BS: "We will be taking on [...] the establishment wing of the Democratic party"

[KitSileya]

Link to tweet

The screencap is from an email on medicare for all, and @analogbear has posted screencaps of the whole email on his twitter.

This was doing the rounds on twitter today, and I was surprised no one had posted it to DU. I cannot see that it has been debunked anywhere, and if it is true, it certainly shows BS in a very bad light - that he would equate the Democratic party (even if he qualifies it with the "establishment wing" thereof, which is such bullshit) with the Republican party and drug companies.


[Edited to add: this is an email sent after the recent defeat of the Republican death care proposal, and cannot therefore be alerted as re-fighting the primaries.]

[Voltaire2]

1. You do understand that the "establishment wing" of the Democratic Party has opposed

medicare for all for the last 25 years or so, and continues to oppose it? We cannot achieve this goal without fighting those who oppose it.

[KitSileya]

2. He wants to fight the Democratic party as we are fighting for our lives against nazis

That is what I understand. I understand that John Conyers has been introducing legislation for over a decade, that Hillary Clinton tried to do health care in 1993, yet BS wasn't fully on board. That is what I understand.

[yardwork]

6. Oh really? Do tell. I was there at the time.

Go ahead. Tell us what happened in the 90s.

[m-lekktor]

37. so was I. she was not trying for single payer.

Please. I don't feel like arguing this nonsense i am deleting my comment.

[yardwork]

39. That's not what your post said. It's good it was deleted.

[Demsrule86]

23. It was single payer.

Once in office, Bill Clinton quickly set up the Task Force on National Health Care Reform,[7] headed by First Lady Hillary Clinton, to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. He delivered a major health care speech to a joint session of Congress on September 22, 1993.[8] In that speech, he explained the problem:

Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings. Millions more are locked into the jobs they have now just because they or someone in their family has once been sick and they have what is called the preexisting condition. And on any given day, over 37 million Americans—most of them working people and their little children—have no health insurance at all. And in spite of all this, our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation, and the United States spends over a third more of its income on health care than any other nation on Earth.

From Wiki.

[m-lekktor]

36. that is vague, it does not say single payer. If I remember it was called managed health care.

I don't recall mention of them wanting to do away with insurance companies back then. I am gonna delete my comment. I don't feel like arguing with people on here today.

[Demsrule86]

98. I am not going to parse words here...an attempt was made to put every US citizen on

a single payer plan...it failed then and would fail today. Of course being out of power, we can enact nothing at the moment. Work towards fixing the ACA...it is our only logical move.

[Eliot Rosewater]

165. Nah, it is more productive to argue within the party, thus guaranteeing continued reign by the GOP

oh wait, that's fucking dumb as hell.

Shit, I made a mistake, that is INSANE.

Who would want that? Who would risk not taking back power to argue single payer or nothing?

WHO would do THAT?

[Demsrule86]

201. People who don't understand that winning is the only thing that can save the Democratic Party and

Americans...the Dem Party is the only mechanism for progressive policy. And I don't believe we will ever have single payer personally.

[m-lekktor]

61. It was called "managed competition" this 1993 NYT article discusses it

if you care to look.

Managed competition is still, as Mr. Clinton's political adviser James Carville puts it, a term that "no person has ever heard of, only intellectual forces." And it has its critics, including those who call it a kind of Insurance Industry Preservation Act and those who question whether it alone will truly control medical costs. But it has gained a wide following in recent years.

In theory, it would band employers and individuals into large cooperatives to purchase health insurance, giving small businesses and individuals the same bargaining power as big companies. On the other end, it would force doctors, hospitals and insurers to form partnerships that would compete for the cooperatives' business, each trying to offer the highest-quality but least-expensive health plan.


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/28/business/hillary-clinton-s-potent-brain-trust-on-health-reform.html?pagewanted=all

[Demsrule86]

90. You can call it what you want it was single payer...the only one that we ever had a chance at. There

will never be single payer in this country. We will end up with a different form...perhaps the Switzerland type...who knows. There are more examples of universal coverage that are not single payer than single payer in Europe and other countries. Medicare for all is our only chance for single payer...little bit at a time. A big single payer bill will fail and there will be electoral losses if it is attempted. Certainly, we have no power to enact legislation at this moment.

[Warren DeMontague]

189. No, health care in 93 was not single payer, it was never proposed as single payer.

A lot of us were out there yelling "single payer" at the time, but instead they came back with this monstrously complex thing that also had no chance at passing.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3600/text

[Demsrule86]

199. I would bet my bottom dollar, we will not get single payer in this country...we may eventually have

a public option and some lowering of medicare...our system will resemble European system...and it will be done gradually when we get back in power...you try to do it now...you hand the GOP and issue and a win in 18 and 20. The plan Hillary devised was great and would have moved this country forward...but many of you refuse to acknowledge the good she has done...there are thousands of kids alive today because of chip. I consider the 93 healthcare plan universal coverage...now you can split hairs if you want, if it doesn't fit yours or Bernie's definition of single payer. If you go for it now...the GOP loses the ownership of their heinous healthcare bill which help them and we assume it which hurts us. And why when we are out of power? Run on fixing the ACA and adding a public option and use the lowering of the medicare age to 55 as a way to stabilize the markets which it would help with...lets be smart about this. There will never be a huge single payer bill that passes and if we try...we lose. I am not of the opinion that a British style single payer would work in this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

200. The GOP will never pass a flat tax, either. Doesn't stop them from talking about it.

It's time to move the "overton window" back in the other direction.

[Voltaire2]

11. Conyers is part of the progressive caucus.

You seem to think that there are no factions within the party. There are. There is a center right "establishment" faction that has been dominant for the las 25 years or so, and there is a center left "progressive" faction. Conyers is part of the latter, Clinton the former. One of the dividing issues is healthcare policy. The center right faction opposes Medicare for all and favors subsidy and mandate approaches like the ACA.

[Demsrule86]

30. I don't give a damn...if we follow this , we lose. Learn to exist in a big tent party. It is our

only path to power. You don't try to enact controversial legislation when you are out of power. It is a form of political suicide to open yourself to attacks from the other side when you can't enact the policy you are advocating for a long time. The attacks began on the floor of Congress during the repeal and replace fight...when McConnell offered an amendment for single payer...And what you call progressives ( I am progressive and disagree completely with Sen. Sanders) are a minority faction in our party at best if they are even in our party some are Greens. We know this based on the 16 election.

[Chemisse]

58. I agree.

I would love to have single payer, but it's not going to happen this way. And the Dem party will be hurt in the process.

[Demsrule86]

95. Strengthening the Democratic party is our only chance to fight back against the pernicious GOP

agenda. The only vehicle of progressive parties and liberal courts is the Democratic Party.

[murielm99]

204. You don't get to parse the party, or

decide who belongs to what faction. Fuck this faction business. We are a big tent. Work within that framework. You don't get to rewrite history either, over who supported what for healthcare policy. Alternate facts are for republicans.

I am sick of so-called progressives telling us that we are establishment if we do not fall on the right place on their purity scale. You don't get to tell me I am center-right if I want to work to improve the ACA. Some of you who are shouting about this are only doing it because BS is telling you it is right. And some of you are the same people who believe we should try to entice white working class males to our side, even at the expense of women's reproductive choice on our platform and in our candidates. Fuck that, too.

The republicans love this. It keeps our side divided. Fortunately, most Democrats have more sense than this. They see how the ACA is working, and want to keep it. They see that the far left represents only a small fraction of the electorate. They will vote accordingly in 2018.

Many of the sensible democrats also see, as I do, that most of you so-called progressives will be gone in 2-5 years. You will not get instant results. Other Democrats will not bow down and worship your idols or roll over for your pie-in-the-sky ideas. They might want to: COMPROMISE. If you experience setbacks, and you will, most of you will go home. The people who have always worked to build the party will still be here, doing whatever it takes.

[Voltaire2]

208. I don't? Sure I do.

But whatever. Conyers is a member of the progressive caucus, that is simply a fact. Every new session of congress he introduces the house version of medicare for all in conjunction with the equivalent bill Sanders introduces in the Senate.

The center right establishment prefers programs like the ACA.

[murielm99]

210. Conyers has been introducing that bill all by himself

since 2003. Only as time has passed has it acquired sponsors. Sanders has only been a Senator for ten years, so he has NOT been introducing a health care bill in the Senate since 2003!

Conyers, a Democrat, acts all by himself. He does not need to do anything "in conjunction with" BS, an independent.

Stop making it look like Bernie has done everything "progressive" since the wheel was invented. There are a lot of Democrats who know better. Bernie is late the the party on this one.

Conyers is the last person who wants to see Obama's legacy destroyed. There are many reasons why he introduces HR 676 every year, but it is not because he wants to divide our party or succeed in passing a liberal version of repeal and replace.

If I were to ask Conyers where he stands in the party, and tell him how you divide us into fragments, he would laugh at you, and you would deserve it.

[lapucelle]

209. If Clinton is part of the "center right establishment" faction of the Democratic Party,

then why did the Congressional Progressive Caucus members overwhelmingly endorse her for the nomination in 2015-2016?

And why does OnTheIssues.org give her a "hardcore liberal" rating?

[murielm99]

211. Voltaire has his own rating system,

and we all have to fall into place.

[Omaha Steve]

14. OOPS...is John Conyers in these?

Bernie is right behind her!

[Squinch]

21. Are these photos supposed to be proof of something?

[Omaha Steve]

68. Bernies whereabouts circa 1993-94. He was right behind Hillary Clinton as she spoke on healthcare

Some DUers can admit when they are wrong. Maybe colorful graphs would help you?

[Squinch]

69. And what does that prove to you? What would the graphs show? Who Bernie has

taken photos with over the years? Not seeing the point here.

[Omaha Steve]

110. Need Glasses?

[Squinch]

111. Nope. Can you answer the question: What were those photos meant to prove?

[Omaha Steve]

119. Apparently you need glasses

It was a reply to somebody that didn't know where Bernie was on healthcare in the 90's.

I'm guessing you don't have vision coverage.

[Squinch]

123. Not sure what is the point of the inane harping on my vision, but no matter. BUT

as I understand it, you are saying that you think those photos somehow prove that BS was fully on board with Hillary's 1993 healthcare proposal? Is that correct?

Because there are photos of BS and Hillary from that time? That is proof to you?

[Omaha Steve]

127. I trust Hillary on this

What does she say in her own handwriting???

[Squinch]

132. Yes. I saw that. It was a very gracious note. And you are saying

that note and photos of BS near Hillary are proof against Kitselaya's assertion that he was not totally on board with Hillary's 93 program?

The note really isn't proof of that, you know. Hillary has always been quick to acknowledge common goals even when there is disagreement on the means.

[Omaha Steve]

139. Last reply to you

He wasn't totally on board. He was pulling her left as noted below toward single payer.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082


Snip: One of Bill Clinton’s first acts in office in January of 1993 was to appoint his wife to chair the administration’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Sanders had convened his own, much-smaller task force pushing single-payer health care for Vermont, and he began trying to pull Hillary Clinton in that direction.

Snip: Sanders was undeterred by this dismissal (by Hillary) of single-payer’s political viability. In March, he was at it again, inviting the first lady up to Vermont as the state considered overhauling its own health care policies. In June, Clinton did go up to Vermont – to address a Democratic Governors Association meeting hosted by the state’s then-Gov. Howard Dean in the quaint village of Woodstock – and she brought Sanders and Sen. Pat Leahy with her.


I don't see any links or photos of value from YOU!

OS

[Squinch]

143. Well, Steve, to be fair, I'm not seeing any links or photos of value from YOU either.

Your links and photos don't prove what you seem to think they prove.

And no one is denying that Hillary and BS have often been in close proximity, and were during the time she was trying to negotiate a national healthcare plan, one for which BS gave only limited support.

I sure wish she HAD gotten full support from her own "side" at the time. If she did, I have no doubt we'd have universal healthcare today. But alas, that wasn't to be. Because, you know, she just wasn't pure enough.

[lapucelle]

206. Actually, Sanders was in Vermont. That's where these pictures were taken.

Hillary Clinton was also in Vermont that day. As for Conyers, he was probably in Michigan or Washington DC.

[Jim Beard]

73. I like the photos, thank you very much. I see no reason for sarcastic remarks.

[lapucelle]

198. Why should John Conyers be at a rally in Vermont?

This is a video from a rally that was held at Dartmouth College.

Oh look! One of the other photos was also taken in Vermont.

[Eliot Rosewater]

164. You mean we should fight off the fascist nazis trying to kill us and the environment BEFORE

we purify our agenda?

OK, so you are one of those "common sense" people, I get it.

[yurbud]

169. Here's the thing: a lot of us bought that argument during Bush years

and put the Democrats back in power, and instead of going to the mat to undo as much Bush admin damage as possible and enact some progressive policies that not only would be good for average Americans, but would have cemented a Democratic majority for DECADES the way the New Deal did, they pre-compromised with the right on too many issues, and on some, like K-12 public education privatization, they essentially kept going on the same corrupt, bipartisan policy.

That was also true on foreign policy with Obama pursue the regime change policies of the Bush admin, albeit by quieter means and with the admirable exception of his deal with Iran.

Democrats used to have overwhelming majorities in Congress for decades with brief interruptions of Republican incompetence and terror.

Since they have gone DLC/New Dem/whatever they call themselves today, with greater sensitivity to Wall Streets needs than those of their base, they either win narrow majorities or lose.

And in their bid to win over part of the Republican base, they have failed to fight tooth and nail to protect Democratic voters from felon voter purges, voter ID laws, interstate crosscheck, and GOP gerrymandering.

Since you mentioned the Nazis first, the Weimar Republic wasn't exactly successful at defeating them at the pols.

[loyalsister]

202. At some point in the Bush years

Paul Wellstone stated that he was a mamber of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Howard Dean was very critical of some Dems. I don't see criticisms that name the establishment as all that different.

[yurbud]

203. Did you mean that as a criticism of Wellstone & Dean?

[loyalsister]

205. Not at all

Quite the opposite. I'm just pointing out that there is nothing new in Bernie's criticisms and positions.

[Demsrule86]

19. I oppose it too because you wont get it...and then we will end up a permanent minority.

There are other systems for healthcare that are very successful in other countries not based on single payer. We need to strengthen the ACA and add a public option (Medicare for those who can't get good coverage) and lower the age of medicare to 55 which will help the markets. Now is not the time for a crusade in favor of single payer which will not be supported by the majority of folks who get their insurance through their job.

[delisen]

20. Evidence?

[Voltaire2]

207. for what?

Progressive Caucus Platform: https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/the-progressive-promise/

Progressive Caucus Members: https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71

2016 Democratic Party Platform, healthcare:

2016 Democratic Party Platform (DRAFT)

Universal Health Care

We believe as Democrats that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system should put people before profits. Thanks to the hard work of President Obama and Democrats in Congress we took a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has offered coverage to 20 million more Americans and ensured millions more will never be denied coverage on account of a pre-existing condition.

We will keep costs down by making premiums more affordable, reducing out-of-pocket expenses, and capping prescription drug costs. Democrats will also work to end surprise billing and other practices associated with out-of-control medical debt that lead to unconscionable economic strain on American households. We will offer relief so Americans do not face high costs, and we will fight back against insurers trying to impose excessive premium increases.

https://demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7.1.16.pdf

No mention of medicare for all, single payer, just support for the ACA.

2017: Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader on medicare for all:
“No, I don’t,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promptly said, when asked by a reporter if she thinks single payer should be in Democrats’ 2018 party platform.
https://www.districtsentinel.com/pelosi-refuses-back-single-payer-despite-gop-deathmongering-suddenly-taking-center-stage/

[Progressive dog]

122. Medicare for all is just a campaign slogan-not a policy

[lapucelle]

196. You do understand that two Democrats in Congress

have introduced two different Medicare for All bills consistently for the last 24 years. Rep Jim McDemott's HR 1200 and Rep. John Conyers' HR 675 have been introduced year after year and have frequently had wide co-sponsorship.

Rep. Conyers introduced his bill again in January of this year. It currently has 115 Democratic co-sponsors, a majority of the House Democratic caucus.

Surely Senator Sanders knows this. He even signed on as a congressman as a co-sponsor of the McDermott bill a year after it was first introduced in 1993 and issued a companion Senate version that one time in 2011-2012.

[BainsBane]

214. The establishment wing authored the single payer bill

And has introduced it every year for at least a decade. Bernie is signing on to that bill, only to declare its author and other supporters of the bill the opposition.

Previously "establishment" meant anyone who didn't support Sander's presidential bid. Conyers did not. I believe Ellison was the only member of the congressional black caucus who did. Therefore in the way Sanders has previously used the term, the author and supporters of single payer constitute the establishment.

Even if his use of the term has changed situationally, declaring the people who will be voting on the bill enemies is counterproductive to building a coalition necessary to pass legislation.

[JHB]

3. Gonna need to see the rest of the email, and who it's actually from...

...before getting all up in arms. My email trash is filled with messages that show the name of some pol but are really from some fundraising outfit.

[KitSileya]

4. As I said, the email as a whole is screencapped

Just click on the tweet, and you'll find it on his account.

[JHB]

18. Found it, thanks. In context, I think it's an unforced error...

...in that it's one more pastry whizzing around in the pie fight, but I don't see much point in figuratively or literally) waving a fist and saying "Damn you, Sanders!" over a fundraising letter.

[yardwork]

7. I received the same email from Bernie this morning.

[WePurrsevere]

167. You got the same one? I haven't but you as a source I'm

more likely to believe than someone on Twitter who may have an agenda contrary to peaceful existence amongst Bernie and Dems.

[yardwork]

8. Thanks for posting this.

[seaglass]

12. Ugh, he is totally going to fuck over Democrats in 2018. For that reason I hope Jane is found

guilty, and as Jane said " it would be nice if the FBI moved it along."

[Demsrule86]

33. I don't know what will happen, but this will be used against Sen.

Sanders should he run...the GOP is very good at demonizing all Democrats and in this case an independent.

[Bladewire]

13. Exactly what Putin wants

Exactly what Putin wants, Democrat & Republican infighting while his boy Trump is in control.

Interesting that Rand Paul & Bernie Sanders were the only two senators that voted against Russia sanctions

Rand Paul has been in Putin's pocket for years.

[Squinch]

17. I'd grieve that with the admins. That's ridiculous.

[lillypaddle]

75. I did

haven't heard back yet. Thanks for suggesting it, though.

[leftofcool]

22. I guess you didn't get the memo

This is Bernie Underground. Stopped being DU a long time ago.

[lillypaddle]

77. He's not even a damn Dem

this is ridiculous.

[R B Garr]

152. +1000

[Eliot Rosewater]

166. And yet even here at DU we are required to treat him as if he is.

While he sets out to insure continued reign by the GOP we are not allowed to talk about it.

HERE

AT a place DEDICATED to the D party.

[Expecting Rain]

195. With you 100%

I'm frustrated that at a forum supposedly aimed at Democratic loyalists that we are not allowed to discuss the clear threat of those who attack the party.

[QC]

170. Skinner disagrees.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912070

[leftynyc]

113. Same with me yesterday

Had to laugh at the reasoning of not being able to trash a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. That was my whole point.

[Bradical79]

140. Forum rules explicitly name him

"This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)."

Complain to the admins about the rule if you like, but the jury rules are straight forward on how he is to be treated.

[QC]

172. Apparently the admins are tired of hearing about this,

given how vehement Skinner's response to this post is:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912070

[Jim Lane]

16. Newsflash: There are disagreements on the American left.

Many of us favor single payer. Bernie is correctly describing the opposition -- which, unfortunately, includes the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

Those Democrats have the right to oppose single payer. They even have the right to say that single payer will "never, ever happen" and to accuse its proponents of chasing unicorns (or whatever the slur du jour is). By the same token, however, we have the right to pursue our goal, including advocating for it.

And what of Trump? Yes, he's horrible. Absolutely. Half a year in and he's already elbowed aside Bush the Lesser for the title of worst President of my lifetime. And Bernie has been out there fighting against him.

But the need to oppose Trump doesn't mean that everyone who wants a change in Democratic Party policies or procedures is required to STFU as long as Trump is in office. We can have our internal battles and unite against Trump (and the right wing in general). Note that, although Hillary Clinton had vehemently rejected Bernie's views about health care, he endorsed her and campaigned for her.

[leftofcool]

26. Newsflash!

Some of us don't want an Independent speaking for us, period. Bernie can oppose who ever he wants to as long as he stays out of my life.

[scottie10]

41. Sad

This kind of thinking is what divides us.

[Squinch]

51. No. People who are supposed to be allies saying they are going to "take on the Democratic party"

while the Democrats are the only ones standing between us and the loss of the Republic, that's what divides us.

[NurseJackie]

100. Thank you. I see much more value in possessing real-world pragmatism...

... rather than being obsessed with pride and vanity and idealism. It's always best to keep our knives and swords pointed at the REAL enemy: the GOP. Democrats and the Democratic Party are NOT the enemy. Attacking and denigrating the party and its leaders only divides and weakens us. Why would ANYONE do anything that benefits the GOP?

[Jim Lane]

182. Easier to make your case when you misquote, isn't it?

Your version: "take on the Democratic party".
Bernie in real life: "taking on ... the establishment wing of the Democratic Party."

As it happens, there's a huge difference between those two statements.

Let's take health care as an example. The Democrats (plus a tiny contingent of Republicans) are the only ones standing between us and the loss of the ACA. Every Democrat in Congress voted against the anti-Obamacare bills. Meanwhile, there was disagreement within the ranks about single payer. Democrats in the establishment wing of the party, like Diane Feinstein, oppose it. Democrats in the progressive wing of the party, like Elizabeth Warren, support it. Each wing is "taking on" the other because that's what's involved in an internal disagreement. It didn't undermine our opposition to the GOP. The Democratic caucus in each chamber was in complete solidarity in voting No.

When Bernie Sanders launched his race in 2015, and again after Clinton secured the nomination, he rejected the pleas of many of his supporters and did not run in the general election as an independent or a third-party candidate. THAT would have been taking on the Democratic Party, a la Ralph Nader.

[R B Garr]

158. Exactly, and the problem with this is that he becomes

insulated and unaccountable. He could not be challenged or questioned by opponents because it would supposedly upset his base who---want an Independent! Which brings you right back to the beginning! Bashing Democrats is big business.

[Squinch]

28. If we have any sense at all, it very much does mean that we need to STFU and present

a united front until Trump is out of office and we are no longer in danger of losing the Republic. The one thing we can learn from Republicans is party discipline, and this is the time for it.

When we get back into power, let the pies fly. But for now, this is stupid and dangerous.

[Demsrule86]

43. This should be a separate post...it is exactly on the money.

Please consider an OP with this very point.

[Squinch]

48. Oh, I've been saying it forever but it doesn't seem to get any traction. It tends to devolve

into Bernie followers arguing that people need to stop being mean to them.

[Demsrule86]

56. Unless you are from Vermont, I don't undertand why you would 'follow' Bernie Sanders)

He isn't running for anything at the moment. I am not a 'Hillary' follower, I am a Democrat. Now it is my belief Sen. Sanders should not run as a Democrat in the presidential primary...but let's say somehow he does in 20. He would lose badly and sow division. Thus I hope he puts the country first and does not run. I want fresh candidates in 20. And for those who divide the Democratic Party into them and us...for shame! True progressives always vote for the candidate with the 'D' next to his/her name and never vote for the loser Greens.

[Squinch]

60. I don't see him voluntarily taking himself out of the limelight any time soon. He

is gradually fading, because his movement is badly organized and very exclusive. But for the moment, he will continue to try to divide when that is the worst possible thing to do.

[Demsrule86]

92. We have to hope he does not cause us to lose 2020.

[RKP5637]

63. Well said! Divided will lead to failure! n/t

[Jim Beard]

82. So we should be like nice little storm troopers?

[Squinch]

87. I suppose that asinine argument was inevitable. Because monstrous hyperbole is

such a productive thing.

No, dear. No one wants you to be a storm trooper. But it would be nice if you could pull your oar and help to present a united front so we can put Democrats back into office and prevent whatever dystopian horror the Republicans have in mind for us.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath for that, though.

[Jim Beard]

94. I am not opposed to you holding your breath.

[Squinch]

102. Lol. As we watch our Republic crumbling around us, I guess this is what passes

for scoring a point to some.

[ProfessorGAC]

156. Your Message Is Not Consistent With Your Actions

You appear to think it is, but it clearly is not.

You are getting worked up over this when we have bigger fish to fry and a need to gather allies. An ally does not need to be perfect to be an ally.

You're doing EXACTLY what you are saying should not be done.

[Squinch]

157. LOL! You guys are too much! Really!

And no, dear. I'm not getting worked up.

[ProfessorGAC]

215. What Guys?

I have one post in this whole thread
No position other than you're preaching one thing and doing exactly the same!
You've got nothing, and you know it! Otherwise you'd have made a cogent reply
But you didn't
Screams desperation. And you are too weak to see it

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. "Howard Dean to withhold support if DCCC funds candidates opposed to abortion rights"

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344668-howard-dean-to-withhold-support-for-dccc-if-it-funds-candidates-who-oppose#.WX-f7R-NZDE.facebook

There is a thread on this here that is getting a lot of Recs. I have no problem with that. I understand why some people want a clear line drawn on this issue. But it flies in the face of the sentiments you expressed:

"...it very much does mean that we need to STFU and present a united front until Trump is out of office and we are no longer in danger of losing the Republic. The one thing we can learn from Republicans is party discipline, and this is the time for it. When we get back into power, let the pies fly. But for now, this is stupid and dangerous."

The DCCC is as establishment as the Democratic Party gets. I am not the one saying that Democrats have to pretend that we are all on the same page regarding everything while Trump is in power, you are. Do you equally condemn these comments from Howard Dean?

[lunasun]

138. yes the Rs will unite despite trump and encourage Dem splits. I dont

see this going well in 17 for anyone but republican . Just me

[brush]

162. Exactly! When we get back in power then we put on the all out push for single payer

Doing it now is just tilting at windmills and giving repugs ammo for 2018.

[Demsrule86]

38. Yes it does mean you unite and forget your differences and fight against a common dangerous foe

who threatens our Republic -Trump- or you lose. This is not the time to talk reform which really means, i want my way or I will take my ball and go home. We are a big tent party when we win. Historically, it is the only way we hold a majority. Thus, there will always be differing opinions in the Democratic Party, and no one gets what they want completely. The Democratic Party will be a big tent party or a permanent minority party. Those are our choices in a center left country.

[Jim Lane]

217. Then how about we unite behind single payer?

Among a plethora of articles that I could cite, here's a fairly recent one: "New Poll Shows Nation Moving Left on Healthcare, Embracing Medicare for All". A key finding is that "80 percent of Democrats believe it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure coverage for all."

The report goes on to state:

These latest survey results are consistent with increasingly vocal grassroots support for a Medicare-for-All style system that "leaves no one out." Prominent Democrats have joined the groundswell of enthusiasm; former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are two of the more notable figures who have openly advocated a move toward single-payer in recent weeks.

If you believe that any internal disagreement is ill-advised in the age of Trump, then shouldn't the 20% who oppose this change be the ones who STFU?

BTW, I'm not demanding that, because I reject your premise. Democrats have expressed different opinions about health care, but the Democratic caucuses in both the House and the Senate have stood unanimously in opposition to the Republican bills. IOW, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

You write, "This is not the time to talk reform which really means, i want my way or I will take my ball and go home." History -- in fact, recent history -- shows that your charge is false. Millions of us did not get our way in the primaries. Instead, we got saddled with a Democratic nominee who derided single payer and who was, in our view, too conservative on other issues as well. A comparative handful of us did follow the "take my ball and go home" approach. However, the overwhelming majority of us, from Bernie on down, voted for the Democratic nominee despite our disappointment.

[jamesatemple]

45. As it sometimes happens, into the midst of the furor comes the calm voice of logic and reasoning.

Thank you, Jim Lane. Perhaps we can pull the Democratic Party into some semblance of unity once each adherent has an opportunity to "vent his spleen". The stabilization of the Party is not advanced by the continuing rhetoric of "my candidate is better than your candidate" followed by hand-picked examples designed to prove the point. Perhaps a greater effort to construct a party platform for the near future would be advisable. Once a platform that meets so close a consensus as we can muster is done, it seems to me that that would be the time for each of us to recommend a candidate who, we feel, might best advance and support such a platform.

Simplistic? Certainly. Yet what is accomplished by all the in-fighting over the past? We can't do anything about the past but learn from it and use the lessons it teaches in order to affect the future.

I'll be 77 years-old in November. I'd love to see healthcare made a "right" for my children and grandchildren and every other citizen of this Country before I take my leave of this life term. Hurry! I don't have a lot of time left.

[Squinch]

55. Once again, have you read the platform? You are calling for something that was already done, and

saying it would prevent the kind of slams against Democrats that Bernie continues to make.

So, no. That doesn't work.

[jamesatemple]

114. "Once again", Squinch?

Perhaps you are thinking of someone else to whom you've made such a suggestion. It was not to me.

Oh, yes; I've read "the platform" in its multitude of constructions over several decades as well as recently. Thank you for asking.

I am not "calling for something that was already done...". I am suggesting that we could spend our time better by reviewing the platform, making suggestions, debating the merits of it rather than doing as you are doing with your angry rhetoric "slams against Democrats that Bernie continues to make." Of course, if you wish to spend your time arguing which candidate is the victim of persecution within the Party, or rather, who is persecuting others in the Party or the Party itself, that is your right. As a Bernie supporter myself, I feel that nothing will be gained by such arguments. I supported Bernie until Hillary won and voted for her for the Presidency.

"So no. That doesn't work." Ah, we are agreed. However, the question remains, "What doesn't work?" Is it the continual arguing about who is responsible for the loss of the Presidential election that doesn't work? Or is it the plan "let's move on and get things done for the future" that doesn't work? I suggest that your penchant for the oft recurring blame for the responsibility of the weakness of our Party on a single candidate and his supporters is the very thing that doesn't work. Get over it! Let's move on. Time's a wastin'.

[delisen]

49. Clinton "vehemently?" opposed Sanders views on about healthcare.

When was she vehement? I heard her talk about getting what was possible to accomplish at a given point in time

There is much more public support today for a health care system, single-payer or otherwise, than there was in 2009. One big reason was that Obama and Democrats were successful in passing health care legislation that improved and extended coverage for millions.

Now people don't want to give up what they've--they want more and better. The "incremental" approach worked.

Of course you can pursue your goal. You are in a much better position to reach it thanks to those who were willing to do the hard and unglamorous work of moving toward the goal of more and better coverage, and in that process gathering new allies.

If people hadn't worked to get Medicare for persons over 65, we would not have been having conversations about extending it to younger persons.

[Jim Beard]

88. I watched an old Jack Benny TV program and there was a comment made in a skit....

about the Doctors chasing him because he voted for Medicare.

[Jim Lane]

193. "Vehemently" is of course my subjective characterization of what she said

You write that you "heard her talk about getting what was possible to accomplish at a given point in time." {emphasis added} The news reports of her statements were to the contrary; for example:

Hillary Clinton on Friday cast Bernie Sanders' plan for single-payer health insurance as an "idea that will never, ever come to pass."

Whether you consider that "vehement" or not isn't important. What matters are these indisputable facts:

(1) During the primary campaign, Sanders and Clinton had significant disagreements on policy, such as health care, TPP, and Glass-Steagall, to name but a few.
(2) For the general election, Sanders recognized that, although he and Clinton still had significant disagreements, his disagreements with Trump were far, far greater. He therefore endorsed Clinton and campaigned for her.

The rest of your post is refuting a point of view that says, "We must have a bill that is absolutely perfect in every respect or we will vote against it." AFAIK, no one here is espousing that view. All the Congressional supporters of single payer, including Bernie, thought that the ACA was inferior to single payer, but they voted for the ACA anyway.

The same is true of Medicare. IIRC there were some Democrats back then who wanted the bill to include a gradual lowering of the eligibility age (e.g, two years per year, so it would go to 63, then 61, etc.). That way we would have eased into single payer for all. In fact, we would have it by now. That provision didn't make it into the final bill but those who had wanted it voted for the bill anyway. I'm sure that, if Bernie had been in Congress then, he would have joined them.

[Bluepinky]

54. I can't believe all the anger I see directed at Bernie on DU.

I think that Michael Moore is right, and the Democratic Party needs to embrace many of the progressive policies in order to win elections. The conservative wing of the Democratic Party is Republican lite; it accepts corporate funding and is too cozy with Wall Street to take on the issues most important to many in the middle and working classes.
And Bernie is very effective as an Independent, no need to change his party affiliation.

[Squinch]

57. What progressive policies were not embraced in the 2016 platform?

What issues most important to the middle and working classes were not covered?

This is pablum, catchphrases based on nothing.

[lunasun]

144. I have had to ask numerous times on this forum if people read the 2016 Dem Platform. ..so I

post again and again...............if they say its all talk
then the question i had was what are you listening to but talk?
of course we would like to see action but it will take a united front to elect the folks who can do that and it didn't in happen 2016

one more time

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

[Squinch]

147. Great to link to it! That platform should be pinned somewhere, because about half

the people who post here have never read it and have no idea what we stand for.

[lunasun]

149. At least 5 or 6 times on this forum alone I have posted but it's not just here that

there seems to be no actual clue just perceptions

[Bluepinky]

185. Thank u for posting the platform.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate, but I prefer a progressive agenda. I like a lot of Bernie's ideas, like health care for all, higher minimum wage, no corporate funding of candidates, etc

[leftynyc]

116. If he wishes to remain an "Independent"

that's fine - let him run under that banner. His attempted hijacking of the DEMOCRATIC party AGAIN will be fought by me and many others with every breath in my body.

[QC]

175. He did a very, very, very, very bad thing

and he must be punished!!!

[Demit]

24. He never misses a chance to malign the Democratic Party.

He is not a friend to us. I am disliking him more and more as time goes by.

[Squinch]

31. Me too. I liked him once and was on the fence on who to vote for early in the primary.

Now I can't stand him.

[Blue_true]

213. I used to really like him also.

Now, when I see his name, I role my eyes.

I get a sense that he will run in 2020. It will be interesting to see how he acts toward the most viable Democrats in the primary. I can see him savaging a Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, even Joe Biden. I find it sad that I am convinced that will be the outcome.

[ProfessorPlum]

126. you have a hard time recognizing your friends

Did you also know that Sanders isn't even a Democrat? And that he is worshiped like a deity? Be sure to make those points.

[Demit]

161. But he was a Democrat, briefly, when it was to his advantage to be. That's the salient point.

I've had "friends" like that. They glom onto you while you are useful to them.

[Jim Lane]

194. You forgot to add that Sanders and his cultists demand absolute purity.

Anytime anyone expresses a policy position to the left of Hillary Clinton, it means that the person making the statement insists that everyone must agree with them. For example, "We should reinstate Glass-Steagall" means "No candidate who opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall may be supported in any race for any office, regardless of other issues." That's really what all of them mean, even if they don't spell it out.

Of course, it doesn't work the other way. A Democrat who says, "We should not reinstate Glass-Steagall" is merely engaging in thoughtful discourse about public policy.

[tiredtoo]

25. "Establishment" Dems are further right than Eisenhower and Nixon

If we expect to ever win again we must go back to our roots. Our values as displayed by FDR and LBJ.
This from a 76 year old Democratic supporter.

[Squinch]

35. You might want to give the Democratic Party platform a once over. Because you're wrong.

[tiredtoo]

52. from Rachel Maddow

NEWS & POLITICS 
Rachel Maddow: In America Today, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower Would Be Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate
The huge ever rapid shift rightward makes Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon look like lefty radicals today.

more at link.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149700/rachel_maddow%3A_in_america_today%2C_republican_president_dwight_d._eisenhower_would_be_bernie_sanders_in_the_u.s._senate

[Squinch]

53. Again, take a gander at the Democratic platform.

[Demsrule86]

42. We never win with a left presidential candidate...there have always been conservadems...in a

successful Democratic majority. Seriously, look at our history. Consider the fate of McGovern.

[tiredtoo]

83. McGovern was from a different time

Consider the results for the last 20 years. Democrats have lost state governorships and state congress seats, they are a minority in the federal government.
Time for a change, a real change.

[Demsrule86]

84. A more liberal time when even the GOP was quite liberal and yet he could not win.

[tiredtoo]

89. And today we are in a more conservative time. Trump just won

And the Republicans swept control of everything. Establishment (conservative) Dems are losing.
Talked to a young black man prior to last election urging him to vote. His reply "We don't think it makes a difference."

[moda253]

179. Dude you JUST invoked LBJ and EISENHOWER!!!!

Now you want to make the statement that McGovern was from a different era????

[tiredtoo]

190. i used FDR and LBJ as examples of good Democrats

I used Eisenhower and Nixon as examples of Republicans to the left of current "establishment" Dems.
Follow the dots.

[GoCubsGo]

27. You want to take it on? Try joining the party first.

Otherwise, your bluster is meaningless. Put up, or shut up, Mr. Sanders.

[dlk]

29. Bernie Is Not a Democrat

What is he thinking?

[ProfessorPlum]

128. Thank you for making this point!

it is not said nearly enough on DU.

[QC]

176. Skinner disagrees.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912070

[kyburbonkid]

32. Propaganda 101: Poison the well tactic

If you carefully parse that sentence you will see that it takes the democratic party and spits them into two. Us vs Them. Basically it's a propaganda tactic. There is no way that this message can be attributed to anyone except an a sneaky republican trickster.

[DefenseLawyer]

34. Count me in. n/t

[Mr. Evil]

40. This isn't about bashing anyone's favorite democrat.

This is about getting single payer healthcare front and center while the iron is hot. The republicans have nothing but continued hatred for anything remotely associated with Hillary and Obama. They actually consider doing away with the ACA and letting millions of Americans lose their coverage a victory for the American people in their sick minds. Just because someone calls themselves a democrat doesn't automatically equate to having your best interests at heart. Money makes DC move and politicians for the most part want a share of it.
If you want to continue the clusterfuck scam that our current healthcare system is then vote happily for any politician that wants to kill single payer. You're free and clear to do so. I for one think we should join the rest of the developed world and pursue it and I will vote for candidates that promote just that.

[Demsrule86]

46. We are in the minority...the iron is as cold as it has ever been...

People like and understand the ACA..work on improving that...there is not going to be single payer until we have a super majority and maybe not even then. I have serious doubt whether such a system can work in this country. There are other models...not single payer in Europe and elsewhere that work very well.

[Adrahil]

99. +1 We need universal coverage, not necessarily single payer. NT

[Warren DeMontague]

44. "I represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"

...How dare Paul Wellstone be so divisive!

[Demsrule86]

47. Wellstone was not an independent.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. At least you admit thats what this is about. But no matter. Either the language is divisive, or not

No matter who says it.

So lets cut to the chase- some people arent going to like anything Sanders says, ever, period. ..We all know whats going on here.

But in this issue he's fighting for something, here- a real policy point- that we all ought to be behind, I think. Thats what actually matters in all this. Peoples actual lives, their health care.

so.. fight for something, or over nothing. Its a choice, I guess.

[betsuni]

70. "So let's cut to the chase -- some people aren't going to like anything Sanders says, ever, period.

... We all know what's going on here."

[Warren DeMontague]

187. what. pointing out the obvious is that funny?

Good god, this place sometimes. I wish I was that easily amused.

[Demsrule86]

85. You are correct. I am a Democrat. If Sen. Sanders wants to be independent that is his right. But

He has no authority over the Democratic Party and does not represent any wing of the Democratic party...some may agree with him or not. That is beside the point.

[Demit]

103. If Sanders had said he was from ANY wing of the Democratic Party, you would have a point.

But his phrasing, as always, puts him firmly outside the party. He can't seem to fight for his issues without always slagging the party. His seems to want to draw people away from the Democratic Party. I don't like it.

[brush]

163. Most DUers want single payer but understand we are the minority party...

and have no power to advance bills to the floor for a vote.

That's the reality of our system. Some can rant and rave about the iron being hot (some not even Democrats) for single payer now but if there's no power to get a single payer bill to the floor it just grandstanding for attention and an extension of someone's 15 minutes.

Now is the time to work against trump, vote suppression, Russia meddling, etc.

Get the repugs out of power then we go full court press to get single payer voted on.

We get there by doing the first things necessary to get there first.

[Demsrule86]

50. I must add the 'progressive wing' (although I dispute that... as I am progressive and often don't

agree with this faction)spends much time looking into the past...I find that curious. I am all about fresh ideas and new things as we move into the 21st century. The past can guide us, but wallowing in it is a mistake.

[Not Ruth]

62. This is the perfect time to push for single payer, now that Trumpcare is dead

[Squinch]

79. Yes, it is. But it's not the time to be saying you are going to be "taking on" Democrats.

[stonecutter357]

64. time to primary Sanders.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. You dont support a single payer, medicare for all system?

Jesus, it makes light-years more sense than any other alternative.

[IronLionZion]

74. How do you primary an independent?

[rgbecker]

66. The guy is a prophet. DU establishment wing immediately sets up for a fight.

I guess they just don't want Medicare for All.

[Squinch]

76. I lulzed.

[JHan]

130. He's a prophet Squinch... a prophet lol

The hero worship alone brings the lulz. lol

[Squinch]

134. .

I can't believe I got sucked into yet another BS divisive nonsense thread. Everything that comes out of his mouth!
I keyword trashed him, but like Michael Corleone, every time I try to get out they pull me back in!

But man, he does live and breathe for that limelight, doesn't he? His divisive comments come with just about the same regularity as Trump(R)'s rallies.

[JHan]

137. On top of Trump and the GOP's bullshit ,....

because Trump and the GOP's bullshit isn't enough stress, democrats also must contend with "allies" who are fifth columnists.

[Fresh_Start]

153. Trump and Bernie have a lot in common

Bernie needs his limelight just as much as Trump needs his rallies.

[bahrbearian]

71. "Never Ever" , Pie in the Sky"

[joeybee12]

72. Go away Bernie.

There are better ways to get your point across rather than being divisive. Learn from someone vastly superior to you Bernie, Liz Warren

[R B Garr]

160. +1000, Conyers hasn't had to malign Democrats when

he introduces his single payer plan for the last decade and a half. Bernie should be giving Conyers/Democrats credit for this instead of acting like it's his.

[JHan]

78. ....Where Sanders reveals he does not understand game theory

Not impressed with this bluster, glad I saw through it before the primaries were over.

[Adrahil]

97. No kidding... he reminds me of the Socialist Club back in college...

Absolutely no understanding of the national political process.

[JHan]

131. whatever the plan is..

it will come to a bad end because it will just divide the party. I also want Universal Healthcare and I want nothing to do this strategy of pitting Democrat against Democrat or sowing division.

[Squinch]

135. I don't think there are any Democrats who DON'T want universal healthcare.

But those of us who think we need to go after it in a practical way, rather than in a way that guarantees we don't get elected ever, lack purity. Clearly.

[JHan]

142. +++++++ Also...

...history is littered with examples of this faulty thinking of "If I don't get what I want the way I want it now to hell with everything and everybody"..leading to worse outcomes for people.

Tammy Duckworth was on MSNBC a few nights ago speaking about the need to incrementally improve the system, and she said she doesn't see single payer healthcare going anywhere as of this moment, will she now be in Sanders' cross hairs? Is she now an "establishment Dem" who needs to be challenged? is she now a corporatist? A tool of big pharma?

[Squinch]

146. So many things in that post!

First, do you not just LOVE Tammy?

I love Kamala, but Tammy would also make a great "favorite son" for our future.

Second, about her assertion that it needs to be done incrementally. That was a big no-no sentiment according to BS supporters during the campaign. But up thread I was having a (somewhat inane) conversation with Omaha Steve about Hillary's 1993 plan and the conversation got me thinking: can you imagine if Hillary had gotten full throated support for her plan in 93? We would definitely have universal healthcare of some form today.

And yes. I love Tammy, but I fear her statement was not well-considered. It will be brought back to beat her up by the people who want to destroy us from the inside. None of whom are our true allies.

[JHan]

148. I love her to bits, but yeah .. I cringed a bit.. not because she's wrong..

but because I knew how it would be used against her.. And these attacks against new dems settling in is disturbing.

"can you imagine if Hillary had gotten full throated support for her plan in 93? We would definitely have universal healthcare of some form today" - Exactly! outcomes are all that matter.. if the outcomes are better than the status quo, that is progress.

[KitSileya]

159. Don't you know we have to oppose getting health care for 95%

because we need to fight for health care for 100%? That is what Bernie did in 1993. He spoke out against the final health care bill, which unfortunately didn't make it to the floor, because he was so set on getting single payer that he said he wouldn't vote for a compromise bill that would give health care for 95% of Americans. That's what factcheck.org said, anyway.

[JHan]

177. Reminds me of how Nixon's basic income plan was axed.

Lefty purists complained it didn't go far enough- granted they weren't the only ones complaining - but think how much of a difference it would have made if it were implemented then, and gradually buttressed over time.

[Adrahil]

136. +1 NT

[David__77]

80. Thank you, Bernie Sanders.

...

[IronLionZion]

81. I'm not a member of any organized political party

I'm a Democrat



There was a time when Democrats won elections and passed major reforms.

[NurseJackie]

91. It sounds like he's comparing (or equating) Democrats to the GOP. That's offensive to me.

==================
QUOTING THE OP: "Edited to add: this is an email sent after the recent defeat of the Republican death care proposal, and cannot therefore be alerted as re-fighting the primaries."
==================

Smart edit. Glad you added that. For obvious reasons, it's good to highlight this fact.

[betsuni]

101. I love you and your Notes to the Alerters, Nurse Jackie.

Sigh. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[NurseJackie]

106. I know! Right? (But I can't take credit for that note. I was quoting the OP's note...)

... that had been added afterward. I thought it was worth acknowledging AND by extension, the fact that I'd quoted it, it serves as a reminder within my own post.

Happy Tuesday, Betsuni!

[betsuni]

117. But in the past I've enjoyed your "Notes to the Democratic Underground Alerters" series.

Very funny and necessary, unfortunately.

[NurseJackie]

120. Those were partly in-jest, tongue-in-cheek... and partly (mostly?) serious.

Only, I gave up. It was a useless exercise... and even THOSE were being alerted on as threats or interference. Weird.

Ahhh... good times, huh?

[uponit7771]

107. +1

[mcar]

93. Umm, Bernie, the enemies are on the other side of the aisle

Just saying.

[betsuni]

104. +1

[NurseJackie]

108. Thank you!

[mcar]

109. Kind of ridiculous some need the reminder

But there it is.

[shenmue]

178. Yeah

[alarimer]

96. Good.

Centrism is going to lose, in the long run.

I guess this is what pisses me off the most in all of these threads, that the status quo, business as usual, is a-ok. Well, it's not okay, not by a long shot. The deck is stacked in favor of the rich and powerful and all we get are crumbs. The Democrats only dare to nibble around the edges. They (for the most part, but there are exceptions) are not interested (or they are too cowardly) in REAL change. Change that is meaningful: a government of, by and for the people, rather than for corporations and business. This means, eventually, some form of single payer health care. It's the only thing that makes sense. It also may mean some kind of basic income, probably, because the kinds of jobs that pay meaningful salaries are not going to exist in the numbers we need. And higher taxes on the rich. Bottom line, those assholes need to pay their fair share.

And I get that our guys are better than the other guys. But "better" only in some measures. They also are hamstrung by empty ideology, by trying to appeal to the middle. Well, fuck the middle. Fuck appealing to suburban Republicans. To hell with focus groups and mealy-mouthed middle-of-the-road empty suits.

I am firmly in the Warren wing. Nothing else will do from here on out.

[LexVegas]

105. Who?

[apcalc]

112. I am very troubled by this.

Further, I am troubled that he has twice voted against Russia Sanctions, his campaign manager Tad Devine worked with Paul Manafort to elect a proPutin puppet in the Ukraine, I rarely see him criticize Trump. As I read his supporters on Twitter, I see no criticisms of Russia nor Trump. I do see them now slamming Kamala Harris big time. They are an inflexible lot and support no porrion of the established Democratic party and actively work against them.
Quite troubling that Sanders has released no taxes.

[Squinch]

125. Well said. His actions are perfectly consistent, and always to the detriment of Democrats.

And in this political environment, the detriment of Democrats is the support of Republicans and Trump.

[nini]

150. I started thinking some time ago he's part of the big russian picture

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

He's doing the job of splintering the left from the inside. He's doing damage to Democrats with this crap and that adds to the chaos and helps keep strange election results easily 'justified'. I do not trust him one bit. I used to be a huge Sanders supporter but over time his BS came to the surface and I started putting pieces together.

The far left is being played for fools here. Even if it's not intentional and my tin foil hat is on too tight - HE IS DAMAGING DEMOCRATS and I for one will still wonder what his real motive is here.

There is too much at stake to keep putting up with his crap.

[apcalc]

197. Agree

[R B Garr]

155. Agreed about his taxes, and everything else.

Tomm Hartmann is on Russian TV, too, diminishing Democrats.

Interesting votes and connections to Russia. For a while, acknowledging anything legitimate about Russia went against the group think of his talking points, but now that it's truly scandalous mainstream news, it's just undeniable.

His supporters are targeting secure elected Democrats, which is beyond absurd, it's just hostile. This is beyond tolerable and just destructive.

[stevenleser]

115. You can't fight the Republican Party and Half the Democratic Party at the same time nt

[Blue_true]

216. We seem to get constantly pulled backward by the extreme left.

I honestly thought that the issue of Gay and Trans people openly being in the military was settled. Now we are back to fighting that battle circa 2005 because Trump was elected with ample help from the extreme left. Bill Clinton had put us in a position to make giant strides on the environment and social issues, but the extreme left helped elect Bush. I feel like every time our nose comes above water, the extreme left bash us in the head with a shovel.

[Progressive dog]

121. As a member of the only wing of the established Democratic party,

I am not going to "take on" myself. Obviously, if I don't want to be a Democrat, I can quit at any time.
If I remember correctly, the source of that email did quit.

[ProfessorPlum]

124. Good for Bernie Sanders

There are people who call themselves Democrats, but use money to control the Democratic party to not do things that make most peoples' lives better. They need to be fought. Just like everyone else who tries to use money to control things for the benefit of the rich.

[MuseRider]

133. Go Bernie!

We need this, we deserve this and you have to move mountains to get it or we would have it by now. Keep pushing, keep bringing it up. Maybe my kids will see this in their lifetime.

[Tavarious Jackson]

191. I would love to see him work with Vermont Governer and get it passed in Vermont

That would be awesome.

[Autumn]

141. Always happy to see Bernie Sanders is still fighting for the American people.

It's unacceptable that Wall Street, drug companies, insurance companies and special interests are put first because lobbyists have a more powerful voice with the politicians than the people who elect them.

[George II]

145. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind now?

[R B Garr]

151. There sure shouldn't be. Beyond just garden variety

opportunism at this point.

[Gothmog]

154. Sanders is not going to win any support with this crap

[aikoaiko]

168. Much more than you might think. I stand with Bernie.

[Gothmog]

171. And I stand with the Democratic Party

[aikoaiko]

173. So do I. Standing with Bernie and the Democratic Party are not mutually exclusive.

No matter who tries to force a choice.

[Gothmog]

180. Is Sanders running as a member of the party for re-election to the Senate?

I must have missed this

[George II]

184. He's set up his 2018 re-election committee. He's running as an independent.

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/S4VT00033/

For those who will be claiming that Vermont doesn't have party affiliations, Senator Patrick Leahy has his committee for 2022 set up as well, he's running as a Democrat, as he has in each and every one of his election campaigns going back to 1974 (43 years!)

[Gothmog]

192. Thank you for this information

[Hekate]

174. We are fighting for our lives against nazis, you said. Hell to the yes, we are. Why would anyone....

...be working to divide the Democratic Party on a losing proposition just now? We are barely hanging on to Obamacare, and the TrumpGOP will continue to try to sabotage it daily. We need to consolidate what we have and hold on, understanding that Pelosi and Schumer have a firm grasp on reality and are holding the Party in line.

Christ on a trailer hitch, our democracy hangs by a thread, and St Bernie chooses to try to split the party on this or any issue?

[JHan]

183. Delusions of persecution.

Several strong posters who challenged these attempts to divide the party have been FFR'd and DU is poorer without their contributions.

I don't care about Sanders or any particular individual, I care about attempts to divide democrats and wage a civil war in the party at the time when we need unity and strength to counter the bullshit from the GOP. In one fell swoop "establishment Dems" were equated with the GOP and "Corporations" etc etc etc etc which means the same divisive rhetoric from last year will continue this year, even though the so called Dem "establishment" has no political power to speak off.

This is HIS rhetoric, not mine nor the OP's. HIS. People would have nothing to say if this wasn't going on.

[emulatorloo]

188. You probably get hides because you're still refighting the 2016 primary.

As to "critical posts", constructive criticism is what fuels DU and is encouraged by the TOS. If any Democrat does or says something dumb (especially if they blame Dems for what Republicans are doing), there will be pushback.

[moda253]

186. Well if it was my post you can rest assured I got a warning.

Someday we will wake up and realize what's what.

[Egnever]

212. Ahaha

Stupid fucking post.