2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders is attempting a nothing less than a hostile takeover of Democratic Party
Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 09:02 AM - Edit history (1)
The Socialist Democrats. USA would be Sanders natural home, but they don't run presidential candidates anymore.
So Sanders, despite hating on the democrats for years, as just one of the two parties of the ruling class
(see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/)
decides to run for president as a democrat.
Why?
Well, it's clear, the Democratic Party has a lot of intact national political infrastructure. If you could seize that infrastructure, and turn it into a militantly leftist party, you'd have your socialist party.
It's a long shot, to be sure, but that's clearly what Sanders is up to. He's trying take the Democratic Party and remake it in his own socialist image. Pretty daring move. He's gotten farther than you might have thought he would at first. But it's pretty clear that the powers that be within the democratic party don't want to see the party become an outright socialist party. Otherwise, they would have become that long ago. I bet they believe such a party is not likely to be a majority party anytime soon.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)You been listening to Rush Limbaugh lately?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)one. Most discussion so far has been about the rise of intolerant and repressive left-wing behavior on campus, and journalists have been apparently too busy chatting about flashbacks to the '60s to report this aspect as they should. Sure, it's normal for radical movements to fizzle out, and they probably expected that of the "campus bro" behavior, but Bernie's success from running under the Democratic Party label has made him a national figure.
I'm not worried that Bernie could take over the party, of course, but he could conceivably derail it at a critical time in our nation's history. By selling himself to the unaware as a Democrat, Bernie has avoided not only obscurity but, at least temporarily, the failure that fringe groups typically bring on by rejecting working with others and the "intolerable" compromises to their ideology that would require.
How many Democrats and independents, after all, would be as likely to vote for a member of the Democratic Socialist Party as they would a Democrat?
Really?
I know you accidentally replied to me, but I still am having a very difficult time trying to follow your thought processes.
The party was corrupted when Al From and the DLC launched the "bloodless coup" in the early 90s. THAT was a hostile takeover.
That Democrats on the ground are working to take it back is a good and healthy thing for the party.
Sanders is running as a Democrat. People are coming back to the party, and coming to the party for the first time, to support him. That's a good and healthy thing for the party.
Sanders is bringing a vibrant, youthful, energetic resurgence that the party needs after a couple of decades of stagnant doldrums.
Bernie is a very real threat to party hacks.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Truly.
He would have run as an independent. You may be sure, as he was, that this would severely handicap the democratic nominee in the general, likely leading to election of a Republican president. He chose not to do that.
People are compelled to assign all manner of deviant motives to explain him. What's being profoundly overlooked is the power of decency.
The importance and appeal of honesty.
How rare and beautiful it is in these times!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)= uncompromising, rejecting centrist, accommodationist tendencies, willing to confront rather than compromise.
It's meant as purely descriptive.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)in the friendliest way?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Second, you might find that things have changed a wee bit. Turns out not a whole lot of people actually respond to red baiting anymore.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)for dispassionate, neutral analysis
jeff47
(26,549 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)I bet Sanders would agree. He is trying to remake the Democratic Party from a corporatist center-left party in to a genuinely democratic socialist party a la European Socialist Parties.
And it's a hostile take-over, because he expects resistance from the party establishment.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)See, the political revolution is one that only requests that we get out and vote.
That's regular ole democracy. Not hostile.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Seems some people still can't get their heads around this whole democracy thing
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Because that is what the argument boils down to. Millions of people are suffering, some dying, some being outright killed by our military just to prop up a failing system. And it's expensive too. For every dollar a person that earns less than 50,000 a year spends in taxes they lose 5x that by not having things available like free healthcare and college.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)without the bigotry.
He wants to the United States to care about and protect its Middle Class and extend those opportunities to women and people of color who were left out because of national bigotry back in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s.
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)fact that the Democratic party has move so far to the right and had left most of us behind. Thanks Fawke Em
earthside
(6,960 posts)... against a rogue board of directors.
For too long now the establishment 'leaders' of the Democratic Party (the board of directors) have been moving further to the right and have become so risk averse that the party is almost unrecognizable from the organization of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.
Meanwhile, the everyday Democrats (the small shareholders) have been ignored and literally treated with contempt, as if they biggest obstacle to success.
Sen. Sanders has taken on the role of championing the regular Democrats, the ones who don't like war; who don't like big money in politics; who don't like bad trade deals ... who want better, affordable health care; who need a way to see their children afford college; who want to see someone more like them running the show.
Hostile take over ... ridiculous.
The Sanders movement is about re-empowering working and middle class Democrats and ousting the tired, old, rich, risk averse insiders.
cali
(114,904 posts)dispensing dispassionate analysis.
Paul Starr was in the Clinton administration and reportedly close to dear hilly.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)All of the Establishment Dems need to be out on there worthless asses.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)I think this is a major fight over what sort of party the democratic party will be henceforth.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, it's a lot like what the Paul Revolution tried to do with the republican party.
The party is where Republicans would be if they hadn't gone batshit crazy.
Endless war, rich get richer, etc.
Bernie is the true Democrat.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Op should fe k off with this desperate bullshit
artislife
(9,497 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)HOW???
My dream car #2.. although red and white :> )))
#1 is a 1965 Mustang
The red with white interior.....
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBT.FrKLlWJykADZRXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3lmcC10LTU2MS1zBGdwcmlkA1E3blZ0OHZLUTlPR1Y1S2ZZRWdmVEEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzEwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwM1BHBxc3RyAzE5NjUgbXVzdGFuZyAEcHFzdHJsAzEzBHFzdHJsAzIxBHF1ZXJ5AzE5NjUgbXVzdGFuZyBwaWN0dXJlcwR0X3N0bXADMTQ1NDk3NTEwNw--?p=1965+mustang+pictures&fr2=sa-gp-search&fr=yfp-t-561-s
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I used to have a Sunbeam TIGER.. GGRRRRRRRRRRRRR..
ford 289 V-8.. VroooooM !!!
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Actually, come to think of it...it was.
Until you stepped on the gas.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)and I like the 1956 Desoto Firedome and 1957 Jaguars. I think I am going to have to look up car shows now.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Or a convertible!
Or... something.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Or maybe chicken soup! Mmmm, chicken!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)No coup for you!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Ask folks in Central America!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Please stop with the microgressivostic berniebrotastic misogynogony.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)in a Super Coop!
JudyM
(29,250 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)A big red one to symbolize the coupe!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)It was beautiful, cars were once art. Now they're appliances.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Databuser
(58 posts)I see it more as freeing the hostages in a bank robbery gone bad....
kennetha
(3,666 posts)I just mean hostile in the sense of a hostile corporate take-over.
artislife
(9,497 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,203 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)
.
.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Rec for you!
kcdoug1
(222 posts)the sooner we delouse the Corporate whores from OUR party the better...
Response to kcdoug1 (Reply #15)
CobaltBlue This message was self-deleted by its author.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Buh Bye, corporatists. Don't let the door hit ya in the rear on the way out....
kath
(10,565 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)because he is trying to seize control of the party apparatus from those who currently hold it, who will not surrender it willingly.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)The rules are being followed. He only wants us to get out and vote, that's what the political revolution is.
I'm not being very hostile when I vote am I?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Thanks!
kennetha
(3,666 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Intelligent discourse, not so much.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)I mean an argument in the logical sense, where you marshall evidence in support of a conclusion, and use the force of logic together with the evidence to support the conclusion.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)...than the 99% get so fed up with corporate ownership of the two parties that it causes a physical revolution.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)You Third Waywards need your own party.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)That's the reality the conservatives would like us to forget. It's better for people, though. So we better scrutinize the reasons why we held those democratic values.
longship
(40,416 posts)This post cracks me up.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)Bernie has been critical of the Dem Party for years, as its leaders have pulled the party to the right at the expense of the rank and file members.
But calling it a hostile takeover???
It might be wiser, and more accurate, to view this "revolution" as the Dem rank and file reclaiming the party that used to be theirs.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)You don't like the word 'hostile?' for some reason? Why?
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)does not qualify as "hostile" in my book.
I call it justice.
840high
(17,196 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's long past time it was seized back from the warhawk corporatists.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Vinca
(50,273 posts)After decades of creeping to the right, it's long overdue.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)He rejected the party since he first got into politics as the tool of the ruling elite. That's why he's a socialist. It's not like he thinks the democratic party of his lifetime (and that's a long time) was ever the true instrument of the people. So I don't get this.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)That's the only reason Bernie is running as a Democrat. He wanted to sure not to gift the GOP with the White House.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Bernie showed respect by asking to run in the Democratic Primary and has promised not to run third party.
They seem to understand that there was a Nader candidacy as well as a Perot candidacy that really can screw up or make better a run to the presidency. When the third party is running against the other guys, it is good for you. When the third party is running against you, very bad.
So OP writer...can't be bothered to look at which one of you actually posted this, think a little long term and ask yourself if it was better that Bernie decided to run with the Democratic Party or not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
It was the DLC that turned the Democratic Party into a pale imitation of the GOP. Current corporate Democrats have weakened the party by rarely offering a real alternative to the GOP.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Sanders endorsed Jesse Jackson for President and urged Jackson to run outside the democratic party, because the democratic party was not the appropriate place to pursue progressive politics. So Sanders doesn't share your belief that it was only with Clinton that the democrats turned into corporate whores.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)of the two parties. In my opinion, what turns politicians into constant campaigners who are constantly looking for money is the fact that House members run every two years. And newspapers are not the source for news anymore. It is television, and television ads are expensive.
Ronald Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. If the broadcast media were required to run free public service campaign ads as a requirement for licensing, and if paid ads were prohibited, it would go a long way toward equalizing races.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)We're taking our fucking party back. We can do it by the ballot, or with pitchforks and torches. If the Third Way DNC wants another 68 Chicago, we'll happily oblige.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)If Bernie succeeds, he would only be putting the Party back in the hands of New Deal Dems.
But Sanders rejected the pre-Clinton democratic party too. He's been at this a long time.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)He has recognized the corruption in our system for a long time and wants to make valid changes to benefit average Americans.
The average voter of every political belief is not likely to think corporate ownership of the two major parties is a good thing.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)These people have been corrupting our party for a long time.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Because if Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her ilk - the New Democrat Coalition - are what it means to be a Democrat, then I am out. So, hopefully, Bernie can effect some change.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Sanders rejected the Democratic Party as just one of the two parties of the ruling class.
djean111
(14,255 posts)In any event - the DNC of today, the DNC that affects all of our lives, the DNC that has been taken over by the Third Way - THAT is what has to change, I don't really care what happened before. I care about NOW.
And yes, the Democratic Party has been morphing into just one of the two parties of the ruling class. IMO and all that. I see the high-handedness down here in Florida. I see Pelosi simper and tell us we must cur Social Security to "save" it. I saw "hope and change" become "eat your peas".
I am with Bernie. I would have been with Liz Warren if she had run instead of Bernie. Bottom line.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)A hostile takeover is a type of corporate acquisition or merger which is carried out against the wishes of the board (and usually management) of the target company.
But the truth is that most of the people in the company want that takeover to happen.
Do you have a problem with that?
kennetha
(3,666 posts)understanding the dynamics of the current race and wondering why Sanders is running as a Democrat in the first place, when he never has, and mostly has rejected the democratic party. It's also about understanding the party infrastructure's reaction to him.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)them, and helped with their agenda. So now, he's chopped liver?
No kidding its about the "infrastructure". You mean he wants to pull us to the LEFT???? OMG OMG Can we get Hillary front and center from the GOP-leaners?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)We're just taking the party back.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... DESERVES us to return a hostile takeover against them who started that war decades ago!
The Stalin funded Koch Brothers who helped put the DLC in charge DESERVE to have their butts kicked out of politics in a most hostile manner!
kennetha
(3,666 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that most grass roots Democrats feel alienated from now given its greater allegiance to the 1% money folk than to us as the party constituents.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)We'll see if it is a good bet.
Looking pretty good so far, admittedly, but can't judge from just Iowa and NH, those two not being all that representative of the great mass of rank and file democrats.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... supporters. So in my book, that is a predictor in to the future of how things will go down in places like Illinois where a lot of those students come from (about a third of University of Iowa's undergraduate students there are from around the greater Chicago area alone). And I know that's been that way for decades, as I used to go to school there myself as an out of state student from Michigan then.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Gave it a new mission. They openly stated their mission many times so it's not a conspiracy theory.
Bernie is trying to do the same thing, but in reverse. Taking it back to the Party of FDR.
It would seem there are quite a number of us that want this to happen. Hopefully a majority.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)and by the way were you a Bush supporter in 2000?
You need to to do some research on FDR,and Teddy Roosevelt,JFK,Hubert Humphrey and MLK.
While you are at it...Check out Ronald Reagan and the William J Clinton and compare their actions and what they did for the rich bastards on Wall St,Big Banks,Insurance Companies and how Clinton destroyed the middle class manufacturing jobs in the US then get back with us OK?
Your really need to research "Democratic Socialist" but if you research the names I've given you have may have figured that out
kennetha
(3,666 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)..you need to do that then we'll talk
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Big waste of time.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)you back off or if you are challenged about Hillary's falsehoods you back away from the conversation as well.
....But did you support Bush inn 2000? I'm guessing yes
Read this:
I'm betting you wont
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism
kennetha
(3,666 posts)to protest Bush's stealing of the 2000 election.
Selected not Elected! Don't impugn my integrity. You have no idea. Jeepers.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)and obviously I'm not the only one here that thought that,,
Please read the link
kennetha
(3,666 posts)isn't worth listening to.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)What's more, I agree with it. NAFTA - Lost us millions of manufacturing jobs, which was predicted by many economists. And that came to pass. Repealing Glass Steagle - opened up the way for too big to fail and the crashes that came along with it.
Those are facts.
Furthermore, Clinton signed on to harsher penalties which put several hundred thousand people in jail for longer periods of time. This paved the way for private prisons. Hillary receives generous donations from the private prison industry.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)demmiblue
(36,855 posts)Birds of feather shit together.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)yourout
(7,528 posts)has done more than just a little damage.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)One could easily argue that Third Way 'Democrats' already carried out a hostile takeover of the party of FDR.
We want it back.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)What is true is that the "third way" Democrats accepted certain constraints on policy -- the constraints came from the Republicans -- but they thought they could advance progressive goals within those constraints.
FDR faced nothing similar -- there were these two big things -- the Depression and a World War -- that gave him a much freer hand.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)FDR faced enormous obstacles. But he was a fighter.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)gave FDR enormous political opportunities?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)which seems to imply that the Democratic party isn't by nature progressive?
The country has been pulled to the right for years and the DLC did their part. And by 'the right' I don't mean socially but corporate rule, which is destroying the environment, the middle class, and just about anything good and fair that you can name.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)It's "nature" is highly shiftable. Roosevelt was no socialist, by the way, he actually thought of himself as saving capitalism by inventing the mixed economy. Great invention that.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)Trying to seize the party from outside and take in a direction of his choosing.
What's so hard to see about that? He's practically said as much himself. Don't know why the Bernie supporters are even upset.
I've been a democrat since my first vote, 40 years ago. And like me, most of Sanders' supporters ARE long-time Democrats whose values match his. And many of us are disgusted with the way Third Way 'Democrats' and the DLC has commandeered the party.
It's Democrats who are supporting him, it's Democrats who are working to reform the party.
So like I said, the premise of your OP is untenable.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to respond to this absurdity.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Sanders is more of a Democrat than most of the Democrats in office today. If anything, our old Democratic Party has been the victim of a coup.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)He's a self-declared democratic socialist.
The Democratic Party of the US is not a European style Democratic Socialist Party.
Elements of it tend in that direction, always have. But you know why the Democratic Party was for long dominant in the South don't you? And the Democratic Party of Kennedy and Johnson -- they were socially progressive for their times, but they were also inveterate Cold Warriors.
Complicated thing the democratic party, with a long and varied history.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which so many in the corporate beholden DLC infested party that calls itself "Democratic" now wouldn't dare doing today to avoid being pushed aside by the corporatist CRAP that governs the party's agenda on so many non-social issues it pushes today at the behest of the 1% that pays them to do so.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)and the "Democratic Party" of today has forgotten its ideals. You obviously disagree, but whatever.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)"Quasi" because I agree with Marxian economics and sociology, but as a religious person I do not agree with it's dogmatic materialist metaphysics.
I have been dreaming of dragging the Democratic Party to the left since I was a teenager in the early 00s, and Bernie almost seems like a miracle to me.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)This sounds like a B movie lecture on the hazards of breathing. The majority of people breathing with an IQ within one standard deviation from the norm understand when they are exposed to what Sanders has consistently said for over 40 years, and you think this has nothing to do with a democracy? Is that supposed to have anything to do with being a registered Independent who admits to the tenants of democratic socialism?
Here are the tenants put forth in how to change from so much being controlled by so few, which is essential happens when unfettered capitalism advances to the point where corporate entities are equal to people, and therefore dictate state and federal legislation that is passed by those who are supposed to represent people Just in case you haven't looked into this:
Healthcare as a right (single payer) allows everyone in society preventative, acute care services, long term care services, health maintenance services.
Public funding of education allows every person who is educated K-12 who meets criteria to continue on basic educational facilities and that is why it has been suggested that what was once in existence be continued as education available to all people. The goal, however, remains the same, which is to educate and train a work force who can be gainfully employed. It does not eliminate business. It makes business work to achieve its goal.
Democratic socialism is committed to more liberty, and what makes you think this equivalent to a "hostile take-over" of democracy? It enables people who have better education, health and working conditions to contribute towards the running of this country. It means that workers can collectively bargin (which is a two-way process). It means realization of this liberty allows the people to become part of the political process when intervention of state is essential. They have the tools as any advanced society should. Time to work, time to rest and take care of their family.
Here me loud and clear on this one. Sanders has said what other have said. The fact that the others are dead and you maybe didn't read very much about FDR's tenants of socialism in the form of the second bill of rights, means you should read more history.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)you can "take back" a thing you never owned or were ever a part of.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)We will not live in fear.
cali
(114,904 posts)supporters is goddamn scary. Scratch some self-identified liberals and what is revealed is.... interesting.
cali
(114,904 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)We are merely taking it back!
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)To the rest if us in the Democratic party who want peace, equality, universal healthcare, less corruption, fairness and livable wages it feels like the Calvary of love, hope, joy and decency is saving us from the brink of white-hot hell.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,718 posts)seaotter
(576 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Those that aren't happy about it, are welcome to return to the Republican party they came from.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)"Hostile" is a bit over the top.
You just made it to my ignore list.
fourcents
(107 posts)He is moving the populist to be engaged in the democratic process, if you are for Democracy then you would be getting more with him that represent the 99 percent. If you are for wall street 2016 or what ever then vote that way. Bernie is founding member of the progressive party do you have a problem with that? If your part of the third way DLC or blue dog Democrats I understand why you have a problem with Bernie. By the way the party use to be much more socialist and dominated the elections.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)MuseRider
(34,111 posts)LOL this hysteria is beyond funny. It has now risen to the lengths that I sincerely worry about people who say these things.
Have you ever been a Democratic Socialist?
I surrender. I admit that I think of myself as a socialist. Somehow I am just not too worried about being reported.
Personally I believe the Democratic party left the reservation long ago and needs some new blood, some that reflect the people and not the elite political insiders. I believe he just may be able to bring our party back to us regular folks.
Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)He views it as beholden to largely the same special interests as the GOP, and that's why he runs as an independent. That's also why many of us from Vermont repeatedly voted for him. He has made it very clear that he is running in the DP because sadly we have a two-party monopoly, and of course, with that comes infrastructure. It's not like he's tried to hide this and you've now hit on some big conspiracy: he's openly sad it on more than a few occasions when interviewed about his decision to enter the race after Warren declined to do so. If him entering the Dems to clean house is a "hostile takeover," then I wish him all the success in the world.
Now, confusing him with an SP or CP candidate is not just red-baiting, but silly, and belies a level of ignorance about Bernie's history as well as the history of the radical left in America. Also, I think you meant to say Democratic Socialists of America in your initial post.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)What he's up to. Not a big discovery. Takes five minute thought to see it.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Did you think this up by yourself or did you get help?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
kennetha
(3,666 posts)maybe you think lefties don't do "hostile?"
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)Just substitute the word "reclaiming" for "hostile", and I think you'll be closer to the mark.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)something he was never a member of. He's coming from the outside trying to seize control of something he never owned as his own. So "hostile" seems perfectly appropriate.
I guess Sanders supporters, who are also Democrats, especially if they are long-time democrats, might find that an uncomfortable thing to say. But I don't really see why.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)back in the days of FDR can rightfully be reclaimed by anyone that has ever adhered to them.
eom.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Joe McCarthy would be smiling.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)I didn't say being a socialist was bad. So why is it red baiting to call someone what they call themselves?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes, Red Baiting.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)That's just a fact. He's PROUD of that. You seem afraid to call a spade a spade. Why?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If Sanders were proposing the abolition of private property, the nationalization of all industry, the end of capitalism and State Planning of all aspects of life, you might have a point.
But what he stands for is simply a return to the basic liberalism that was once the bread and butter of the Democratic Party.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)You think people are that stupid ... well, maybe they are. But we aren't on this board.
But if people are that stupid... he's got a bigger problem if he gets to the general election.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)writes hyperbolic posts about an attempted Hostile Takeover by Militant Leftists is not the way to engage in anything otehr than "nyah,nyah" mudfests.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)and against the will of the party hierarchy. "militant" just means openly unwilling to compromise with the center-left, etc.
those are just descriptive terms.
not meant to convey any particular evaluation. that should be clear from context.
Anyway, the reaction of Sanders supporters to this thought is making me think that at some level you too are worried about the negative valence of the "socialist" label, at least when it comes to the general election.
I think a wiser strategy would be to change the valence of the term, not deny the reality of the term. That's what Sanders is trying to do. But he's got no real choice, I guess, since he's been a socialist his entire adult life, by his own self-declaration.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm with Bernie all the way. I'm willing to compromise. I expect the Democratic Party would continue to be made up of a wide spectrum of center-to-left, including mioderates.
But I'm not willing to go along with continual movements from the "center" (whatever that is) to the right to further gut the social safety net, outsource the US economy, give corporations, big banks and wealthy investors even more power, and continue to allow them to starve the treasury through sophisticated tax evasion schemes.
I think the majority of Bernie supporters share that perspective. I think Bernie also shares it.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Meow.
frylock
(34,825 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its true purpose, and its humanity.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Is trying to do.
It's well documented that Bernie Sanders has hated the democratic party and it's members for all of his decades in politics.
He even said in a speech that he would be a hypocrite to run as a democrat after the things he's said about it.
And here he is today, a self described hypocrite, running for president as a democrat!
I will never trust Bernie Sanders because of what he has said in the past about the party.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Unfortunately with the way our electoral systems are structured 3rd parties rarely work and so the only alternative is a takeover.
As someone who has been a radical Leftist since I was in High School and protesting Dim Son's illegal war Bernie's movement is everything I have dreamed about for well over a decade.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And keyboard warriors is going to take over the party.
You all are extremely lucky that the first two primaries are held in small 95% plus white states.
If the first two were say, Texas and Florida the Burnie Underground would be holding a wake right now lol.
Where exactly is the Bernie revolution anyway?
It sure as hell ain't outside my window marching in the streets like occupy did or the Vietnam protesters did, or the hundreds of thousands that came to see president Obama get sworn in, or the great masses of people in MLKs poor peoples March on Washington.
I ask again....where is the Bernie revolution?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The vast, vast majority of people 35 and younger support Bernie over Hillary. We Millennials DESPISE Hillary.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Put his life and his body on the line for what he believes in and he backs Hillary 100%.
He is worth a million keyboard warriors at least.
Funny how millennials on the left and hardcore right both despise Hillary.
What else do you all have in common with fascists?
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)There is a long, legitimate conversation that can be had about how both Sanders and Clinton fit into the broad legacy of the Democratic Party. However, after years of Democrats complaining that Nader siphoned away votes from Gore, it is silly to complain that Sanders is running as a Democrat.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)What are his motives for running in a party that he has long spurned as just one of the two parties of the ruling class?
You think it's pure altruism?
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)I don't prefer his politics, by I recognize it for what it is.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Not sure why. It would have made his political life easier, obviously. But he's a proud non-democrat and a proud socialist. There is no upside in identifying himself as a socialist. But he's done it throughout his political career.
Why so many Sanders supporters are reluctant to call him a socialist is a little puzzling.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It seems we can't do anything right.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But naw Bernie stayed in his ivory tower and threw rocks at democrats instead.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)You don't know what that means huh?
Bernie Sanders has never run for president before.
Some Hillary Clinton supporters seem so intellectually dishonest. They keep spamming the whole wide internet with fake arguments.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)He could be self righteous and criticize democrats.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It's incredibly corrupt and awash with corporate money. They would have run him out on a rail. No socialists allowed! Might offend the corporate donors.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)stage left
(2,962 posts)over the age of fifty than most realize, I do believe.
dchill
(38,498 posts)He's the first candidate in decades that is actually acting like a Democrat, and who actually wants to DO the job, not just cap off an ego bucket list. IMO.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I volenteer for service in driving out everything that's ruined us, with Bernie at the lead all the better.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)"Sanders and his supporters see the party support for Clinton as evidence that the establishment is against him. But there are two other interpretations. What party leaders necessarily care about is winning the next election. They look at the electability of the presidential candidate as it affects the electoral prospects of candidates at all levels, including their own. The endorsement primary is a symptom of deep anxiety about what Sanders would do to the entire partys fortunes in November.
The lack of support for Sanders among elected Democrats may also reflect his lack of support for them. During 2015, Clinton raised $18 million for other Democratic candidates, while Sanders did no fundraising for them at all. Those are just last years numbers. The difference in party fundraising between them going back decades would surely be even more dramatic. After all, before this campaign began, Sanders was emphatic that he was not a Democrat.
Sanders has left a long trail of denunciations of the Democratic Party. He began on the revolutionary left; in 1980, he served as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party, founded by Leon Trotsky and committed to nationalizing major industries. In 1989 he said the Democrats and Republicans were in reality, one partythe party of the ruling class. That year he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times describing the two parties as tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum since both subscribed to what he called an ideology of greed and vulgarity. As the Republican Party has moved to the right, Sanders has said the Democrats are better, but he has refused to run as a Democrat and continued to insistas late as the 2012 electionthat he is not a Democrat because the party fails to support the interests of workers.Though he refers to Wall Street and big corporations in his current campaign rather than to the ruling class, his attacks on Democrats are basically the same as before. Theyre just focused on Clinton now. But what he says about her he could just as easily say about most Democrats running for Congress or in the statesand they surely know it."
Democrats in office do not consider Sanders to be a Democrat. They have already voiced concerns about down tickets. Many will prefer to run alone and keep Sanders far away from their campaigns.
"If Sanders had conspicuously changed his positions as well as his rhetoric at some time in the past, his early history might not have posed as serious a problem for the party as it does. But hes still talking about a revolution in the name of socialism, and, lets give him creditthats not just rhetoric."
Sanders should have been honest and ran as an Independent, which is what he really is. He's no Democrat.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)can't be honest with themselves about this.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)But he seems to have had no compunction into joining the political party, that he spent years criticizing, out of political expediency. So much for honesty.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)that makes it sound purely self-serving. There is that. But he wants a political apparatus that's dedicated to the socialist cause. There isn't a robust one around. The democratic party is still very robust. Seize that. Turn it into a socialist party and presto - there is no a genuinely socialist party -- of Western European vintage, not of Soviet vintage -- in America.
If he can pull it off, it will be quite a feat. You have to admit that.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)I don't think that when the voting is done that Sanders will be the Democratic nominee. Of course, I could be wrong. We'll have a clearer picture after Super Tuesday.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)He began on the revolutionary left; in 1980, he served as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party, founded by Leon Trotsky and committed to nationalizing major industries.
WTH.....I'm certain that the republicans won't be screaming this info 24/7 on hate radio and tv.
Talk about red meat for the teabagger masses! Damn.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)They have been calling any Democrat, the Clintons, Obama, etc.; Marxists, Communists, Socialists and more. Now the Democrats have a self described Socialist in their ranks running for president. Albeit a "Democratic" Socialist, but does anyone think that Republicans will make that distinction? Hell, no. This is one craaaazy election year.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If he's elected, he's representative of the Party.
Wig Master
(95 posts)[img][/img]
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)a pale imitation of the Repubs.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am so glad Democrats are running scared from their own policies that have screwed people over. Now they are scared that people are actually going to vote in their best interests instead of corporate interests.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It's about time someone tried to take it back.
May the one who gets the most VOTES win.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)millions of young people out there who are flocking to support Bernie. The party can either welcome them in and incorporate their energy and enthusiasm or it can wither and die, to be replaced by a new party. It is really that simple.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)As for such a party not being a majority soon, how's that turd way working for you?
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and their ilk.
What ever it takes to get it back, and kick out the right wing corporatists, is ok by me
I think the term Hostile is histrionic and Rovian
reflection
(6,286 posts)If enough Democrats decide he represents their values, then they will drag the party to where they think it should belong. Where is the hostility?
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Many of his voters are not Democrats.
That's the hostility. Stupid that we allow these open primaries.