Bernie Sanders to speak at U of T

[George II]

The Varsity
The University of Toronto’s Student Newspaper Since 1880

Bernie Sanders to speak at U of T

US Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will speak about health care on October 29 at Convocation Hall in an event titled “What the U.S. Can Learn From Canadian Health Care.”

Sanders, of Vermont, is a leading American democratic socialist who inspired a grassroots movement when he unsuccessfully challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for the 2016 Presidential race.

The talk, which will also include Dr. Danielle Martin of Women’s College Hospital and U of T, will centre on what the US can learn from the Canadian single-payer health care system.

https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/19/bernie-sanders-to-speak-at-u-of-t/

He was scheduled to speak at the Women's Convention of October 27-29. Shortly after his appearance was changed from a speech to being a participant in an individual panel, he cancelled because of a trip to Puerto Rico.

Bernie Sanders bows out of Women's Convention to make trip to Puerto Rico

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/politics/bernie-sanders-puerto-rico-womens-convention/index.html

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Thursday he will visit Puerto Rico in wake of Hurricane Maria, bowing out of his previously scheduled speaking gig at the Women's Convention next week.

"I want to apologize to the organizers of the Women's Convention for not being able to attend your conference next Friday in Detroit," the Vermont lawmaker said in a statement. "Given the emergency situation in Puerto Rico, I will be traveling there to visit with San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz and other officials to determine the best way forward to deal with the devastation the island is experiencing."

Now he's going to be in Toronto this weekend.

[Me.]

1. TORONTO?

What happened to Puerto Rico? Did they get destroyed by a hurricane too?

[Blue_true]

116. When I saw the headline I though U of Texas.

But not so. More inappropriateness.

[MineralMan]

2. Wait...I thought Vermont was IN Canada...

Sheesh!

Nice escape, though, from the controversy over his being a speaker at that Women's Convention. Awkward, that was.

[George II]

10. Well, if you live in Burlington, on a clear day you can see Canada from your house.

[NastyRiffraff]

120. I see what you did there!

[lapucelle]

32. If BS is going to Puerto Rico on Friday, Oct. 27,

and UT on Sunday, October 29, maybe he could participate on a panel at the Women's Conference on Saturday, October 28.

[MineralMan]

39. No. He has to pack.

He sends his regrets, though.

[lapucelle]

43. ,,,,

[George II]

118. Detroit is only a four hour drive from Toronto. I've done it many times.

[Gothmog]

93. Me also

[Mediumsizedhand]

3. I might have this wrong. He was headliner at woman convention, backed out when placed as panelist

stating the reason he had to go to a disaster, well after the disaster and now is speaking elsewhere as headliner instead of sitting on a panel listening to women, about women's concern? Did I get this right?

[Me.]

17. Well He Was Featured At Somerville......

“In a letter dated Oct. 21, 27 signers, including state Rep. Marjorie Decker, D-Cambridge, and former state representative and mayor Alice Wolf, argued that a majority of the other 20 candidates are equally, if not more, progressive than the ones endorsed by the local branch. They called on Sanders to do his own research and to be more careful before publicly endorsing candidates. His time, they said, is better spent in other communities, not progressive bastions like Cambridge and Somerville.

“If ... you rely on the local Our Revolution organization to nominate candidates for endorsement, you lose control of the process they use and expose yourself to the risk that the local organization will nominate candidates based on their agenda and not yours,” read the letter.

“Intervening in the Cambridge City Council race is a counterproductive choice and divides, rather than unites, progressives here,” the letter continued”

cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20171023/cambridge-activists-call-bernie-sanders-visit-counter-productive

[Mediumsizedhand]

18. I read this.

We all have our weakness, and I do not feel he excels at research. More, off the cuff. Yes, counter-productive. This is important with Sanders posturing for a 2020 run.

[Hortensis]

46. Research or thinking. He should have realized both that it

was inappropriate for him to push himself into the affairs of other progressive leaders who didn't need or invite him.

AND that it was extremely inappropriate, divisive and insulting for him to be keynote speaker at a women's event, a specific slap at every top female Democratic leader. Stepping in it with his eyes wide open.

Instead he felt both were very appropriate for him. He and Jimmy Carter have the same righteous, bomb-throwing outsider behaviors and both are then righteously indignant that their superior virtues are not valued.

(Yeah, I'm still angry at Carter's gratuitous insults of Obama and Hillary the other day, hostile behavior bad enough on its own without sucking up to poor, also undervalued Rump.)

[Mediumsizedhand]

49. Yup. That says a whole lot right there.

[Me.]

78. Still Dissapointed In Jimmy Too

Always had such respect.

As for the SEnator...if he's not careful he'll turn into a footnote. And why, exactly, did the trip to PR get canceled? That's what I want to know. It's a perfect opportunity to practice what he preaches.

As for the people in Somerville, looks like they have it as covered as a lot of towns where activists are engaged. Interlopers need not apply.

[Hortensis]

95. Me too. Carter lost me for good when he badmouthed

Hillary and Obama during the campaign, though. Managed to forget most of it after 2008 and 2012, as in he's gotta be what he is and Obama won, but 2016? He's among those who "owns" Rump. He and Sanders are a lot alike in their constant hostility toward the Democratic Party, not Republican, that won't allow them to bottle their bile long enough to practice what they promise.

I haven't heard that Sanders has cancelled, though. (?) Sounds like he's still flying over for some photo ops with the disaster and San Juan's mayor -- she's a PR separatist and pretty popular with his supporters -- and then back.

Yes, good for Somerville. Their local success is undoubtedly what drew him.

[Tavarious Jackson]

104. Didn't he vite NO on the bail out of PR? nt

[Hortensis]

121. I remember Sanders promised to vote against both the

really lousy bill the Repub-dominated congress of course ultimately passed, which is fine. But he also refused to join the Democratic caucuses' efforts to achieve at least a somewhat better deal for Puerto Ricans, the degree of compromise needed far beneath him. So presumably he did, and of course pointing out the gross corruption of both parties.

Regarding this visit, it'll be the first since he loudly accused Puerto Rican Democrats of corruption last election, usual reason. Well, just hope Mayor Cruz at least can get some attention from his visit.

[Mediumsizedhand]

122. Willing to compromise on some (abortion, Amber Alert), not others. Hm.

[Hortensis]

123. His overall record is something like voting 95+% with the

corrupt Democratic caucus. Hmmm all right.

Actually, most of the Democratic Party principles and his run right in line with each other, much as he claims to battle his colleagues' corruption and failure to serve the people. Since that's proven nonsense on all fronts, it's not the 95% to question so much as the motivation behind the other 5% or so.

I suspect those might tend to reflect the usual political necessity of servicing his donors (like the gun industry) on things the party as a whole doesn't support, and occasionally to provide opportunities for the institutional gadfly to turn into a public grandstander, such as on the Puerto Rico vote.

[Mediumsizedhand]

124. Yes. And this has been the argument all along. He is not so special,

and he aligns with the Democrats he bashes, while still being a establishment politician like the rest. Now, not being an hypocrite, I get that and do not hold it against him. I simply refuse to hold it against all Democrats because he tells me to.

[sheshe2]

64. Do not mess with Somerville.

Not eva! They are a sanctuary city and know what they are doing. They are chalk full of progressives and even our GOP Governor has sworn to protect them from Sessions threats.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. I would strongly suggest the Senator from Vermont not visit any university in Toronto

unless he wants his picture taken in a mob with morons waving soviet flags and other communist era paraphernalia around.

[NurseJackie]

5. That's so very, um... well... I mean, it's... well, uh...

... interesting.

I think it's best to refrain from further comment, but many of you already know what I'm thinking.

[Mediumsizedhand]

14. Um, ya.

[NastyRiffraff]

119. Yeppers

Wise move, Jackie

[R B Garr]

6. I wonder if someone will ask him to explain why Vermont doesn't have single payer. nt

[George II]

20. It's been asked of him a number of times, he demurs.

[sheshe2]

7. Has he rescheduled his trip to Puerto Rico? nt

[Cuthbert Allgood]

8. Let's kill him with fire.

Fuck that guy.



Why do so many want to be rid of a progressive senator that helps the cause of Democrats greatly.

[George II]

11. No one wants to be rid of a progresive Senator that helps the cause of Democrats greatly.

[NurseJackie]

19. Correct.

[Jamaal510]

25. +1

[JHan]

26. yep +++

[betsuni]

34. +1

[lapucelle]

44. ,,,

[liquid diamond]

54. +1

[sheshe2]

59. Boom!

[ehrnst]

114. +1000 (nt)

[yardwork]

126. I strongly support all progressive senators who help the cause of Democrats.

[HughBeaumont]

13. Eh, just the daily Two Minutes Hate directed towards Bernie.

At least 1 or 2 threads. Just maddening what they come up with.

You know, because it's NEVER politically viable to be even slightly left in 2017 America . . . but for some reason there's no LIMIT to the extreme of right wing you can be.

[Mediumsizedhand]

16. Doesn't Sanders have to hold some responsibility in his choices he makes? Or just on the people

that acknowledge out loud his choices?

[George II]

21. Are you REALLY calling the OP (i.e., me) a right winger? REALLY????

[HughBeaumont]

22. Read my post back to me and specifically state where I called you, George II, a right winger.

Please proceed.

The last sentence is a TRUE commentary on how, EVEN AMONG DEMOCRATS, that progressive positions are "too big a risk" and "politically unattainable" in 2017 America, but there is absolutely NO limit on how right wing we can go. Being super-batshit rightwing is now normalized.

Schtroumpf is president.
Mike Pence is vice president. Not even Dick Cheney openly HATED LGBTQI folks.
He presides over the wealthiest and most rabidly right-wing cabinet in history.
Extreme right-wing Republicans control all three branches, most governorships and state legislatures.
The media not only successfully aided Donald Trump into the White House, they continue to demonize anything Democratic.
Schtroumpf only denounced White Supremacists when pushed to the brink . . . even so, he equated them to Antifa (sorry, Antifa's ideology never tried to kill my grandpa).
Schtroumpf openly threatens nuclear war.
Schtroumpf is relying on evangelicals to save his deteriorating presidency.
This Congress refuses to entertain the idea of removal even though it's painfully obvious he's mentally and physically unfit to be CiC.

62 million people thought this would be a great idea.

WHERE AM I WRONG?

[George II]

23. Well, HughBeaumont, you referring to "1 or 2 threads":

Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

"Just maddening what they come up with." to most those "they" would be the originators of those 1 or 2 threads. Who is "they"?

And your entire post is in reference to the OP, and you go on:

"You know, because it's NEVER politically viable to be even slightly left in 2017 America . . . but for some reason there's no LIMIT to the extreme of right wing you can be."

So just who is the "you" that you're referring to if it isn't me?

Please proceed.

~~~~~

BTW, I have no idea at all what the rest of that post means whatsoever.

[George II]

45. I was in our backyard a few minutes ago. Still a few nights before our first frost here, so...

...until then we still have this:

[HughBeaumont]

48. THE "YOU" I'M REFERRING TO IS "AMERICA", NOT YOU.

Maybe "one" is the proper terminology, I don't know. Maybe I should have said "there's no LIMIT to the extreme of right wing AMERICA can be". Which, sorry, is the truth.

And I really don't care whether or not you get what I'm saying. Dogpile 'till your body parts wither off. Makes not a shit bit of difference in my life.

[lapucelle]

57. If I were referring to "America", I would say "we"

rather than "you".

[emulatorloo]

84. "There's no LIMIT to the extreme of right wing AMERICA can be."

Sorry that is not even a coherent sentence. My apologies if English is not your first language.

[betsuni]

92. The reality that Dems as a minority party can't get enough votes to pass progessive legislation

seems to be ignored. Saying "No, this health care bill will never get enough votes, we have to try something else" becomes to some people, "I hate universal health care and never want it ever and I hate progressives."

[HughBeaumont]

106. The PPACA was enacted during the 111th Congress in 2010 . . . Democratic Controlled.

The PPACA WITH a public option, theoretically, SHOULD have passed.

Yet . . . it WOULDN'T have . . . because the excuse was that we "didn't have the votes".

Now, why did we "not have the votes"?

Seems to me that a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS should have been able to pass a completely DEMOCRATIC tenet in the form of a multi-payer health system . . . a human RIGHT that 31 countries and a billion citizens have without a problem. This wasn't some "communist pony" out of far left field.

Yet, it "wouldn't have had the votes".

THAT's my problem.

What some of you don't seem to get is that I like many of the Democratic politicians I criticize (except Lieberturd. Fuck that guy).

But when they support or vote for stupid shit (or, in the case of multi-payer, DON'T support it) . . . sorry, I'm calling them out. I'm no "My Party, Right or Wrong" guy. That's what right-wing Republicans do.

[betsuni]

107. With a huge majority it wouldn't be so hard to get 60 votes. There wasn't a large majority.

A few Democrats like Joe Lieberman ruin everything. He was the one who refused to vote for the ACA unless the public option was off the table. That 60th vote was necessary and he ruined it. Nobody is saying "My Party, Right or Wrong." Nobody. Bananas.

[HughBeaumont]

113. As the article pointed out, it wasn't just Lieberman.

Two public option proposals got shot down in committee by all Republicans and 8 Democrats.

To me, multi-payer should be the litmus test. If you're a Democrat and not at least for a public option, GET OUT. You disgrace this party and your voters. This should NOT have been too much to ask. This is a human right that 31 countries have. Republicans are supposed to be the ones that think multi-payer is "SOSCHULISM", NOT us.

Why is it that Republicans don't need a supermajority for any awful legislation they ever pass?

[yardwork]

127. You wrote Dogpile til your body parts wither off. Ive never heard that before.

A violent and grisly image. And odd, too. Dogpiles don’t cause body parts to “wither off.”

Your image evokes concentration camps. It’s a horrible thing to say to somebody.

[HughBeaumont]

128. Wow.

Search me how you make THAT canyon leap in logic, but by all means, light that rocket and FLY, Evel Knievel.

[yardwork]

129. Those were your words.

You wrote “Dogpile until your body parts wither off.”

As a member of DU, I’d like to hear how you think that posting that helps Democrats win elections.

[HughBeaumont]

130. I made a FACTUAL statement. Two, actually.

One - there ARE at least one to two threads almost DAILY that refight the primaries. They can be rotated around a lot of things - usually hatred for Bernie, which I'm goddamned SICK of. It's almost as if they preferred Hillary be coronated rather than be strengthened by a primary challenger, which she was.

Two - it just goes to show that, IN AMERICA (NOT SINGLING OUT ANY DU POSTER, FOR FUCK'S SAKE), there's never a limit to how right wing you can be . . . but if you're even slightly to the left of things, you're politically unviable. Or you "don't have the votes". Or "ponies" or some such stupid shit.

This statement caused what can be construed as a FIGURATIVE "Dogpile" - lots of DU's members who don't like me for some reason (maybe it's because I criticize Democrats when they support or vote for stupid shit like war, job offshoring, Republican economic policy or not supporting a multi-payer health system) swarmed it and piled on unnecessarily. They just CAN'T LET THINGS GO.

YOU'RE the one equating an innocuous FIGURATIVE statement to "concentration camp" atrocities and going on about such statements not being constructive in electing Democrats. That kind of says more about YOU than it does me.

Conservative Democrats (and sorry that anyone wants to deny until the cows come home (FIGURATIVE STATEMENT!!! DON'T ASK ME IF I HATE ANIMALS NOW!!), but they DO exist) have done more harm to this party than any "Bernie Sanders" has. The "Big Tent" has done nothing but push the Overton Window to the right. That's how I feel. Shoot me if y'all don't like it, but still it is so.

[lapucelle]

40. Here's where something in the argument goes awry.

The last sentence is a TRUE commentary on how, EVEN AMONG DEMOCRATS, that progressive positions are "too big a risk" and "politically unattainable" in 2017 America...
WHERE AM I WRONG?

While "the last sentence" referenced qualifies as commentary, it is not necessarily "true commentary". As a matter of fact, the their is evidence to the contrary.. Enter Chuck and Nancy:

[HughBeaumont]

47. If these people are so progressive, why was Bernie rejected by the DNC?

Seems to me if we're "progressive", we'd have no issue embracing him. We've done just the opposite.

And why have the people you keep bringing up been less than progressive on issues that matter?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-town-hall-capitalism_us_58925a53e4b070cf8b807e28

[Mediumsizedhand]

51. He was welcome. Wow, 180 whip lash. Ya, I imagine Clinton had the solid support from Democrats,

see she has been a part of the party for decades, has helped the party for decades, brings in money for decades, is actually one of our own. Go figure. Lol. And still they welcomed the man that has spent decades insulting them.

Ya. Unfair. I got that.

The majority of the Democratic party is as progressive if not more progressive on some issues, than Sanders. Progressive is not the issue. But then, there is a theory with this one. It is probably the obvious.

[sheshe2]

61. He was welcome.

However the primary has come and gone. Let it go and stop refighting them.

[JHan]

77. Who were the millions who rejected him?

Fake democrats?

And Sander's single payer healthcare plan isn't the only route to universal health care coverage that exists. SIGH.

Also funny how he suddenly thought the Medicare buy-in idea was a good one after the election. A Medicare Buy In Bill was introduced by Sherrod Brown in August - something Hillary campaigned on. I guess that means Sherrod Brown is not "progressive"

SIGH and double fricken SIGH.

[Mediumsizedhand]

81. We clearly see, it is not about the facts, attacking Dems. Very good point. Thanks.

[JHan]

88. Imagine playing the "who is the real progressive" game before midterms.

I'm out of crayons to explain the awfulness of this strategy.

And Sherrod Brown came out with that bill around the time Sanders was pushing Medicare for all.

Tammy Duckworth also said she'd rather an incremental route, focusing on fixing Obamacare.

I guess these senators aren't real progressives.

[Mediumsizedhand]

89. But, here is the thing JHan, and what bothered me so. It is implied and even stated that no,

they are not real progressives. That is why I am having conversation with the very definition of progressive. We have gotten WAY off base on deciding who are progressives. And why would we do this to our Democratic Party, purposely. I see only one clear motive.

[JHan]

91. it's what one person says it is.

which is cray cray ( And scary)

[Me.]

79. How Was He Rejected By Anyone Other than Voters

I think he did very well by the DEms, very well indeed.

“During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

[emulatorloo]

87. the caption says "SANDERS Health Plan Will "Never Ever Come To Pass"

Let's not make the mistake of ass-uming people are not progressive or for universal healthcare because they have misgivings about Sanders particular plan, which had/has no concrete information about how it will be implemented.

There were very few Policy differences between HRC and Bernie. In my caucus state some voters liked Bernie but liked Hillary second best. And some liked Hillary but liked Bernie second best. In other words they would have been happy w either in the general election.

How are you using the acronym DNC? Voters aren't the DNC. Democrats aren't the DNC. The Democratic Party is not the DNC. The DNC is the Democratic National Comittee which does not set policy, does not control primaries (State Democratic Parties do). Just trying to clarify.

[NurseJackie]

27. It sure seems that way...

... doesn't it?

[lapucelle]

38. Who's "they"?

Eh, just the daily Two Minutes Hate directed towards Bernie.
At least 1 or 2 threads. Just maddening what they come up with.

And if it's "never politically viable to be even slightly left", it's bewildering why Schumer and Pelosi keep getting elected to office and are entrusted by their Democratic Party colleagues with leadership. On The Issues.org rates both Nancy and Chuck as "left" based on voting records, sponsored and co-sponsored bills, public statements, and stances on economic and social issues.

[HughBeaumont]

42. Ah yes, the same site that ranks Joe Lieberturd a "Moderate Liberal Populist".

I can trust that as far as I can throw it.

[lapucelle]

52. The data on which the "true commentary" is based

is an opinion piece from The Intercept and an 11 year old story from the NYT?

Here's the data collection methodology and an explanation of political philosophy determination from On The Issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=5&a9=1&a16=5&a10=5&a5=5&a7=5&a8=4&a14=1&a15=2&a17=5&a19=5&a18=5&a6=1&a20=1&a11=1&a12=5&a13=2&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=98&e=5&t=21

[HughBeaumont]

58. Yes, and your oh-so-serious data calls Joe Lieberman a "Moderate Liberal Populist".

The guy mostly responsible for Al Gore losing to Bewsh.

The guy who strongly favored Bewsh's wars of folly and called the world "better for it".

The guy who pals around with Pat Robertson.

The guy who campaigned with McCain.

The main reason we don't have multi-payer.

"Moderate LIBERAL Populist"??? Is this serious?

What's "opinion" about the Schumer piece? Did he NOT do what the article says he did?

And what's false about the NYT piece? At that point, we KNEW Bewsh committed war crimes, advocated and approved torture and DESERVED TO BE IMPEACHED.

[lapucelle]

62. The headline is wrong.

"Chuck Schumer: The Worst Possible Democratic Leader at the Worst Possible Time"

Schumer was masterful in ensuring that the Democratic caucus spoke with one voice during the Republican healthcare debacle.

Extra Credit:
Are all the On The Issues.org data-based political philosophy determinations wrong or is "wrongness" confined only to those determinations with which one disagrees?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Used to it.

[Mediumsizedhand]

15. It does not hurt to have a clear picture of a man positioning himself for a 2020 run as Pres.

You think?

[Demsrule86]

111. I hope he reconsiders. He won't win and could divide the electorate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Will never understand this or the total disrespect some here show the most popular politician today.

Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[Mediumsizedhand]

63. Popular of a couple Democrats and more Republicans, lmFao.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. Riiiight.

[Mediumsizedhand]

67. No, really. Funny. And I see it over and over and over. Lol.

[sheshe2]

69. I know, and it bothers me the disrespect that Obama was shown.

He is the most popular politician today by far and his wife admired for all the good work she has done ... at a speech the other day they kept chanting four more years...four more years.

He received eight years of hatred by some in all parties and racist comments from the GOP. He made this world a better place for us all and is loved by many throughout the entire world. He never stopped at our shores, he spread throughout the world and made us a better place.

Is he perfect? No. He would be the first to admit that. He did some things wrong, yet the right out ways the wrong.

[Mediumsizedhand]

70. That, is the reality.

[sheshe2]

72. Yes it is!

He had me with his keynote speech.

Yes, for a bit I thought he was too young for 2008. I changed my mind quickly. I just kept listening to him talk,,,he spoke for me, he spoke to me, Msh.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. Obama deserves our utmost respect, no doubt... can't disagree with you there.

[sheshe2]

74. Thank you! Thank you!!!!

I agree.

I also believe him to be the most popular politician ever and his wife and family adored for their contributions around the world for eight long years. He dug us out of the worst, he saved us from the great depression that he came into office with, and yet has never really been credited for all he did. So when I see posts that Bernie is more loved than Obama and has achieved more than Obama I have to question why that is being said.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Where have you seen it said that Bernie is more loved than Obama and has achieved more than him?

I honestly have not seen that... and that would be a patently false statement if there ever was one.

I have seen it said, that among ACTIVE politicians today, and certainly those still eligible to run, Bernie CURRENTLY polls better - I've noted that myself... and, of course, that may not last into the future - but, that certainly CANNOT be taken to mean he's MORE LOVED than Obama or has ACHIEVED more than he has... I would agree with you, that's absurd on its face.

Again, I'm curious to know, where have you seen that said?

[melman]

90. Nowhere

It's never been said.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. I've never seen it,but if true, I'd be right there alongside sheshe condemning such false statements

As much as I admire Bernie, and his meteoric rise in popularity - from a relatively political unknown to "rock star" status - to claim that he's accomplished more than Obama is a ridiculous thing to say.

Like I said, I'd be the first one to shoot down such statements - okay, maybe second, after sheshe - and demand a retraction.

[lapucelle]

103. Odd how Obama is never included

in the gang of 12, but people like Sessions and Bannon are.

[PatsFan87]

9. I love Danielle Martin! She's so articulate and isn't afraid to punch back.

Here she is being questioned by Republican Senator Richard Burr about the Canadian healthcare system.

[imanamerican63]

12. I was hoping the is wasn't at the fake one?

University of Tweeting Twit!

[NanceGreggs]

24. As a Toronto resident ...

... I am looking forward to NOT seeing Bernie, and NOT listening to a word he has to say.

[NurseJackie]

28. You and I think alike.

[Demsrule86]

29. Canada could teach him about healthcare as they have a good system from all accounts.

[NanceGreggs]

30. We have a GREAT healthcare system here ...

... and yes, the US could learn a lot from the Canadians on the topic.

That's why I'm a bit confused as to why Bernie will be speaking instead of listening and learning.

[George II]

33. That's the big point. My family up there have no qualms about the system, and....

....the right wing story that Canadians have to wait months for healthcare is ridiculous, as is the story that many Canadians drive across the border for "better" healthcare.

Not only that, the prices of prescription medications are much lower than here in the US.

Hopefully Sanders will learn something from his trip to Toronto instead of telling Canadians what they need to do to their vastly superior healthcare system.

[NanceGreggs]

50. I've been here for 42 years.

I have never met a single person who went to the US for healthcare.

I am still confused about why Bernie would be speaking about the Canadian healthcare system. I could understand him attending a seminar here in order to listen and learn.

What is his contribution to the discussion going to be? "You Canadians have a great system, and we in the US don't"? I just don't understand what he brings to the table on this topic.

[Demsrule86]

109. Lucky you. My oldest wants to move to Canada when her boyfriend gets out of college.

She is taking international courses...(she is an accountant- just graduated).

[lunamagica]

31. Hey George, don't you love how they choose to shoot the messenger while completely

ignoring the message by refusing to discuss the issue?

You post raises a valid question. Did he even intend to go to PR, or was it just an excuse to bail out of the conference once he found out he wouldn't be giving a speech, but instead he'd have to sit and listen?

Don't we have the right to know the truth?

[George II]

35. Precisely, thanks. I guess we'll never know the reasoning behind the changes in plans....

...but now I see that Kirsten Gilibrand, who the organizers of the gathering in Detroit originally said was too busy, is now going to speak this weekend.

That whole Women's Convention is beginning to appear questionable.

Incidentally, before the weekend they had $150,005 pledged, as of now they have $150,455. $450 in four days? That's only 30% of their goal.

[mcar]

55. It could have been a great convention

They botched it from the get go.

[Demsrule86]

110. It will still be a great convention...very excited to go.

This is the first one in years...wish they had not made it so expensive so more could have participated.

[NurseJackie]

37. It's certainly curious.

[JCanete]

75. in the absence of any information whatsoever on the reasons, why would it raise this question?

Why is this where you would take it? Where is hte precedent that was set taht you are basing that on.

As to the post, it certainly does just go to show that....

what the hell does it go to show? I seriously had to think about what the implicit accusation might be here. Of course since its a Sanders story and George is posting it, its hard to take it as just passing on general information, but I'm just not sure what the take away is supposed to be. Oh I know, that plans sometimes change?

[lunamagica]

96. Why is there and absence of information on the reasons? That is the question

George asked a question. It was not an accusation, nor an attack. it is a valid question. All of a sudden Sanders says he won't attend the Women's Convention because, in this words "Given the emergency situation in Puerto Rico, I will be traveling there to visit with San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz and other officials to determine the best way forward to deal with the devastation the island is experiencing."

Never mind that this emergency happened weeks ago, and his trip would take place a week after his announcement. But it makes no difference anymore because the emergency and the devastation the island is experiencing now seems to have taken a back seat to a trip to give a speech in Canada.

Plans sometimes change, is it wrong to ask why?

[JCanete]

97. asking why is hardly the same thing as insinuating that the statement that he would be going to

Puerto Rico may have never been genuine. That was your insinuation, based on ....well what exactly?

[lunamagica]

98. Where was the insinuation? He posted two articles, and his only comment was that first Sanders said

he was going to PR, and now he says he is going to Canada. He just pointed to facts, there were no insinuations

[melman]

99. Right

because this thread exists in a vacuum and there's no history to go by.

[lunamagica]

100. I guess it's easier to attack the OP, than to explain what Sanders is doing here

[JCanete]

101. um...your direct insinuation. YOURS. wow.

""You post raises a valid question. Did he even intend to go to PR, or was it just an excuse to bail out of the conference once he found out he wouldn't be giving a speech, but instead he'd have to sit and listen? ""

[lunamagica]

102. Oh, OK, I misread. Sorry about that. Well, my insinuation comes from Sanders being scheduled for

the Woman's convention -first it was said to give a speech, but then his role was changed to a member of a panel. So suddenly he has to cancel because he has to go to Puerto Rico due to their "emergency" and "devastation". That emergency started weeks before, AFAIK he never announced plans to go. Why did he need to cancel his appearance in the convention to go to PR? And now the emergency and devastation in PR that that made him cancel the Woman's Convention is not happening because he is going to Canada.

That's where my insinuation comes from.

[JCanete]

105. sorry, was really abrasive in my last post for no good reason. I understand the turn of events that

have conspired to inform your question, but to ask it is implying a possible lie where there is no reason to assume that is the case. The opposite of a generous read. It is feeding suspicions where there is no real agenda apparent, nor anybody being harmed by some sort of "bait-and-switch." Sanders said he was going to Puerto Rico. Now apparently he isn't. "AHA! That confirms everything we felt about this so called Sanders..."There's just not much there to even get into this one...in my opinion.

[lunamagica]

125. No problem.

"AHA! That confirms everything we felt about this so called Sanders..."

I never said that. I think if he gave an explanation for this could clarify everything. But so far, he remains silent.

[DesertRat]

36. Why is Sanders giving a speech to Canadians on why their healthcare is better?

No snark intended. I honestly don't understand.

[betsuni]

41. Flying north, not south?

Is he not going to Puerto Rico at all? Does anyone know?

[aidbo]

56. Your obsession with Bernies weekend plans are duly noted.

[George II]

60. WTF are you talking about? For a Senator who has been declared a decisive leader....

....having three different sets of plans over the course of only a few days seems to contradict his perceived decisiveness.

[JCanete]

76. Is that the thing that we sit around saying about Sanders? That he is super decisive? Genuine

question, and I wasn't aware of that. Decisiveness is sometimes warranted, sometimes extra deliberation and changing your plans or direction is.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. Lol. Bingo.

[jalan48]

71. LOL

[melman]

86. Seriously

[Wwcd]

82. What happened to the emergency trip to Puerto Rico?!!

[democrank]

83. I can't wait until us Real Democrats destroy that awful Bernie Sanders

and send his followers packing. I hope Sanders stops having anything to do with our Real Democratic Party in Washington. We don't need his help and we don't want it.

His followers have caused Our Party so much difficulty, talking crazy like single payer health care and getting money out of politics. Who do they think they are and who needs people like that? I don't care that over 40% of voters say they're Independents, we don't need any of them because they're not Real Democrats like us.

Bernie Sanders made Our Party lose more than 1,000 state and federal seats over the last twelve years. That's another reason Our Party doesn't need him or anyone who agrees with him. We're doing just fine without their so-called help.

We must reject anyone who doesn't have an Our Party "D" after their name. Bernie Sanders doesn't have one and those nutty Socialists in Mostly White Vermont keep voting for him anyhow. He's an (I) ! Now Vermonters have Maine doing it. They voted for Angus King, and HE's an (I) . The whole country is getting ruined by these issues voters. That's why we must always stay with our own.

[hueymahl]

85. I see what you did there

Party over principle - Go team!

And the usual suspects to boot.

[emulatorloo]

94. I am really glad Bernie took the time to invent single payer as well as campaign finance reform

It is also good he is going to Canada to tell Canadians about Canada's Healthcare system because they may not know about it.

Just teasing you, enjoyed your satire of some threads on DU. Very humorous!

[Demsrule86]

112. No one is destroying Sen. Sanders...I have no doubt he is popular

with more than a few progressives and Democrats, but it won't be enough to win a primary and could divide us. I hope Sen.Sanders does the right thing and does not run in 20. I am not a Sanders fan, but I appreciate his work in the Senate and hold no animosity towards him...I agree with most of what he says. I have never thought he could win the presidency assuming he won the 2020 primary. The country is center left. I just think with the age factor,the country moving to the right and the still bitter feelings from 16,he should not run.

[ehrnst]

115. +1000 (nt)

[Demsrule86]

117. Thanks.