling, that's all.

I think Bernie gave Hillary one impression and then wanted to give the public a different impression.  What's actual going on in his head, we may never know.  But it's not unreasonable to assume that he won't endorse her.

I never said it was the same thing as Kennedy in 1980, in fact I said the opposite.  I said it was most similar to Jerry Brown's pigheadedness in 1992.

And you absolutely ignored what I said about how saying Hillary is better than Trump isn't an endorsement.  Completely ignored it.  Sad!

[Lyin' Steve]

And you absolutely ignored what I said about how saying Hillary is better than Trump isn't an endorsement.  Completely ignored it.  Sad!

Try to extrapolate from this.

Are you drunk or something?  What does his 1996 endorsement of Bill have to do with anything?

[Lyin' Steve]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

Look kid, your guy tried and he lost, you don't have a divine right to get what you want no matter what.  The election is Clinton vs. Trump, pick one side or the other.  You don't always get to have your personal perfect candidate to vote for.  If this wasn't your first election maybe you'd understand that that's not how politics works.  Your chance to get that candidate was in the primaries.  There's a whole cottage industry out there of fake candidates who exist only to take advantage of people like you for attention; Jill Stein is just one of them, and she doesn't even represent your views anyway because your views probably include the president being sane, mature, and capable of running the country.

I feel like these Bernie children don't even understand what the presidency is.  It's not some page of a history book where you stamp your manifesto.  It's an actual job that requires a massive toolbox of skills and experiences to perform competently.  By wasting your vote on Donald Trump or Jill Stein you're not just saying "oh I agree with some views of this person", you're saying "I think this person should sit in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next for years, speak for the entire country, navigate the most challenging and risky situations and make tremendously difficult and consequential decisions on my behalf."  You know perfectly well, deep down, that Hillary Clinton is the candidate you would feel most comfortable having in that position, no matter how much you try to immaturely delude yourself otherwise.

Your vote has tremendous consequences that reach across the entire planet.  Helping Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein indicates a refusal to accept not just reality but also the consequences of your actions.  You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's some noble decision all you like but in your heart you know that if Trump were to win by one vote and people suffered as a result, you would regret it until the day you died.

[Lyin' Steve]

Even though I loathe you,

Who are you?  I don't even recognize your name.

I don't understand why you're getting that worked up about this for people who don't live in crucial states.

The conversation I'm having isn't so much about this kid personally as about the mentality in general.  It's not my mission to convince one Jill Stein supporter to flip his vote; rather, by having the conversation I want to put in writing how I've been feeling about the entire mess.  And hopefully in a way that's convincing and makes sense.

The internet can make me seem unhinged because I often write in an aggressive, provocative way, but I promise you I'm not worked up about this.  Atlas is just a pastime.