Question for Anti-Trump Democrats

[ecco]

And in your opinion is it necessary to have a well regulated militia in order that the the right of citizens to keep and bear arms not be infringed?
My opinion is no. That is why I left it out.
However I know that there are those of you who think otherwise, along with the ridiculous idea that the founding fathers only knew about muskets therefore modern weapons are not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

In your opinion, the militia phrase has nothing to do with it, so you decided to omit from the actual words of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, you show complete ignorance of the reasons cited by the five assenting and four dissenting SCOTUS judges in DC v Heller.

After that, there is no reason to continue this conversation.

 

[dianaiad]

I'll not attempt to explain why the organizers banned anti-abortionists.

However, if I were an organizer, I would have banned them because they stand against one of the most basic rights that women have - the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives.

There is no sentiment on the part of the organizers or me forcing women to have abortions. There is complete commitment on the part of anti-abortionists to prevent all women from having any abortions. You do see the difference, don't you?







Actually, some people believe those avenues of discrimination are only against the Right.

I'm one of those. I have seen that liberals do 'get banned.' However, I don't see that any of them have been banned because someone on the 'censor desk' didn't like their politics. I have seen THAT happen only with the right.

Do not make the error of thinking that if some people are banned for justifiable reasons, that none are banned for biased ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

And in your opinion is it necessary to have a well regulated militia in order that the the right of citizens to keep and bear arms not be infringed?
My opinion is no. That is why I left it out.
However I know that there are those of you who think otherwise, along with the ridiculous idea that the founding fathers only knew about muskets therefore modern weapons are not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The militia is cited as a reason.
The left wants to infer a necessary condition.
Apparently you're dishonest for not presenting your argument to their advantage.
Go figure.

 

[ecco]

I was wrong. Liberals have also been banished/banned, when they break other rules. So have conservatives been banned for what I consider to be justifiable reasons.

However, when you look at the number of liberals vs. conservatives who have been, er, 'disciplined,' you will find that the ratio is weighed heavily against conservatives. As in... considerably more conservatives get clobbered than liberals do.

How have you looked at the numbers? Is there a list somewhere that you would care to share?

I didn't have any problems at all, please notice, in giving you a list of conservatives who have had problems with Facebook and Twitter. You, I notice, have had a great deal of difficulty finding liberals who have had to deal with this. The bias is real. As private companies, Facebook and Twitter have the right to do that. I also have the right to point it out.

You have yet to show anyone who was banned etc. without cause. You listed some people who you say were banned but did show how you know this or why they were banned.

What, you have a problem with the conception of 'post removal?" I think that's pretty clear. "Shadow bans' happen when the account is not actually banned, but rather that it becomes very difficult for followers to find it.

this is what happened to "Redneck Logic," which went from eight million followers to almost none, due to Facebook's manipulation of how people find things.

I googled "Redneck Logic," and came up with a bunch of pages about Duck Dynasty.

Also, how do you know he went from eight million followers to almost none? How do you know it was "due to Facebook's manipulation of how people find things"?

You need to get out more. You need to read about the 'other side,' and what someone who doesn't agree with you actually has to say, not simply what those who do agree with you claim they have to say.

Are you "the other side"? All you have done so far is make unsubstantiated claims. Do you suppose I should agree with them? Are you suggesting I watch Hannity or Bannon? I don't.
Why would I? I know that they will state that anything negative about Trump is fake news. This is confirmed when I occasionally pop into FauxNews.

"Diamond and Silk" are two very conservative African American women who had a Facebook site...and Facebook banned them. Since Facebook has since apologized to them, several times, for doing so unjustly, I think that we can simply acknowledge that the ban was unjust. ....and the apologies made clear that it was their politics that caused the problem.

What's your problem. A mistake was made and rectified.

They are quite well known conservative 'bloggers.' Rather famous, actually.

Their following probably increased as a result of being "banned".

Oh, their Facebook page is back, if you want to see what they actually do have to say.

I have no interest in using Facebook. If you get most of your information from Facebook and bloggers, it's easy to understand your worldview.

 

[averageJOE]

What will change voting (D) instead of (R)? Well for one, middle class policies vs capitalist policies.
Voting republican continues the wealth gap. Capitalist policies encourages this. Also, it's wise to not vote for the party that denies the science behind climate change. That's a capitalist position.
What party wants to raise the MW? What party wants clean air and water? What party doesn't like pre-existing conditions?

The parties aren't even close to being the same. The GOP manipulates it's base for republican votes.

I directed the OP to ESTABLISHMENT Democrats. They've also been called Centrists, Moderate, and/or Corporate Democrats. Like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Robert O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden.

Understand that right now there is a split in the Democratic Party. Not a 50/50 split, more like a 90/10 split between the establishment wing and the new progressive wing. Like Ilhan Omar, AOC, Ro Khana, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders (even though he's technically Independent) The Progressives are trying to transform the Democratic Party from the inside (a fools errand if you ask me). These establishment democrats today are who the republicans used to be 20 years ago. And the only difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans don't try to hide the fact that they are only loyal to their donors, the Democrats try and gaslight us to the fact.

Replacing Trump with an establishment Democrat like (let's just pick one because they are all the same) Biden...He puts us back on the Iran deal, puts us back on the INRF Treaty with Russia (good things), back on the PARIS agreement. Great! We are back at zero!

Will he put us at a Living Wage? No. Medicare for All? No. Free college? No. Aggressively fight climate change? No. Biden and any establishment Democrat will NEVER make those changes. Why? Because they passed their new House Rules Package with Pay Go to make all those issues nearly impossible to change. Nancy Pelosi Rams Austerity Provision Into House Rules Package Over Objections of Progressives

Yay Democrats!!!

Will they pull out of Iraq? Most likely not being that Biden voted FOR it. Would they end ANY of the wars? Hell no!

The establishment Democrats don't hate a Trump presidency as much as they want you to think that they do. They benefit greatly from his tax cuts. They are getting just as rich as the Republicans are and would never rock the boat. There is a reason why the establishement Dems do not want someone like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard in the White House. There is a reason why they don't want any more progressives in the House or Senate. Progressives hammer DCCC over blacklist targeting primary challenges Because they threaten to make actual changes. Changes that would remove money from politics, stop allowing giant corporations from controlling laws and politics.

Establishment Democrats are Republican-lite.

 

[Stanyon]

The biggest flaw is that the wording is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

On that I agree but in that case I imagine that the writers of the constitution never dreamed it would be challenged. Fortunately comments by the founding fathers about private ownership are well known giving credence to the idea that the intent of the 2nd amendment did guarantee private ownership of firearms, the Supreme court agreed.
some quotes:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Fewer guns would reduce deaths by gun..

In a country to country basis there are numerous examples where this is not the case, for example:

Brazil in 2012 had ~8.6 guns per 100 inhabitants and racked up 20.7 homicides by gun per 100,000

The U.S. in 2017 had ~120.7 guns per 100 inhabitants and racked up ~4.46 homicides by gun

~14 times less guns yet ~4.5 more murders by people with them

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

 

[Stanyon]

Yes, following a six month grace period for people to turn in their guns. Then severe penalties for people still possessing illegal guns

No. However, the severe penalties for possession might.

What do you consider severe penalties? There are already severe mandatory sentences and fines for felons with firearms.
Since possession of a firearm after confiscation would most likely be charged as a felony are you o.k. with long prison sentences for otherwise law abiding citizens?

I believe that in all of the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Columbine, and Sandy Hook, the guns were legally obtained. I believe that most of the shootings where the killer is known, spousal, relatives, etc. the guns are legally obtained. If there are fewer guns, there will be fewer guns illegally possessed.

There are also cases where mass shootings occurred when the guns were not legally obtained and the shooter known to the authorities as in the case of Nikolas Cruz. He had his guns confiscated and his idiot father got them back and gave them to him.
Timeline of red flags leading up to school shooting | WJLA

but the fact remains that those few who go off the rails for whatever reason make up an extreme minority and do not represent the vast majority of law abiding gun owners therefore I disagree with punishing the many for the acts of the disturbed few and criminalizing otherwise law abiding citizens.

 

[ecco]

There is a reason why the establishement Dems do not want someone like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard in the White House.

As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I wouldn't mind seeing Sanders in the White House.
As a lifelong realist, I recognize that Sanders cannot be elected.
As an observer of the elections of 2004 and 2016 I recognize that people like Nader and Sanders cause great harm to America.

There is a reason why they don't want any more progressives in the House or Senate.

Do we not have more progressives now than we did in 2018?

 

[esmith]

In your opinion, the militia phrase has nothing to do with it, so you decided to omit from the actual words of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, you show complete ignorance of the reasons cited by the five assenting and four dissenting SCOTUS judges in DC v Heller.

After that, there is no reason to continue this conversation.

Oh, I see.
You only like your opinions and if they do not agree you will take your ball and go home.
Seems I ran across something like this in 1950 or so.

 

[ecco]

...

In the following, Stanyon's comments are in black. ecco's responses in red.



some quotes:

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
He also preferred peaceful slavery over dangerous slavery.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
So, now would be a good time to take up arms to show Trump we disapprove of him?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
This was written long before a civilized America got its first police force. We got police forces etc. because society realized that was better than every man for himself.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” Lazarus Long

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
A year later on September 29, 1789, the U.S. Congress passed an act to establish the United States military thereby eliminating the concept of a militia.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

You will notice that all the above were written before the establishment of the Army in September 1789.
If there was such a strong sentiment for and belief in a "militia" why did Congress adopt an Army?

Do you have any pro-civilian militia comments made in 1780 or later?



In a country to country basis there are numerous examples where this is not the case, for example:
Brazil in 2012 had ~8.6 guns per 100 inhabitants and racked up 20.7 homicides by gun per 100,000
The U.S. in 2017 had ~120.7 guns per 100 inhabitants and racked up ~4.46 homicides by gun
~14 times less guns yet ~4.5 more murders by people with them


The slums and poverty in this Country do not compare to the slums and poverty in Brazil. Nevertheless, you make a good argument that fewer slums and less poverty result in fewer homicides. Was that your intent?

 

[ecco]

What do you consider severe penalties? There are already severe mandatory sentences and fines for felons with firearms.
Since possession of a firearm after confiscation would most likely be charged as a felony are you o.k. with long prison sentences for otherwise law abiding citizens?

Yes. Mandatory 20 years.

There are also cases where mass shootings occurred when the guns were not legally obtained and the shooter known to the authorities as in the case of Nikolas Cruz. He had his guns confiscated and his idiot father got them back and gave them to him.

Why would the police give illegal guns back to the father?

ETA: Your linked article says nothing about guns being returned.

but the fact remains that those few who go off the rails for whatever reason make up an extreme minority and do not represent the vast majority of law abiding gun owners therefore I disagree with punishing the many for the acts of the disturbed few and criminalizing otherwise law abiding citizens.

How is not being allowed to possess illegal guns a punishment? I am not allowed to own a rocket launcher, am I? Would you be upset if the Govt took away my rocket launcher?

 

[ecco]

In your opinion, the militia phrase has nothing to do with it, so you decided to omit from the actual words of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, you show complete ignorance of the reasons cited by the five assenting and four dissenting SCOTUS judges in DC v Heller.

After that, there is no reason to continue this conversation.

Oh, I see.
You only like your opinions and if they do not agree you will take your ball and go home.
Seems I ran across something like this in 1950 or so.

Yea, I don't play well with people who intentionally make out-of-context quotes. I get enough of that in discussions with creos.

 

[averageJOE]

As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I wouldn't mind seeing Sanders in the White House.
As a lifelong realist, I recognize that Sanders cannot be elected.
As an observer of the elections of 2004 and 2016 I recognize that people like Nader and Sanders cause great harm to America.



Do we not have more progressives now than we did in 2018?

Sanders not getting elected has nothing to do with not getting enough votes (he's got a massive following of millions of people how want those policies). The biggest enemy to Sanders being elected is the Democrats themselves. As in 2016, and again in 2020, they will do everything they can to make sure he doesn't win the nomination. That is their first order of business, beating Trump is just an after thought.

Harm to America is laughable at best. Because great harm will be brought onto us if the richest and most powerful country in the world provides healthcare and education as a right, living wages to anyone who works, and billionairs paying their fair share of taxes. You know, what EVERY other developed country in the world does.

 

[dianaiad]

.............

Are you "the other side"? All you have done so far is make unsubstantiated claims. Do you suppose I should agree with them? Are you suggesting I watch Hannity or Bannon? I don't.
Why would I? I know that they will state that anything negative about Trump is fake news. This is confirmed when I occasionally pop into FauxNews.



What's your problem. A mistake was made and rectified.

The problem is, it's a mistake that shouldn't have been made in the first place, and there is no record that such mistakes were made when liberal 'bloggers' were involved. It's good that it was rectified. It's evidence of bias that it was done in the first place.

Their following probably increased as a result of being "banned".

Don't put 'banned' in quotes. They were banned. Sans quotes.

I have no interest in using Facebook. If you get most of your information from Facebook and bloggers, it's easy to understand your worldview.

Well, that's interesting. Actually, the only Facebook sites I go to are my own. I have subscribed to several special interest groups: painting, knitting, quilting and multiple myeloma support groups, none of which are political.

I am curious, however....if I am correct and Facebook is biased towards the left, then someone using it as a primary source of news wouldn't have a conservative...or libertarian...world view. Which would leave me out. On the other hand, if you are correct and Facebook is scrupulously fair and unbiased, then someone using it would also have a scrupulously fair and unbiased worldview. In either case, your insult, above, certainly misses the mark.

That you call Fox News "fauxnews" and refuse to go see what conservatives have to say for themselves is pretty strong evidence that you, yourself, have a rather strong bias and are unwilling to look at evidence that might interfere with it. That's fine...you are certainly entitled to it...

But I am also entitled to point out that you ARE as biased towards the left as any conservative you wish to criticize as being 'rightwing biased."

The difference between us, I think, is that I AM willing to go do the research, admit when I'm wrong and have gone off the rails, and I am willing....unhappy about it, but willing...to listen to 'the other side."

Even when doing so makes me want to throw things.

 

[esmith]

Yea, I don't play well with people who intentionally make out-of-context quotes. I get enough of that in discussions with creos.

What you don't seem to understand is that my statement was intentional as an opinion. But I guess you only accept opinions that agree with you.
I see there are kites available on Amazon.

 

[Stanyon]

Yes. Mandatory 20 years.

Currently under federal law, 18 U.S.C 924(e) anyone with a previous felony that is in possession of a firearm faces a sentencing guideline of a mandatory minimum of 15 years. Doesn't seem much more than what is already in place and we still have murder with firearms, the only difference is that those are prior felons vs. prior law abiding citizens. You make no sense either purposely or out of ignorance.

How is not being allowed to possess illegal guns a punishment? I am not allowed to own a rocket launcher, am I? Would you be upset if the Govt took away my rocket launcher?

Ran out of ideas?

Current rules and regulations, please read them:
ATF Home Page | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[Stanyon]

The slums and poverty in this Country do not compare to the slums and poverty in Brazil. Nevertheless, you make a good argument that fewer slums and less poverty result in fewer homicides. Was that your intent?

Now it's about poverty?

You said fewer guns would reduce deaths by gun

Fewer guns would reduce deaths by gun.

I showed where this clearly was not the case in reality

Wouldn't it be more wise to adjust your narrative to fit the facts instead of trying to make the facts fit your narrative?

 

[ecco]

Sanders not getting elected has nothing to do with not getting enough votes (he's got a massive following of millions of people how want those policies). The biggest enemy to Sanders being elected is the Democrats themselves. As in 2016, and again in 2020, they will do everything they can to make sure he doesn't win the nomination. That is their first order of business, beating Trump is just an after thought.

1. I don't think an "Independent" should be allowed to run on the Democratic Ticket.
2. Rest assured, beating Trump is priority one.

Sanders cannot get enough votes nationwide to beat Trump. He couldn't even get enough votes from Democrats to win the nomination.

Harm to America is laughable at best. Because great harm will be brought onto us if the richest and most powerful country in the world provides healthcare and education as a right, living wages to anyone who works, and billionairs paying their fair share of taxes. You know, what EVERY other developed country in the world does.

One must be mindful that not everyone understands that some posts are tongue in cheek.

 

[ecco]

Well, that's interesting. Actually, the only Facebook sites I go to are my own. I have subscribed to several special interest groups: painting, knitting, quilting and multiple myeloma support groups, none of which are political.

You are the one who knew about the apparently very political Diamond and Silk. Were people in your knitting group complaining about how they were being treated so unfairly?

Shadow bans and post removals are included here, as well as outright bans...from Facebook and Twitter:
Diamond and Silk

I am curious, however....if I am correct and Facebook is biased towards the left, then someone using it as a primary source of news wouldn't have a conservative...or libertarian...world view. Which would leave me out. On the other hand, if you are correct and Facebook is scrupulously fair and unbiased, then someone using it would also have a scrupulously fair and unbiased worldview. In either case, your insult, above, certainly misses the mark.

Seriously? Let's exaggerate and hypothesize that Facebook, the company, is 80/20 liberal. Let's exaggerate and hypothesize that Facebook users are 80/20 liberal. That leaves over 400 million Conservative Facebook users who pass around conservative "news"? So, I stand by my comment about news sources.

That you call Fox News "fauxnews" and refuse to go see what conservatives have to say for themselves is pretty strong evidence that you, yourself, have a rather strong bias and are unwilling to look at evidence that might interfere with it. That's fine...you are certainly entitled to it...

You sound like the fundie theists telling folks that they "just need to open their eyes and see the glory of god".

How many times do I need to hear Trump yell "Fake News" to know that he will yell "Fake News" anytime someone says something about him that he doesn't like? How many times do I need to turn on Fox to know they will agree with him?

How many times do I need to hear someone on Fox complain about the horrors of ACA before I realize that that's all I'm going to hear from Fox. By the way, I didn't coin "Faux News" but it is appropriate.

But I am also entitled to point out that you ARE as biased towards the left as any conservative you wish to criticize as being 'rightwing biased."

OK. What's your point? Are you admitting that you are a very biased rightwing conservative?

The difference between us, I think, is that I AM willing to go do the research, admit when I'm wrong and have gone off the rails, and I am willing....unhappy about it, but willing...to listen to 'the other side."

As I said above, I already know what the other side is going to say. Want an example? I haven't watched Fox for at least a week. I'd venture to say they supported Trump's decision to completely close the border with Mexico. I'd venture to say that NOW they are supporting Trump's decision to wait a year before imposing 25% tariffs on cars and then closing the border.

Even when doing so makes me want to throw things.

Then why bother? You just made it clear that listening to "the librul media" upsets you. You aren't listening to the other side with an open mind, you watch the librul media to feed your anger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sanders cannot get enough votes nationwide to beat Trump.

This isn't known.

He couldn't even get enough votes from Democrats to win the nomination.

He was beating Hillary in some states.
But the DNC had it rigged against him, eg, super-delegates for Hillary having greater power.
Had the primary contest been fair, he might've beaten her.
He might have even become President.
(He'd have gotten my vote instead of Trump.)