2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumInteresting how some Bernie supporters trash the very party he JOINED to try to be president.
Bernie JOINED the Dem party to try to become president because he knew he couldn't win otherwise. And yet so many Bernie fans trash the party that he voluntarily JOINED. Such hypocrisy. So pathetic.
And the thing is, BERNIE would be disappointed. I love Bernie, but some of his supporters are saying things that are just plain off the beam. "Hillary is a war monger." "Hillary is a Republican." And on and on and on. Wild eyed and off the beam.
If the Dem party is so terrible, why did Bernie so recently JOIN it?????????
cali
(114,904 posts)It's beyond irresponsible and naive to not deal with it.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)small donors. Hillary is corrupt.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)by the Clintons ant others. At best, under DLC, THird Way, Blue Dog control, the Party has become the left wing of the republican party.
In order to deal with that, first we have to recognize the problem and who was responsible for that problem.
Unless you are a corporatist and are in the process of pushing the Party even farther to the right -
"It's beyond irresponsible and naive to not deal with it."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They want to wave a magic wand, and if that doesn't work, just trash everyone who has been and will continue to fight to improve the lives of Americans.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)How can some people fight so hard for what they know is wrong?
Yes, it is the "system" we have. Pay to play. Period. But that is why we need to confront it head on and fight for a better system. Sanders is the first viable candidate who has forced a discussion of our systemic problems. As Hillary would say, "Americans can't wait for the long, tough, incremental, marginal fight."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)And yet, the polite fiction is to just ignore it.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)You know, the Clinton Foundation. The revolving lobbyist doors. The Secretary of State hawking fighter jets to India for Lockheed. The whole sleazy mess.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and constant fighting against not only Republicans but those who become entrenched in the Democratic Party.
This is actually true in every organization.
However it also require working and socializing with people you don't agree with and with those who are trying to stab you in the back.
That is why Sanders ultimately will lose.
He is an ideologue like so many of his followers.
He doesn't understand how to work well with others.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)To be fair, unlike his more reactionary followers, BERNIE can be pragmatic and sensible and manages to combine his rigid ideology with a respect for truth. Considering where he came from, and with what (basically only his message), Bernie has done splendidly, even if his followers are like yo-yos bouncing between extremes of alt and angst.
Anyway, I'm guessing no one's more inspired by his success so far than he is. If he were a younger man, losing this race would probably just mean he'd run again and again until he did win. As it is, if he loses this nomination he'll no doubt continue his crusade in the Senate. Regarding your last, it'll be interesting to see if he is able to use his new stature and additional power to accomplish more than he has in the past.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Loyalty is a two way street. Something you got to give in order to get. There are too many Americans that are tired of giving and not even getting the basics.
And you're going to sit here and tell me "WE" must be loyal. I don't think so. SCREW YOUR FREAKING PARTY!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)how well has "Not as bad as the other guys" worked out in the last 8 years?
What's the DWS record on how many state and Congressional races she's won?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)at least since LBJ, and possibly since FDR. And, like I said, if you're going to give Bernie credit for things that will never get through congress, then you give Obama credit for raising the minimum wage, his jobs program, the public option, etc.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)because we lost some seats.
If you want big changes, like Obama delivered, then there are political risks. I'm looking forward to continuing the progress that Obama made under Hillary.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)But it figures coming from the blind adoration contingent here.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Did that mean it was a failure?
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim, on the one hand, that the Sanders "movement" is impervious to political pressure and pragmatism and willing to take on great risk to make great gains, and then on the other, criticize President Obama for "losing 900 seats around the country" because he followed through on his promise and pushed through historic, groundbreaking legislation.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)So blaming her for losing "900 seats" is disingenuous at best.
Those seats were lost in 2010 and 2014 because progressive Democrats bent on "teaching Obama a lesson" did not go out to vote. Period.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Who didn't vote were the people that weren't inspired by the lack of a real choice.
The ones who saw no difference between corporate stooge R and corporate stooge D. The ones that see "Not as bad as the other guy" as nothing to get fired up about.
But keep right on blaming the losses on a nonexistent rather than admit the National Party leadership did little to help at the local level. One of the reasons I and many of my friends no longer donate at the national level.
Disingenuous? Like her not supporting a Democrat and openly supporting the Republican running against him.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)I remember well the movement of progressive Democrats, furious with Obama over the Public Option and other things they said he did or did not do, who vowed to stay at home and then proudly admitted that they had, in order to "teach Obama a lesson." And I remember being called everything but a child of God on DU whenever I pointed out how foolish this strategy was.
Had progressives voted in 2010 in the same numbers - or even close to the same numbers - that they had in 2008, Democrats would have kept the House, kept more governorships and state legislatures and Obama would have been in a much stronger position moving forward. And, even more important, redistricting would not have resulted in the blatant gerrymandering that guaranteed Republican rule for the next decade.
Funny how, on the one hand, some folks claim that it's about the people, not the leadership. And then whine that the leadership didn't do enough to motivate the people to get out to vote. Leadership is important, but the people have to take responsibility, too. And it doesn't require a strong chair of the DNC for progressive Democrats to know that if they don't vote, Democrats lose and if they do vote Democrats win. In 2010, many progressives WANTED Democrats to lose - they said so very clearly. This cannot be blamed on the party.
And if people didn't see a difference between the Republicans who were running and the Democrats they were running against, that's not the fault of the party. And if they purposely allowed the Republicans to win because they were mad at Obama, that's not the fault of the party.
Moreover, while the DNC is involved in the House, Senate and Governors races, they have little to do with the state and local races - state legislatures, county commissions, etc. And THAT's where much of the power is. State parties help to drive those and individual voters have much, much more say over those races. Yet, in staying home to teach Obama a lesson, these same progressives also sat out the state and local races that have so much impact on our lives - and redistricting. This all made a difference and cannot be put at DWS's feet, no matter how much you hate her.
Bottom line, claiming that this was all DWS's fault - especially when she wasn't even in charge of the DNC in 2010 - IS more than disingenuous - it's outright dishonest.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)and the Bernie hate coming from you and your cohorts is of course as pure as the new fallen snow.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)What has Obama done again? I realize the bar is very low, so I would be willing to relent if you can come up with anything other than the ACA.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Given the tenor of the country at the time, Nixon did not have to fight hard to get any of those things done. They had broad bipartisan support and much of the heavy lifting was done in Congress by a united leadership. Moreover, they were part of a continuum that the country was already on, moving toward more and more toward moderate but progressive change, notwithstanding Nixon's Southern Strategy in the campaign. That movement was stopped with the election of Ronald Reagan who very purposefully halted it in its tracks and turned it back. It has been moving in the backward direction since then - sometimes more gradually, sometimes more quickly and sometimes in a two steps forward, one step back fashion, depending on the political leadership in power. But for the past 35 years, the trend has been moving rightward.
President Obama is working against that tide. He is not operating in the same environment in which Nixon was operating. You cannot compare what Nixon did in the late 1960s and early 1970s with what President Obama has done in the last 7 years in the face of unprecedented obstacles. Given what he has accomplished in the current climate, President Obama HAS been an extraordinarily transformative and progressive President, notwithstanding the naysayers who consistently try to belittle and demean his record.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)The bar has been lowered by the 0.1% who have effectively bought our entire two party system so far that a corrupt Republican arguably managed to usher in more progressive change than our current Democratic president.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Seriesly?? Nixon??? Tricky Dick????
How deep into your bag of bloviation did you have to dig to pull that out?
If you had an ounce of self-respect, you would be doing this...
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Carter tried, but never had a chance.
Nixon's term of office was arguably more transformative than Obama's has been in terms of progressive causes.
I give full credit to Obama for getting some good things done amid crazy Repuke resistance of his every move. But the bar has fallen so low that "ending Darth Vader's torture policies" and "using just the Air Force to destabilize the Middle East" now count as "progressive transformation."
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... which it sounds like that's what his campaign is about.
He's not proffered something much better than what Obama has and now he's supposed to get all this past a historically gerrymandered GOP congress
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You cute little analigy of a magic wand is right out of the cliched playbook that has been used for 35 years to quash liberalism on issues of wealth and power (and often to promote social conservatism too, i.e. DOMA, Welfare Deform)
bowens43
(16,064 posts)hillary will DO nothing but kiss corporate ass
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)...here has stated that we don't expect magic. We are looking for a candidate who said let's aim for this and try. I'd rather try and try and try than to say "Oh no, that's too hard. We can't do that."
So we have a candidate who says "Let's Try" and one who says " It will Never, Ever happen."
I'm going with the one who says "Let's Try."
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)If you can't see that, then have fun at your Clinton Foundation fundraisers.
enid602
(8,620 posts)Anything can be manipulated to appear corrupt. The Clinton Foundation, for example spends 89% of its revenue on some pretty worthwhile charities around the world. In contrast to, say Wounded Warriors, which spends only 59%. Or Feed the Children, which spends 21%.
Raising money for other democratic candidates can also be considered part of the corrupt, 'pay for play' system, if you are inclined to think so.
On either count, it would appear that Bernie is pure as the driven snow.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)He's joining it to make it the FDR party again. The true opposition to rethugs, not capitulators.
GO Bernie!!
riversedge
(70,233 posts)infrastructure. Simple as that.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Sanders has brought excitement and energy to an otherwise corrupt and moribund business as usual corpse.
Sanders is running as a Democrat because we have a two party system because a two party system is easier for oligarchs to control.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)riversedge
(70,233 posts)raise within the Dem Party to help other Democrats get elected. In addition her 50 state strategy is helping individual states--and the individual state Democratic Parties grow.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)It sure ain't jaded and hated Hillary.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)And they have made very clear that if Sanders is not the nominee, they will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee in the General.
This has nothing to do with Sanders trying to energize the Democratic Party. This is all about Sanders using the Democratic Party's resources to undergird and advance his campaign. Period.
I'm not mad at him for it. It's a smart political move by a pragmatic, opportunistic politician. And people need to stop pretending that he's anything but.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)You mean democracy?
riversedge
(70,233 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)That's just the product of our two party system as I originally said.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Why don't you?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)All you have to do to move way up in the polls is to run against her.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)It shows that Sanders needed the Democratic Party apparatus to get his message out and to run a viable campaign and that, without it, he'd be nowhere.
Funny how little regard you have for your candidate. Insisting that his doing well is proof that Clinton is a bad candidate suggests that you believe that Sanders could not do well against a strong candidate. I think the fact that he's running well against an excellent candidate speaks well of him.
But if you want to believe that your candidate is so weak that he can only prevail against a weak candidate, that's your prerogative.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)'That's a mighty fine high horse,' you ride. Watch you don't fall off cause there are some pretty hungry people at the party.
Without Bernie, it was beginning to look like we were a single party.
cali
(114,904 posts)be howling away if he ran as an independent. You praised him for it, before he started looking like a threat to Hillary
Armstead
(47,803 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... he wouldn't have to deal with DWS et al if he stayed independent.
pandr32
(11,586 posts)Not to mention he thought he could win against a woman, and one that was doomed to have the full onslaught of the rich Republican puppet master money flung at her.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that it roll over and do whatever he needed to win! And that Hillary be extra nice and go extra easy on Bernie and not dare to run a hard campaign against him!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)We simply recognize that the party has been taken to the right and are fed up with it. You do know history, right? Would you have been a Democrat back in Lincoln's time?
It is not about our party right or wrong. It is about doing the right thing. And Bernie is the one that has been doing that all along.
ms liberty
(8,577 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)please be aware that the parties are objectively more polarized than in decades, by some measures going back to the time of the Civil War.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/13/polarization-in-congress-has-risen-sharply-where-is-it-going-next/
So please, stop with this nonsense that the parties are the same, or the Democrats are becoming more and more like Republicans. It's false.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)TPP, ACA, Deregulation, Fiscal Austerity, etc.......not so much difference.
The GOP could have just as easily proposed something similar to Obamacare, albeit less on the reform side. Their strident opposition is just political opportunism.
SDJay
(1,089 posts)Who have seen the light to varying degrees, I'm not leaving the party, it's leaving me.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Her campaign chairman owns a lobbying firm that represents weapons manufacturers and Saudi Arabia.
When she was SOS she approved weapons deals at twice the rate for donors to the Clinton Foundation than for others. And those weapons went to many countries we previously had not sold weapons to, because they oppress their own people.
She also wants to provoke Russia in Syria, and was desperate to over throw Gaddafi.
She benefits from war, as do her allies.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)because he wanted to provide a progressive choice, because he felt the Dems had drifted too far to the right and he could be an impetus for it to shift left again, and because he didn't want to be an I. spoiler like Nader that helps an R win. I'm one of the ones that wants him to be President, and I'm grateful he's giving rank and file D's a choice of candidates.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)There's plenty of evidence that had Sen Warren thrown her hat into the ring that Bernie wouldn't be running. He's running preciesly because he felt that there needed to be a more liberal voice in the primary. That point should be made again and again whenever his motivations are questioned
flor-de-jasmim
(2,125 posts)The Dem Party has shifted far to the right in terms of some of its rhetoric and policies. As has the Repub Party. it is why some moderate Rs have joined our party. Take a look at FDRs goals. Consider Eisenhower's work in building infrastrucure. Look at the democratic protests of the 60s. Compare that history with Bernie's platform. The public universities in Cal. used to be free.
By what measure do you claim that Bernie is not true to democratic principles of the highest order?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The highest order.
He's proven its attainable, we just have to give him a shot.
Having the Democratic Party dissolve into conservatism has truly, deeply harmed our country.
longship
(40,416 posts)And aligned themselves with policies which Democrats of the past would have unequivocally maligned. All in the name of intraparty political opposition.
Pitiful. Frankly pitiful.
Would be as much an outcast in this party today as Reagan would be with the bad guys, and that's unfortunate.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How DARE they be critical of our party which has never let us down or done anything worth criticizing EVER???
pengu
(462 posts)We are long time democrats who are incredibly frustrated with the intentionally anemic pace of progress. We are long time democrats who are appalled by the influence of money on many (not all) of our party leadership.
vercetti2021
(10,156 posts)You Hillary supporters are blind to see what she really stands for. Go ahead and elect a corporate Dem that will represent our party and then watch her get torn a part by the Republicans and lose the GE. Bernie is the last freaking hope for a progressive USA and you're not helping that cause.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)I've been registered Dem for 45 years. i stopped donating to the party quite a long time ago. I donate ONLY to specific candidates that I feel represent my understanding of what the Democratic Party should be. I've supported Warren, Sherrod Brown, Keith Ellison, and others. I am now giving to Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson and just started supporting Tim Canova and Tom Fiegen and worked on Obamas 2008 campaign.
I refuse to give money directly to the Party until they once again start representing me and not corporate interests.
Call me a bad Democrat if you want. Bernie Sanders is the very heart of what I always felt were democratic principles. Would those who object so much to the fact that he joined the party too late for them have preferred he not caucus all these years with the Dems? They sure were happy to have his votes.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)My wife freaked out and declared them murderers and criminals. I pointed out that they were just dogs being dogs. She is now trying to convince herself that dogs don't decapitate rabbits so it wasn't them, it was some sort of avian predator.
randome
(34,845 posts)...complaining when you don't get a pardon. Isn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)it will replace my occasional use of 'You seem to be saying: I'm not happy until you're not happy, too.'
THANKS
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)You overlook one small detail. Reality.
http://billmoyers.com/story/both-parties-agree-selling-out-is-worth-it/#.Vq0KF9__d0U.facebook
I do not, most others do not "trash" the Party. We disagree with the direction the Dem Party Leadership is moving.
The leadership-over the years- has Trashed "our" party. The people out here are trying to clean up the mess, again.
It isn't hypocrisy at all. It is a signal the party itself is suffering under it's leadership.
The party is on life support, btw-Bernie might just resuscitate it.
I am disgusted. I have supported Dems since 1959. I don't need counsel nor chastising - Dem Leadership does.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)He joined it to take it back from the neoliberal DINOs that have infested it and to finally have it return to caring about We the People instead of the parasites of the fucking .01%. Don't like that?
Tough shit.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)If he ran as a third party candidate, that's exactly what would have happened. Is that your preference? Bernie, IMO, is what Democrats used to be and what Democrats should be. The party has moved right over the years and it doesn't sit well with many of the rank and file. I probably would have changed my party affiliation to Independent from Democrat if he'd run as a third party candidate. You might have seen a mass exodus from the party.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I am not feeling that way. I feel more that we are doing more of what others do not want us to do. To look under the hood of a car someone else thinks you should buy is only common sense.
Repeatedly, even at nausea people have come posting, and asking if you would want me to vote for Hillary Clinton then please continue in a debate about policies, past positions and future goals. It never happens, we are then asked to bow to the anointed one. You might try understand this concept, rather trying to trash us for pointing these kind of things out
democrank
(11,094 posts)Remember how critical DUers were of George W. Bush`s Republican supporters who blindly followed him no matter how bad things got?
Taking issue with Hillary`s NO WE CAN`T or her Iraq War vote is not trashing the Democratic Party, it`s disagreeing with specific positions on issues. The Democratic Party isn`t Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or Chelsea Clinton. It`s we, the people....including Bernie Sanders.
livetohike
(22,144 posts)the past 20+ years in Congress. He needs the Democratic Party. Hope voters remember how much he criticized the party and our Democratic President.
cali
(114,904 posts)Bernie Sanders has represented me for 25 years. I've attended town meetings/potlucks with him in my tiny town. I've met with him a couple of times in his Washington office. I've followed him closely. I have a good idea of who he is. Bernie was not jonesing to run for President. He never has. He ran because no other progressive did.
Furthermore, progressives have been listening to him for years. His filibuster against proposed tax cuts and his long standing willingness to forthrightly engage with the public made him well known and much admired by progressives, long before this.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)...criticized the Party and 'our' Democratic President?...god freaking forbid that as a citizen, let alone a lifelong Democrat like myself, one of us cannot admit, and oh mercy! criticize, that Obama basically went corporate on us since 2010....
and the Party is so corporate/right-center in leadership that we are merely a version of RepbulicanLite...
Bernie has only caucused with the Dems forever...screw the 'Party' apparatus...Bernie speaks to real Dems, you know, the true progressive/liberal wing the Party was built on...
book_worm
(15,951 posts)who in the past have voted for Nader & other third party candidates because they don't support either major party. Some of them helped elect George W. Bush by voting for Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough and some of them will vote third party again this year if Sanders isn't the nominee.
Broward
(1,976 posts)leftupnorth
(886 posts)Just sayin'
hack89
(39,171 posts)Can't explain his supporters.
Boomer
(4,168 posts)You can go scold someone else, because I've been a Democrat for 40 years. I've earned the right to criticize my own party, and the party has definitely earned that criticism.
Compared to the politics of my youth, Hillary Clinton would be a moderate Republican: fairly moderate to liberal on social issues while being a fiscal conservative that favored rights for big business. As for "war monger", her record speaks for itself. She wasn't the only Democrat that voted in favor of the grotesque Iraq war, but I hold them accountable too.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)LexVegas
(6,067 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)claim. And so ironic.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)You're welcome to make a case for why she's still the best candidate, but denying what everyone knows is not the best way to do that.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)democracy, which the party is supposed to embody to begin with.
His joining the party says more about the party than it does about him.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I think it is more realistic to move the dems back left that the other team
bowens43
(16,064 posts)It's time that the entrenched, corporate ass kissing establishment politicians get the hell out of the way and let the party once again become the party of FDR and not the party of wall street.
Dont pretend to know what Bernie thinks and don't pretend that even matters to thos of us so disillusioned with the status quo. We , unlike many hillary supporters are not sheep , we do not blindly follow bernie or anyone else.
why did he join??? Because like it or not we have a two party system.
frizzled
(509 posts)nt
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)and I could recall a time.
I fought against Nixon who I couldn't stand as a chronic liar. And here I am in a position where I might have to support Hillary who I also regard as a chronic liar. If that comes to pass, I cannot support the GOP but it will not be a fun time for me. I'm supporting a candidate I do not believe in - which drives me around the bend. Particularly when the runner up is probably the most honest candidate I've ever encountered.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Because he is an opportunist. Bernie has always been anti democratic party and proud of it.
But he realized his greatest ambition in life, to be president, was impossible as an independent socialist so tragically he was allowed to run as a democrat. A party he has always head in contempt.
Some quotes from Bernie about the democratic party:
My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.
We have to ask ourselves, Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we dont agree with anything the Democratic Party says?
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat, he said in a profile in New England Monthly.
..."he called the Democratic Party ideologically bankrupt, then added: They have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism.
In an op-ed in the New York Times in January 1989, he called the Democratic and Republican parties tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, both adhering in his estimation to an ideology of greed and vulgarity.
At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990, he asked, Why should we work within the Democratic Party
? He said at the gathering he was running for Congress that year again as an independent because it would be hypocritical of him to run as a Democrat considering the kinds of things he had said about the party.
Still, he stressed: I am not a Democrat, period.
Can Bernie Sanders Win the Love of a Party He Scorns?
The long, troubled history of Bernie Sanders and the 'ideologically bankrupt' party whose White House nod he now seeks.
By MICHAEL KRUSE and MANU RAJU 8/10/2015
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181
So the reason so many Bernie backers trash the democratic party is their leader hates it as well but needed it to further his own personal ambitions IMO.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Explain.
--imm
treestar
(82,383 posts)"vulgarity?"
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I was stunned when I first learned about that. That told me all I needed to know about him. I was not impressed at all.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You should be thankful.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
INdemo
(6,994 posts)How about Hillary supporters calling Bernie Sanders a Communist and that he was not going to allow people to allow anyone to own personal property and it was allowed to stand.
Your post is total BS
Logical
(22,457 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)which is what the Clinton machine really is. They trashed it, we're just screaming in horror.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Why is that 'interesting'?
Autumn
(45,092 posts)Win or lose, after our caucus I will leave the Democratic party again. For the last time.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Autumn
(45,092 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)You have no interest in the party, do not support what it stands for and have no desire to help the party in any way. You are in the party ONLY because of your devotion to one man, who also isn't a Democrat but joined the party in order to bolster his own political prospects.
Got it.
Autumn
(45,092 posts)I left the party when they no longer had any interest in my needs and the needs of the people and you are correct, I do not support what the democratic party stands for any longer. I support Democrats who support the people. Got that?
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)the party for the sole purpose of voting for one man and have no interest in staying with the party or doing anything to support it and you do not intend to remain a member after you vote in the primary. Period.
Do you intend to vote in the General Election if Sanders is not running?
Autumn
(45,092 posts)missed an election in my life. I have never voted for a republican and I don't intend to start now. My vote is my voice and I don't do loyalty oaths. Period.
elana i am
(814 posts)i repeat, blue dog/third way/dlc DINOs trash the party.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)The reason the Democratic Party has been neutered and in minority status is because the Clintons and the DLC have turned the Democratic party into a Republican-lite party. Under the Clintons, the Democratic Party basically abandoned the working class with the passage of a Republican originated free trade bill and other pro-Big MOney bills. In exchange, the Clintons and their allies feasted on Big Money donations to their campaigns and to their lifestyles.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)An early and solid winner! It's even got "I love Bernie, but..."
Autumn
(45,092 posts)that they support this "outsider" Bernie Sanders over your lifelong democrat Hillary? Think about that.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)The Democratic Party isn't terrible. It's just a couple of people in it I don't like, people that are like Hillary. Those that pretend to be helping, but really just uphold the status quo.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)My gripe is that the party allowed people like the Clintons to push us away from traditional Democratic ideals, and cozy up to corporate interests that would donate money to help elect Democrats. Yes, this is a good strategy to help Democrats win elections, but Democrats must make serious compromises to keep that cash flowing in. And, for extra onus points, the strategy is not working. We are emulating many of the actions of the other party, and losing to them across the board. We are now the minority party at all levels of government. "We need to be more like them to defeat them," has not worked well for us, but we keep thrashing along, able to capture the presidency, but losing everything else. A Clinton victory will only help perpetuate this slow suicide.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)up with it before he joined. Change was not coming from within the party. We seek to hire him from the outside to shake things up a little. If youbhave shitty management at work, and a new staff is brought in, do you cry because the new staff wasn't promoted from within or do you get to work trying to make things better under the leadership of the new management?
dinkytron
(568 posts)But seriously, even if he disappeared tomorrow, he Bernie's already wiped the floor with Hillary and has woken this country up.
riversedge
(70,233 posts)Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)I wish he had stayed Independent and been on the GE ticket running against Clinton and Trump.
However he didn't and he will get my support.
Autumn
(45,092 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and how it has made it far more ALIGNED with economic royalists rather than standing against them the way the REAL Democrat FDR had done and would do today in standing with someone like Bernie in doing so!
Bernie is in the Democratic Primary because the SYSTEM IS RIGGED against any third party competing and winning instead of being a spoiler. Not just Bernie, but NO ONE could run as a third party candidate and win in our currently *RIGGED* system!
And corporate oligarchs like the Kochs are LAUGHING at you when they've bought controlling elements of both parties and would be very happy if Hillary were to beat Bernie so they could continue to do so and keep economic royalists in charge of this country the way they have since they and the Clintons started the DLC so many years back.
Such hypocrisy and so more REALLY pathetic. If you don't like Bernie having run as a Democrat, then why don't you push to have instant runoff voting in place, to take away the chance that a third party in a race would "spoil" it. That way, if a real good third party can enter a race and not be bought by Corporate America since it would be a lot harder for them then to "buy the field", then we might have a decent candidate win on occasion. But those against IRV are more interested in protecting the interests of the powerful, rather than putting together an electoral system where a decent and not "bought" candidate could have a shot at winning.
If you don't like Bernie running in the primary to avoid the problems with our winner take all system rigged to reward those who are owned by the economic royalists, then TOO BAD! It's the way we restore real Democracy, and it is what will happen this year.
I bet Bernie loves the way Bernie told off the economic royalists as the preeminent Democrat of his day far more than Hillary does. Bernie is far more of a TRADITIONAL Democrat than Hillary is.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)So....for every finger pointing at Bernie crying Waaahhhhhhhh Waaaahhhhhh, 3 are pointing right back in the other direction and straight at the root of the corruption and hypocrisy.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)One, this nation is a two party system. Third Parties are effectively votes for the GOP, as Ralph Nader so deftly proved in 2000.
Two: The Democratic Party was the party that espoused government programs as shown by FDR, but Clinton led a revolution against those democratic ideals, gutting many of FDR's programs like Glass-Steagall. Bernie is helping the FDR Democrats take their party BACK!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)What kind of attempt at discourse is this?
Gothmog
(145,264 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Those appear to be comments trashing Clinton, not the party. There are some comments trashing the party for following her third way plan and not promoting progressive ideas. Although I don't like the nasty tone of some of those comments, I agree with the substance of them.
djean111
(14,255 posts)over Democrats, and discourages progressives from running.
She is a symptom of how the Democratic Party has greasily slid to the Right, and I won't declare fealty to that. Has nothing to do with Bernie, really. Oh, and Bernie is more of what it means to be a Democrat than an awful lot of politicians who merely have a "D" after their name.
longship
(40,416 posts)So let us all give up the spin that he is not a Democrat.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)He draws contrasts without mud-slinging, which is one more reason I've always had great respect for him.
Journalists and interviewers are constantly trying to get Sanders to lower himself into the gutter and slander his opponents. He won't do it. Call it virtue. Call it integrity. He's got it.
His mud-slinging supporters do his campaign harm.
Same for the mud-slingers on Hillary's side.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I know, being in GDP you sometimes think actual Republicans couldn't hate the Democrats more.
Of course you will get claims that Bernie is the "true" Democrat and the rest of us aren't really Democrats. Insulting, really.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Whereas, the Clinton's are REAL Democrats and the $millions to prove it.