2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Bernie is courting progressive voters, why Liberty University?
Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Va., was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and has been a requisite stop for many Republican presidential candidates over the years, and for some Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the state. But it is not typically a place that Democratic primary candidates have sought to visit.
Liberty University was kind enough to invite me to address a convocation and I decided to accept, Mr. Sanders said in a statement his spokesman provided. It goes without saying that my views on many issues womens rights, gay rights, education and many other issues are very different from the opinions of some in the Liberty University community. I think it is important, however, to see if we can reach consensus regarding the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in our country, about the collapse of the middle class, about the high level of childhood poverty, about climate change and other issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/05/bernie-sanders-to-visit-liberty-university-a-rare-venue-for-a-democratic-campaign/
Could this be why?
64% identifying at very liberal
58% identifying as liberal
59% identifying as moderate
37% identifying as somewhat conservative
27% identifying as very conservative
Sanders 22% overall support
26% identifying at very liberal
19% identifying as liberal
16% identifying as moderate
31% identifying as somewhat conservative
42% identifying as very conservative
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf
Turbineguy
(37,331 posts)the audience can always go to Fox News to find out what Sanders was really talking about.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)decide and many of the 'lost causes' will follow.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)CanonRay
(14,101 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)full stop.
erronis
(15,258 posts)He's managed to get some traction for ideas that he thinks are important for this country.
Why not take these ideas to a college that is probably the antithesis of these ideas?
If they reject, that is expected.
If they think about them, that is a win for this country.
Bernie is not trying to establish a dynasty. He would like people to honestly discuss issues and make some hard decisions.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)And then some.
Evangelical Christians!!!!!!! Just what the Dem party needs!????????????
Go Bernie????
drm604
(16,230 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 6, 2015, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)
For some reason, he's attractive to some conservatives. I don't know why that is exactly, but it does appear to be the case.
What this means is that, if he were to win the primary, then in the general he will get most of the Democratic vote (disappointed Hillary supporters will mostly think "anyone but the Republican" , plus he'll get part of the conservative vote.
So his attractiveness to conservatives is a good thing. Actually, I think that a good many who call themselves conservatives really aren't. They've just been snowed by Fox News et al. Bernie seems to be able to break through that wall of lies.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Because tv told them to.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)United We Stand, Divided we fail. I've noticed that there are some on this board who don't want to have the voters who call themselves Conservative rally to our common causes. These members would prefer to keep us divided. Bernie Sanders has long said to those of his supporters that urged him to run that he would not do so unless the citizenry were ready for a revolution. By citizenry he was not implying only us on the left, he stated that it had to be a revolution backed by the majority of the citizenry within the poor and middle classes. He is going after that which we are united by as citizens, not by what unites us as partisan voters.
We here at DU keep complaining that right wing voters vote against their better interests. Well guess what, many of them are waking up, they are tired of watching their personal economies being drained, tired of watching their hard earned dollars winding up out of reach in the hands of the already incredibly wealthy. Bernie is reaching out to them, he is not calling them names and pushing them away like many on this board would do. I applaud ANYONE in politics who actually supports the poor and the middle class-who reaches out to all of it's members because UNITED we have the best chance of beating back the Oligarchy.
Bernie Sanders is doing exactly what he said he would do. I am proud to be a supporter. Bernie is the only candidate taking this path, if this man can't unite the citizenry against the Oligarchy, then we have lost our democracy. It is as simple as that.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)First, I have not seen anyone or hear anyone state that are willing to turn away voters just because they are conservative.
What I have seen the the hypocrisy of anything that Hillary does that encourages, mingles with, talks to conservatives (re even has a conservative utter her name) as some sort of confirmation that she must also be conservative, but not when Bernie does the same thing.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I do not see Hillary as conservative for doing this nor have I seen anyone calling her that for doing so. Frankly I am growing weary of unwarranted name-calling. It is one thing to call out a candidate or candidate's record when he/she goes against the public's interests That's what the electorate is tasked with doing, it is part of becoming an informed electorate. I should hope you would want such discourse. It is entirely a different thing to smear a candidate with lies. I hope that you understand that I am against that, I hope we share this.
Let's be clear here: I believe it to be a very good thing when candidates work to unite the electorate behind the very causes the electorate majority share. I support such leadership in whomever demonstrates it. That is what I get from Senator Sanders going to that college, that is what I said in my post and that is what I took away from the post I responded to which is why I titled my response with ^^^^ This ^^^^.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Thank you!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Ted Kennedy knew this when he spoke there, but DU's Swift Boater Brigade Against Bernie never let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.
Here's a liberal atheist's take on it:
August 5, 2015 by Hemant Mehta
Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders will deliver an address next month at Liberty University, the school founded by the late Jerry Falwell and the place where Sen. Ted Cruz announced his entry into the Presidential race earlier this year.
But Ted Cruz belongs at Liberty University.
Bernie Sanders is why Liberty University was created in the first place. Its a training ground for students to fight against people like him.
Liberty University was kind enough to invite me to address a convocation and I decided to accept, Mr. Sanders said in a statement his spokesman provided. It goes without saying that my views on many issues womens rights, gay rights, education and many other issues are very different from the opinions of some in the Liberty University community. I think it is important, however, to see if we can reach consensus regarding the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in our country, about the collapse of the middle class, about the high level of childhood poverty, about climate change and other issues.
He added: It is very easy for a candidate to speak to people who hold the same views. Its harder but important to reach out to others who look at the world differently. I look forward to meeting with the students and faculty of Liberty University.
I love that Sanders accepted the invite. He has nothing to lose by putting himself in front of a crowd that doesnt cheer at his every word, and if he can make any inroads with students there, more power to him.
Its not the first time a pro-choice Democrat has spoken at the school, by the way. Sen. Ted Kennedy spoke at Liberty Baptist College (the universitys predecessor) in 1983. Not only was his speech fantastic, both sides shared laughter despite their differences.
...
Im under no illusion most Liberty students will oppose Sanders views. Even if they agree with him on economic inequality, they wont vote for him because of the abortion issue alone. But in a political environment where Hillary Clinton is doing limited interviews even with relatively-friendly press, and many Republican candidates are dismissed for merely inching toward the center, Sanders is proving that hes willing and able to reach across the aisle. (Kudos, too, to Liberty for extending him the invitation.)
Actually, forget reaching across the aisle. Hes a far-left Socialist going to Liberty. Thats more like Daniel going into the lions den.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/05/sen-bernie-sanders-will-speak-at-liberty-university-next-month-because-why-the-hell-not/
George II
(67,782 posts)....to pander to rightwingers.
Not only that, but when Ted Kennedy spoke there, those in attendance were there voluntarily, they weren't FORCED to be there like those who saw Ted Cruz a couple of months ago or Sanders next month.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Impressive.
Is there anything Hillary supporters can't do?
George II
(67,782 posts)Your oversimplification of what others say is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows why Sanders is speaking there, but some choose to ignore the reason.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But of course you can read his mind and know the real reason, amirite George? *wink wink nudge nudge*
ZOMG!!1!
He's obviously selling women, lgbt people and poc down the river for a few votes.
You are brilliant, George!
How could we not have seen it?
All those years spent fighting for civil rights, all a ruse.
Why he's an evil genius mastermind!
Good thing we have you and the op to clue us in on the guy.
Pfft.
I'm on to him now, Bernie is dead to me.
Go Hillary!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)pandered to anyone. I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply because I know you can't provide a single realistic occurance.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)But please, keep trying. The "racist" meme was getting tiresome, it's nice to see the Clinton crew with some new and fruitless toys to play with
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)This is the same person who's "too far left", right?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I've never called anyone too far left.
What is to be afraid of is that he will subsume the interests of women, people of color, and LGBT Americans in furtherance of his white middle and upper-middle class supporters, including conservatives.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and given his dismissal of "culture wars" and the way he pulls punches on reproductive rights, I see no reason to support someone who puts the interests of the minority above mine. Clinton is clear in her absolute and unhesitating defense of women's rights and her ability to speak to the concerns of people of color. We are the majority, not just in the Democratic Party but in America more broadly. I understand the white upper-middle and middle-class believe their interests are all-important and therefore universal. I don't see it that way at all. To each her own. There are lots of conservatives in America, and they certainly are free to support whomever they choose.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)That's why they control mass media and organize election strategy from there while we are left online and going door to door.
They believe wealth comes from being Godly... and that poverty is from hidden sin. Conversely, they believe that non-believers in the halls of power are enriched by satan. You just can't win with 'em.
Having attended many churches over a lifetime but no longer finding at home with them, I can tell you Bernie's evangelism will appeal to them, as some of them harbor angst about their version of family being disregarded by the left.
They've been taught that Democrats, liberals, progessives and socialists are godless and hostile to Xtians, for homosexuality and for abortion so they see them as agents of satan. Their world view is formed by this, deep down, they are trained.
I've said before liberals are whistling by the graveyard if we ignore them. Mockery does nothing but egg them on to be isolated and extreme. You have to be humble and open with them, or the force field of defense will go up.
I don't endorse what I just relayed to you, but telling you what they tell me as a neutral person. They are very keen to anything that denigrates them or doesn't show them respect and they don't forget. It makes it very hard to work with them at times.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Sanders has demonstrated support for women and POC throughout his career. If conservative voters don't like that, they won't vote for him (or any Dem, for that matter).
He's not going to change his views or actions to "retain conservative support." If his speech at Liberty University gets some conservatives to vote for him: great.
Further, I'd bet that there are actually some open-minded students at Liberty University who may support liberal policies across the board, if they were ever exposed to them.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and he has made clear reproductive rights aren't a priority, as in his appearance before a group of firefighters (thread posted in HOF). A voting record is different from leadership. Senators and congressmen vote on what is presented to them. Presidents establish their own agendas based on their priorities.
Views are the least of it. People have lots of views. It's what they act on and prioritize that matters.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)He talks about it in every speech he gives.
Do you have evidence of this claim, or is it just more inflammatory nonsense?
Also he didn't choose to speak out on the assault on planned parenthood. He waited until asked and gave a less than valiant defense, certainly nothing like Clinton's unreserved and continuous commitment to reproductive rights as central to women's rights. That same week, however, he did choose to speak out on MSNBC programming decisions. I found that an odd reflection on priorities.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Tell me. I want to know. Also, how many hours a week should a presidential candidate spend convincing fundies that their beliefs are wrong?
In fact, I'll dumb it down even more: do you spend ANY of your time trying to convince fundies that their beliefs are wrong?
I eagerly await your answer.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)How is it relevant? The link was to a talk before a group of firefighters, not fundies. I would think it would be clear by now that I have no problems speaking my mind even when my views aren't popular with a given crowd. I do it all the time here.
Is that why you think he's going to LU? To convince fundies they are wrong? Seriously? I guess we'll know when we hear the speech.
You can make every excuse between know and the end of the primaries. That is entirely a reflection of who you are and what you value. You've clearly made your choice about what maters to you.
I also can see pretty clearly that if Sanders did decide he had to compromise on reproductive rights, many of his supporters would defend him since no issue, constituency or fundamental right can possibly compare to his political prospects. In just a matter of 24 hours, Black Lives Matter has been declared the enemy and Liberty University proclaimed to be home to allies. There really is no issue or principle that has not been abandoned in order to promote one politician's career. And people complain about triangulation. What a joke.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Busted!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I live in a deep blue, diverse city and work with people with PhDs. I see more Muslims in any given day than Christian fundamentalists. You clearly are avoiding the issue. It's not even a good effort at evasion.
I'm not asking Democrats to vote for me for President or anything else. And no one has invited me to speak at LU.
Think for a second about what you are doing. You are comparing a presidential candidate to an anonymous person on the internet. If that is your standard for who should lead this country, that's pretty sad.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm voting for the honest candidate.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Except that Bernie has one of the best records of any politician out there on civil rights.
I have never seen Bernie waffle on a position either. I can't say that for nearly any other politician, including Hillary.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Where at that link has he
I see a lot of people trying to speak for Bernie... particularly less than trustworthy groups such as click-bait sites like VOX.
There's a lot of twisting and hemming and hawing... but I just don't see where He has made clear what you claim.
This feels more like you're unhappy because he didn't react in the firebrand manner you would prefer... such as perhaps how Elizabeth Warren did. That would strike me as an odd "hill-to-die-on", as the saying goes. Particularly since he's made his views clear on the subject:
Perhaps it's just me, but that seems like reproductive rights are important to Bernie Sanders... more importantly, those are words coming out of his own mouth rather than others who might be trying to re-interpret/twist his message.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-i-will-defend-planned-parenthood-theres-no-selling-of-fetuses/article/2569399
*Post-Comment edit*
Found this too with very little effort:
WASHINGTON, July 29 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today as Senate Republicans pushed for a vote on legislation to cut $500 million in annual funding for Planned Parenthood:
The attempt by Senate Republicans to cut off support for Planned Parenthood is an attack on womens health. Stripping funding for Planned Parenthood would punish the 2.7 million Americans, especially low-income women, who rely on its clinics for affordable, quality health care services including cancer prevention, STI and HIV testing and general primary health care services.
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.
Lets be clear: Federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. The vast majority of government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is through Medicaid reimbursements. Cutting that funding will be devastating to the health needs of millions of women who desperately need the quality services Planned Parenthood provides."
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-planned-parenthood
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I'm sorry he had to wait to be asked about it to speak on the matter rather than proactively defending women's reproductive rights as vigorously as Clinton did. I'm sorry he refused to defend my rights when he spoke before a group of firefighters. No, he was not as forceful as Clinton on the issue. He never is. It is central to who she is. You call that "firebrand." He certainly doesn't lack for that in other areas, like throwing out the Kochs as red meat for his supporters. He has his priorities. I was sent a video of one of his very long speeches in which he briefly mentioned reproductive rights. My basic civil rights are not a minor issue to me. They do not come after ginning up hatred for the Koch brothers or the white upper-middle and middle classes' anger at the decline of their privilege. We all vote based on priorities. Mine are not yours, and yours are not mine. We both have the right to make our own decisions.
Now let's see if he defends abortion rights at LU. If he does, that may alter my assessment.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)That's actually the reason why I'm advocating for him. Its not even a question if he supports women's rights (and reproductive rights). He undoubtedly does. He's consistent in his views... it's what makes him very electable. I simply cannot say the same for Hillary. She has some great ideas, but she waffles way too much, and dodges questions more than a republican jumps at corporate cash donations. I'm just not comfortable with Hillary's fair-weather-politicking. I want someone I KNOW without a doubt will benefit this country in all the ways it needs... including women's rights. Hillary just isn't that person for me. Bernie, on the other hand, has one of the best voting records out there regarding civil rights issues.
She supports your seemingly singular issue... I'm glad she does. Its an important one. But I need more than Reproductive rights alone to win my vote. There are a whole host of issues that are also important out there. Yes, Bernie does point the finger to the Koch Brothers... but he's right in doing so. The Koch Brothers would privatize all women's healthcare if they could... right along with keeping us all in the poor house and under thumb.
Its unfortunate that Elizabeth Warren, the person I said was more of a firebrand (not hillary), isn't running... but with any luck, whoever ends up being the nominee will ask her to be Vice President. She certainly has a level of integrity to rival Bernie Sanders.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nice try but your continued dismissal of the facts only makes you look desperate and dishonest.
His comments come after the GOP-led Senate fast-tracked a bill to defund the organization.
Paige Lavender
Senior Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/29/2015 12:00 PM EDT
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blasted Senate Republicans Wednesday for working to defund Planned Parenthood, calling it "an attack on women's health."
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies," Sanders said in a statement.
Republicans unveiled legislation to defund Planned Parenthood on Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fast-tracked the legislation the same day. If the Senate votes on a procedural motion to advance the bill, it could get a final vote before lawmakers leave for August recess.
The move was prompted by heavily edited undercover footage posted earlier this month by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, which purports to show Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the illegal sale of fetal body parts after abortions.
A poll released Tuesday by the liberal Hart Research Associates showed Americans still support Planned Parenthood after the video leaks.
Sanders isn't the only Democratic presidential hopeful to speak on the Planned Parenthood videos. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she still supports Planned Parenthood, but told the New Hampshire Union Leader she found the undercover videos "disturbing."
Read Sanders' full statement on funding for Planned Parenthood below:
The attempt by Senate Republicans to cut off support for Planned Parenthood is an attack on womens health. Stripping funding for Planned Parenthood would punish the 2.7 million Americans, especially low-income women, who rely on its clinics for affordable, quality health care services including cancer prevention, STI and HIV testing and general primary health care services.
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.
Lets be clear: Federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. The vast majority of government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is through Medicaid reimbursements. Cutting that funding will be devastating to the health needs of millions of women who desperately need the quality services Planned Parenthood provides."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-planned-parenthood_55b8f386e4b0074ba5a6fe60
George II
(67,782 posts)Why don't you be honest to people here and say WHY she found them "disturbing".
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you have a problem with it feel free to contact HuffPo.
George II
(67,782 posts)She said why, but you won't post it because it destroys your implication.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)His comments come after the GOP-led Senate fast-tracked a bill to defund the organization.
Paige Lavender
Senior Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/29/2015 12:00 PM EDT
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blasted Senate Republicans Wednesday for working to defund Planned Parenthood, calling it "an attack on women's health."
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies," Sanders said in a statement.
Republicans unveiled legislation to defund Planned Parenthood on Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fast-tracked the legislation the same day. If the Senate votes on a procedural motion to advance the bill, it could get a final vote before lawmakers leave for August recess.
The move was prompted by heavily edited undercover footage posted earlier this month by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, which purports to show Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the illegal sale of fetal body parts after abortions.
A poll released Tuesday by the liberal Hart Research Associates showed Americans still support Planned Parenthood after the video leaks.
Sanders isn't the only Democratic presidential hopeful to speak on the Planned Parenthood videos. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she still supports Planned Parenthood, but told the New Hampshire Union Leader she found the undercover videos "disturbing."
Read Sanders' full statement on funding for Planned Parenthood below:
The attempt by Senate Republicans to cut off support for Planned Parenthood is an attack on womens health. Stripping funding for Planned Parenthood would punish the 2.7 million Americans, especially low-income women, who rely on its clinics for affordable, quality health care services including cancer prevention, STI and HIV testing and general primary health care services.
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.
Lets be clear: Federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. The vast majority of government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is through Medicaid reimbursements. Cutting that funding will be devastating to the health needs of millions of women who desperately need the quality services Planned Parenthood provides."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-planned-parenthood_55b8f386e4b0074ba5a6fe60
Not sure what part of that has you so upset but I really don't care.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie doesn't have a sexist bone in his body. Might as well give up that uh, "fib," before it makes you look bad.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)That will show a clear intent to defend women's rights. I hope he does.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We have a great ally in Bernie Sanders, any woman who doesn't recognize his work on our behalf isn't in her right mind.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You seem to be confusing Bernie with your candidate who pandered to religious bigots and misogynists:
ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate -- we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.
Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/clinton-seeking-shared-ground-over-abortions.html
George II
(67,782 posts)FIRMLY RESTATED, but you want to dance around that in a disingenous manner. No "BUT", period. That's the view of the NY Times writer, and we all know how the NY Times has felt about Hillary Clinton for a long time.
You're selectively digging up 10+ year old quotes to denigrate Clinton as a smoke screen for the shortcomings of the candidate you follow.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You and the op keep claiming that Bernie doesn't support women's rights but you have yet to post a single shred of evidence to that effect.
Just lots of opinions and you know what they say about those...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.
Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.
Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Wicker Amdt.; Bill S.Amdt.607 to H.R.1105 ; vote number 2009-S081 on Mar 5, 2009
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.
Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations; Bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043 ; vote number 2007-379 on Oct 18, 2007
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:
Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:
Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mothers life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.
Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions.
HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as partial-birth abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Sanders scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals.
Sanders co-sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Sanders scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.
Sanders co-sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
Requires emergency contraception to be included on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents for the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. CLINTON: Last year, the FDA made emergency contraception available over-the-counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over-the-counter.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including emergency contraception on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24% in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women & health providers in the military who have sought emergency contraception on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that emergency contraception is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
Source: Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S.1800 & HR.2064) 07-HR2064 on Apr 26, 2007
Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions.
Sanders signed Access to Birth Control Act
Access to Birth Control Act: Amends the Public Health Service Act to require pharmacies to comply with certain rules related to contraceptives, including:
providing a customer a contraceptive without delay if it is in stock;
immediately informing a customer if the contraceptive is not in stock and either transferring the prescription to a pharmacy that has the contraceptive in stock or expediting the ordering of the contraceptive and notifying the customer when it arrives, based on customer preference, except for pharmacies that do not ordinarily stock contraceptives in the normal course of business; and
ensuring that pharmacy employees do not take certain actions relating to a request for contraception, including intimidating, threatening, or harassing customers, interfering with or obstructing the delivery of services, intentionally misrepresenting or deceiving customers about the availability of contraception or its mechanism of action, breaching or threatening to breach medical confidentiality, or refusing to return a valid, lawful prescription.
Provides that this Act does not preempt state law or any professional clinical judgment. Sets forth civil penalties and establishes a a private cause of action for violations of this Act.
Source: HR2659&S1415 11-S1415 on Jul 26, 2011
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Sanders co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013
Protect the reproductive rights of women.
Sanders co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women
Provides that a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy:
before fetal viability; or
at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
Allows a State to impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of such women.
Declares that this Act shall not be construed to prevent a State from:
requiring minors to involve responsible adults before terminating a pregnancy; and
protecting individuals from having to participate in abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed.
Source: Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.25) 1993-H25 on Jan 5, 1993
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.
Sanders co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:
Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.
Sanders signed Prevention First Act
Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.
Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I know there is always an abundance of good Bernie info but ontheissues has a strict use policy on their homepage. Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages without written permission is prohibited.
I try not to use their stuff unless is material not belonging to them(public speeches, political record, news interviews). You might also reach more people by summarizing it in you own words(save a copy) and posting a link to go with it.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)His comments come after the GOP-led Senate fast-tracked a bill to defund the organization.
Paige Lavender
Senior Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/29/2015 12:00 PM EDT
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blasted Senate Republicans Wednesday for working to defund Planned Parenthood, calling it "an attack on women's health."
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies," Sanders said in a statement.
Republicans unveiled legislation to defund Planned Parenthood on Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fast-tracked the legislation the same day. If the Senate votes on a procedural motion to advance the bill, it could get a final vote before lawmakers leave for August recess.
The move was prompted by heavily edited undercover footage posted earlier this month by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, which purports to show Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the illegal sale of fetal body parts after abortions.
A poll released Tuesday by the liberal Hart Research Associates showed Americans still support Planned Parenthood after the video leaks.
Sanders isn't the only Democratic presidential hopeful to speak on the Planned Parenthood videos. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she still supports Planned Parenthood, but told the New Hampshire Union Leader she found the undercover videos "disturbing."
Read Sanders' full statement on funding for Planned Parenthood below:
The attempt by Senate Republicans to cut off support for Planned Parenthood is an attack on womens health. Stripping funding for Planned Parenthood would punish the 2.7 million Americans, especially low-income women, who rely on its clinics for affordable, quality health care services including cancer prevention, STI and HIV testing and general primary health care services.
The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.
Lets be clear: Federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. The vast majority of government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is through Medicaid reimbursements. Cutting that funding will be devastating to the health needs of millions of women who desperately need the quality services Planned Parenthood provides."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-planned-parenthood_55b8f386e4b0074ba5a6fe60
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I mean, everything.
His dismissal of "culture wars?" Really?
So, his adamant support of gay rights and his adamant support of the rights to abortion as a legislator for decades. Literally decades. Is your definition of "dismissal." I mean, I guess there is spin, and then there is whatever the hell you are doing when you say things like this.
He also has decades of support for issues directly impacting people of color.
The implication that his interests are the interests of upper and middle class people is so backwards it is frigging Orwellian. I guess supporting increasing social security, which is the primary income for poor elderly people, and increasing minimum wage, and providing free education are all for the upper class.
I sometimes point out the differences between Hillary and Bernie, but at least I try to be frigging honest about it.
You sir, have not been.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It is breathtaking, isn't it?
What could he possibly have done that would cause her to be so full of hatred?
I mean it's not like his record of fighting for civil rights is a secret.
I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that so many others are having the same wtf reaction to her anti-Bernie screeds.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)said Sanders didn't like to engage in the "cultural wars." It was in the context of a discussion about his position on gun control and, I believe but am not 100 percent certain, Black Lives Matter. His core concern is uniting the middle class and working class, and he has openly lamented the loss of white voters to the Democratic party, while complaining African Americans vote based on race.
His supporters are upper-middle class and middle-class white people, but many who fall in the upper level don't see themselves as such. If the poor and subaltern generally found his message appealing, more of them would support him.
Here is a chart of income division in America, household income.
That some here might think $150-$200k for a household income constitutes struggling does not make it so. It is in fact the upper 5-10 percent of Americans, and therefore upper middle class.
But the hopes and dreams of todays educated class are based on the idea that market capitalism is a meritocracy. The unreachable success of the superrich shreds those dreams.
Ive seen it in my research, says pollster Doug Schoen, who counsels Michael Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton, among others. If you look at the lower part of the upper class or the upper part of the upper middle class, theres a great deal of frustration. These are people who assumed that their hard work and conventional success would leave them with no worries. Its the type of rumbling that could lead to political volatility.
Lower uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers. At companies theyre mostly executives above the rank of VP but below the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and even Fortune columnists who earn their living as consultants).
Lower uppers are professionals who by dint of schooling, hard work and luck are living better than 99 percent of the humans who have ever walked the planet. Theyre also people who cant help but notice how many folks with credentials like theirs are living in Gatsby-esque splendor theyll never enjoy.
http://business.time.com/2009/02/04/the-revolt-of-the-lower-upper-class-begins/
Now, I understand you believe your own worldview and experience is absolute truth and anyone who diverges from that is a liar. That does not make it so. It rather shows an inability to consider a frame of reference outside your own as legitimate. That you think the poor should support Sanders does't mean most of them do. His rallies suggest otherwise. They are overwhelmingly white, and the incomes of white people in America skew about 10x higher than people of color, which makes it terribly convenient for white people to tell AFrican Americans all they have to to is address "economic justice" (which is not in fact justice for all)
and racism will disappear. There is no evidence to suggest that point.
Additionally, that people complain about inequality as recent phenomenon and hearken back to a time of "real Democrats" indicates their views are tied to the decline of the white middle and upper-middle class. The country was founded on inequality and has perpetuated it throughout its history. Those days of "real Democrats" were also days when the majority were denied equal rights and lived in poverty, but the white middle class prospered at the expense of the many.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)...With the amount of strawman you have pushed into this discussion.
Seriously, man.
The headings on that article are absolutely absurd and take no attention to the fact that he actually challenges the questions.
At no point in the article does he "abandon the culture war" or whatever nonsensical spin-point you are suggesting. His record in the Senate is absolutely adamant and any suggestion to the contrary is actually spin.
I guess by suggesting that I might call your post a pack of lies you believe you have insulated yourself from any implication that your post might not be based on a factual record at all. But it is fluff and nonsense and you should know better.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)... "clear in her absolute and unhesitating defense of women's rights"? She was "president" of the DLC! Their strategy on social issues was "triangulate".
What she was clear in was her absolute and unhesitating REFUSAL to defend minority rights.
On edit: and Bernie's strategy to retain his conservative support is to support the economic needs of poor and working class people. Many such people don't care one way or the other about minority rights. They would be perfectly okay with a pro-LGBT, pro-AA candidate if that candidate also supported their economic needs.
MADem
(135,425 posts)then that puts you in the position of having to refute something you never even said.
How anyone could think that a guy with his gun record is too far left is beyond me. That alone moves him rightward, never mind his position on the F-35. Someone who has reached a friendly accommodation with Lockheed Martin cannot be regarded as "too far left." Socialist is not a synonym for liberal.
Sanders has said, himself, that he is not a liberal--time to believe him.
That doesn't mean he's a "rightie" either. But he does appeal to young conservatives and libertarians because of some of his views.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"IMPLIED" (See: "Bernie is a racist" and/or "Bernie doesn't care about PoC)
artislife
(9,497 posts)He has been pretty on message for his entire career. I am sure one day at a university will not be too much to handle. Not this candidate.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)He is far to the left of most of the democratic field and has been for over a decade.
It is one of the reasons I support him.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I don't see how he is far left at all. I see him adopt some RW positions I don't like: not supportive enough of gun control, particularly the vote granting immunity for gun corporations; support for the F-35 and Lockheed; and very hawkish on Israel.
Also, if he's so far left, why is LU inviting him?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Who was often called a "Liberal Lion."
Also, is there a candidate running that is less hawkish than Sanders, or are you just screwing around?
Qutzupalotl
(14,311 posts)Did you miss that?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nice dig about Israel, though.
When it comes to lowering the bar you never disappoint.
Maybe you'll "wonder" about his dual citizenship next.
milehighmilehigh
(10 posts)to Israel than any mainstream Democrat.
And yes, I can see they are back to recycling a old meme, a old Diane Rehm special.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Welcome to DU, milehighmilehigh, my s/o is from Colorado!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I can see why people might not like Sanders. That "socialist" thing is a red flag to some. And he's bombastic. And I can at least understand when people say he is "too far left." Or doesn't have the chops to be "electable."
But that he's conservative? That Sanders would "subsume the interests of women, people of color and LGBT Americans in furtherance of his "white middle and upper-middle class supporters"?!?
The mind boggles at how totally twisted the thinking around here has gotten. It's Alice in Wonderland time.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)as the poll results and invitation to speak at LU shows. He does subsume those interests to his class message, which by the way appeals predominately to the white upper-middle and middle class rather than the poor. His support base is clear from his rallies and from polling. He openly laments the loss of white male votes, scolds people of color about voting "based on race," and now is appearing at a bastion of the right, where they train lawyers in how to oppose the interests of the non-straight white male majority.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
He has also voted against key gun control provisions--the Brady Bill and voted to grant immunity for corporate gun companies. He supports the f-35 and Lockheed, and he is hawkish on Israel. He has said often he is not a liberal. He is left on key economic issues but conservative on a few others.
Then we have the fact his supporters have worked to discredit Black Lives Matter and are now in this thread defending an appearance at Liberty University.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)they are pissed off and have similar concerns about Oligarchs and elites and Big Institutions.
Over the years the GOP managed to convince them that "Big Government" was the source of all their discontents. Like the cannard that Welfare Queens are the real reason for the Debt and Deficit. And that "those people" want to take their jobs through things like affirmative action.
Sanders is addressing the same concerns about the declining standard living for EVERYBODY except the upper,uppers...Bit he is pointing to the real culprit, which is abuse of power by the rich and powerful, who have distorted the eocnomy, politics and much else.
Personally, I say if he can remove those blinders from some of them, even a little, it would go a long way towards raising all boats, and most likely make the "social issues" easier to deal with too.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In an interview with The Associated Press, Sanders confirmed his plans to formally join the race Thursday. Although he faces a massive uphill battle against pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems to think he will do better than expected, possibly gaining the support of voters on the far-Left who somehow think Clinton is not liberal enough.
...
The 73-year-old politician has a longstanding pro-abortion view.
...
Sanders employes the typical war on women arguments when defending abortion.
The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government, he says. The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win. But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive. We are not going back. Not only are we not going to retreat on womens rights, we are going to expand them. We are going forward, not backward.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/30/pro-abortion-socialist-bernie-sanders-running-for-president-as-a-democrat/
Anti-choice religious conservatives don't find him appealing at all, why they hate the man almost as much as you do, BB.
I guess y'all have more in common than we thought.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)In the poll you cite only 19 respondents identified themselves as very conservative and none of them said that they had an unfavorable opinion of Bernie. 9 said that they had a favorable opinion of Clinton.
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)You have got to be f'ing kidding me?!? Bernie is now a closet conservative? What utter and complete horse hockey.
Oh yeah, and a little scare-mongering of various groups to boot. Nice job.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Amirite?
We all know which candidate repeatedly threw lgbt people under the bus:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=467264
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)as long as we have a Republican Congress.
As long as we refuse to tell our story and present our ideas to Republican audiences, we will have a Republican Congress.
Some grass-roots Republicans will be drawn by Sanders' message on the TPP and other trade agreements, on banking especially the Federal Reserve Bank, on Social Security, on free college education at state schools and on social welfare.
I think it is great that Sanders is reaching out to voters in the South and in the Republican Party. And it is not true that all devout Christians are conservative. Many read the Bible regularly and are moved by Jesus' message about caring for the poor and the imprisoned, etc.
A few of the Liberty University students may be searching for new ideas. Who knows? Bernie may start some students on rethinking the conservatism they were raised with.
Too bad Hillary wasn't invited yet. Or was she and if so was she just too snobbish to accept?
Maybe talking to people who disagree with her on some issues is just over Hillary's head?
djean111
(14,255 posts)ruined our economy, that is dismissed as Not Fair.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)He must be doing something right! As in, correct!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Not the electorate as a whole, not Republicans, Democrats.
These are Democrats who self-identify along the ideological spectrum.
Personally, I'm not sure what a "somewhat conservative" or "very conservative" Democrat is. Are they conservative on economics, race, guns, foreign policy? Who knows. I don't.
And speaking of conservative Democrats, Hillary seems to do pretty well among them, too. She beats Bernie among the "somewhat conservative" and gets more than a quarter of the "very conservative." So there is that.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,702 posts)He wants to get his message to people who might not hear it otherwise because they're going to a fundie school and probably only ever watch Faux News. He's trying to persuade those people that his economic and social policies will actually help them, and are nothing like what the GOP represents them to be. It's a gutsy move and it will be interesting to see what happens.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... those who he will ask to vote for him in the general election should he get nominated.
If we had more debates like we used to before DWS polluted DNC has intentionally watered them down, then he could use debate exposure for them to see what he stands for. By reaching out to many different areas now, he's looking to overcome this factor that has been set as an obstacle for him by the PTB.
And others will see that too that hate the big banks influencing Obama and many Democrats just as much as they hate seeing them buy off Republicans too. Many independents and Republicans are just as concerned about the loss of sovereignty of ISDS courts that corporatist Republicans and Democrats are pushing on them with the TPP where Bernie is the strongest voice against this just as they were concerned about loss of soverignty that was preached to them earlier about the UN from the Republicans. I've spoken to a few of these people on the streets. They aren't necessarily logical in every direction, but many are starting to wake up on how both parties are not serving them now as much as many of us are too.
appalachiablue
(41,132 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It is very easy for a candidate to speak to people who hold the same views, Sanders said. Its harder but important to reach out to others who look at the world differently. I look forward to meeting with the students and faculty of Liberty University.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/heres-why-bernie-sanders-plans-to-speak-at-liberty-university-next-month/
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I thought being like a Republican was bad. Now I see appealing to Republicans and courting their votes is now good.
Free country. Your guy works for your interests. I'll vote for someone who represents mine.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)There's a lot wrong with adopting traditionally Republican positions to do so. Bernie's not doing that.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)is cool?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)At some point you need to ask yourself, "If all I have are lies, what does that say about my position?"
edbermac
(15,939 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Thu Aug 6, 2015, 03:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Who said "Liberty University is cool" besides you? Nobody. Just another lie.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=497131
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Yeah, calling another DU'er a liar, not cool, no matter what kind of language it's couched in for cover.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 6, 2015, 03:36 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see what is not cool, yes indeed.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You know what's not cool? Lying. And anyone dumb enough to lie on an internet forum, where their words are recorded for all to see, deserves to get called out for it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not cool, but in this case, factually accurate. If it were up to me, though, I'd nuke the whole subthread.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
arcane1
(38,613 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And not that cheap watered down swill either, microbrews all around!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What won't she do to swift boat Bernie?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)You have to admire the depth of commitment, though.
When you live a life the way that Bernie has lived his, and then you listen to the spun version coming from the Hillary supporters....You can easily see why people view politics so negatively.
Win at all costs.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)When will you acknowledge that the poll results refer to Democratic primary voters?
An honest person would fix that deceptive OP.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Whereas Hillary's support is greatest among liberals.
So it's not surprising that he would go present his ideas to Republican conservatives, except to the people who view him as much more progressive than Hillary.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)racist republican with no business running for the Democratic nomination?
I'm so fucking tired of this already.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)I don't know what he is except for what he tells us, and his voting record.
And his voting record puts him only slightly to the left of Hillary, except for his positions on gun control, which are to the right of hers.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Worse than Donald Trump if you ask me.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)He's left, he's right, he's in the middle.
No....because he isn't Hillary.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Of course being like a Republican is bad. They're selfish assholes.
Now, let's say a university student, the child of a selfish asshole Republican, hears Bernie speak at Liberty University and starts to open his or her mind to a more left-leaning worldview. That would be cool, yeah?
Bernie's message will remain the same as always. Conservatives can take it or leave it. It certainly hurts nothing for him to speak there, and if he gets some young voters to open their minds, then that's a bonus.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)as the poll results in the OP demonstrate and many have conceded here. The appearance at LU is not to court the out of place liberal lost in a sea of RWers. It is because Sanders believes his economic message and avoidance of "culture wars" (which includes my life and those of the majority of Americans) has appeal among the white middle-class more generally. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)They vote, and if they vote for the Democrat, that's fantastic. Bernie is just fine on "culture war" issues - he just doesn't want to feed divisive media machine about those issues.
I'm actually thrilled that he appeals to conservative Democrats - I was afraid his being a democratic socialist would scare off all but the most liberal Democratic voters.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Many of these people are the sons and daughters of Reagan Democrats. They probably don't know anything about liberals other than through the Fox "News" filter, so this will be their first opportunity to hear someone on the left without it.
Bringing many of these white, middle class (or formerly middle class) voters back to the Democratic part is a GOOD thing. Make the big tent bigger.
BTW, I still don't understand how you can possibly think that Sanders doesn't address the culture wars. Not sure who your candidate is, but I do know that no one else running has Sanders' Civil Rights history and dedication.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It's dishonest.
Bains Bane has had this pointed out repeatedly, but just ignores it. Something to remember when weighing her comments.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)got plenty of Democratic votes. Many of those Reagan Democrats eventually officially became Republicans. No candidate can afford to convey the message that he or she only wants the votes of members of his or her own party.
A US President is President of all the people and needs to be inclusive at election time. Bernie has received many Republican votes every time he's run for office because his message resonates with ordinary people, the 99%. I'm glad he isn't writing off anyone's vote.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)that in a way relate to this move by Sanders. The 99 % is not all the same. In fact, I see it used as a device by the upper-middle class to advance their interests over those of the majority. I have existed between the bottom 5 percent and the median income. I can tell you there is a world of difference in my life now being somewhere between the lower and upper 47% and that bottom 5%. A world of difference. Yet I am supposed to sit back while people complain about how $60k a year is so exploitative for interns, or how hard it is to get by at a combined household income of $150k-even $400 k a year, how they at $200k are "poor." While they insult me as a "corporatist," and a "tool of Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent" because I fail to recognize how much more evil someone who earns $500k is than someone who earns $400k, because I don't set aside concerns for my survival over what are their superior priorities they determine are essential to determining human worth--rage at bankers, drones, TPP ( not that I disagree with them on those matters, but rather I don't see them as the sum total of political consciousness).
This entire argument of economic justice is not in fact about economic justice for all. It is about the relatively recent decline of the white middle and upper-middle class. That is evident by the fact they hearken back to a time when the majority were deprived all economic justice and civil rights, to a time of "real Democrats," when I was working from age 10 to be able to pay to do my laundry and buy school clothes and bus fare.
That Sanders takes his message of economic justice to a white, right-wing middle and upper-middle class bastion of racism, homophobia and denial of equal rights for women, where that right-wing segment also conveys an abiding hatred for the poor, does not exactly convince me that this message of economic justice is justice for all.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And I see Bernie doing JUST THAT, by courting these so called Republicans. If he has a message for them, perhaps he could convert them to Democrats, and we could be the party that we were thirty, fifty, or seventy years ago. A more LIBERAL party. Not just progressive, but to the point where LIBERAL is no longer considered a dirty word!
appalachiablue
(41,132 posts)People can change their views and even parties. Saw it in my own family, which is dominant Dem., like 100+ years. Two step relatives came from hardcore, longtime GOP families, in business, law, judges. By age 14 and 16 they saw the light and are full activist liberal Dems.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Since 1971, the mission of Liberty University has been to develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential for impacting tomorrows world. With a unique heritage and an ever-expanding influence, Liberty remains steadfast in its commitment of Training Champions for Christ.
snip
Mission Statement
Philosophy of Education
Liberty University is a Christian academic community in the tradition of evangelical institutions of higher education. As such, Liberty continues the philosophy of education which first gave rise to the university, and which is summarized in the following propositions.
God, the infinite source of all things, has shown us truth through scripture, nature, history, and above all, in Christ.
Persons are spiritual, rational, moral, social, and physical, created in the image of God. They are, therefore, able to know and to value themselves and other persons, the universe, and God.
Education as the process of teaching and learning, involves the whole person, by developing the knowledge, values, and skills which enable each individual to change freely. Thus it occurs most effectively when both instructor and student are properly related to God and each other through Christ.
http://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/
OMG, it sounds like they are training little robots at that school. Frightening.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)It's really not that difficult to understand, eh?
zazen
(2,978 posts)That's one of my values, among many others, that Sanders shares.
I think only agreeing to speak to people who agree with me at the outset is weak and doing a disservice to the causes in which I believe.
Purism can be elitist. The problems of racism, sexism, economic injustice, global climate destruction, and endless war cannot afford for us to wait for their proponents to fully agree with us before we speak to them, particularly when they're actually inviting us to explain our ideas to them. We don't have that luxury.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I don't see that at all. I see him using easy tropes like the Koch brothers rather than educating on systemic issues. I see him make claims about not taking money from Super Pacs that depend on the public not understanding campaign finance reform.
They can't wait for them to fully agree, and they can't wait to come after the economic interests of the white middle and upper-middle class.
zazen
(2,978 posts)BainsBane, I don't know what has happened to you. You were gone from DU for awhile and I've honestly wondered if another human being is using your "handle." Is that possible? Maybe I'm violating "meta" here but I suspect others have this question too, but I write out of respect, so this may be the most complimentary callout in DU history. Jury me if you must.
You used to apply your brilliance and courage as a radical feminist to issues like violent pornography and everyday sexism across all cultures and give voice to girls and women who are usually unable articulate the micro aggressions that saturate their daily experience. I could always rely on the brilliant insight and consistent, strong presence of BainsBane in any argument dealing with gender issues. Now it seems that all of that energy is taken up with trying to convince us that Bernie Sanders is some sort of closet misogynist and that the critical global struggle to rein in capitalist's excesses somehow subverts rather than energizes our ongoing struggles for gender, racial, and other forms of social inequalities.
These challenges are in fact intricately interrelated, and I wish we could enjoy the benefits of your insights into this intersectionality rather than read again and again snarky comments about Sanders or anyone who critiques Ms. Clinton. I have the utmost for Ms. Clinton's accomplishments on behalf of women and stand up against any woman-hating attacks on her (and there are many on the Right and sadly a few on the Left, whom I called out here on DU back in 2007 when I wrote the controversial Obama sex toy post to illustrate the offensiveness of the Hillary nutcracker ad that DU used to run). But she is a neoliberal hawk through and through and doesn't seem to comprehend how the policies she' has supported as FLOTUS and since have impoverished millions of women and minorities through abetting the rapacious greed of the very few.
We need your brain examining and articulating intersectionalities, not attacking the candidates who are finally getting the issue of economic justice back into the mainstream. Economic justice is vital in dealing with global climate change and the impending energy crises of the 21st century. If we don't rein in rapacious capitalism now, we are that much closer to a more brutal world where the first rights to go will be women's hard won gains (as always), intersected by attacks on whatever minority group the demagogues can successfully scapegoat. A climate where citizens have basic economic rights is much more conducive to confronting police brutality of minorities, the prison-industrial complex that systemically decimates minority communities, and attacks on women's bodily freedom.
I want the old BainsBane back.
Written respectfully
Zazen in NC
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The PUMA crowd thought we'd fall in line and support a woman instead of the true progressive who is more liberal than Hillary and has fought tirelessly for our rights for decades.
Your candidate defended marriage from lgbt people and pandered to the anti abortion faction.
Bernie Sanders is more of a feminist than you are, BB. He doesn't play politics with my rights, you do.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Served and delivered. That one almost hurt ME!
Almost
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Thanks!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)BB just doesn't know when to quit, just keeps digging that hole deeper and alienating more women.
This thread is Hillarious!
artislife
(9,497 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This thread is full of win when it comes to setting the record straight.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)You people are really getting desperate.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Says the internet intelligentsia.
But the hopes and dreams of todays educated class are based on the idea that market capitalism is a meritocracy. The unreachable success of the superrich shreds those dreams.
Ive seen it in my research, says pollster Doug Schoen, who counsels Michael Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton, among others. If you look at the lower part of the upper class or the upper part of the upper middle class, theres a great deal of frustration. These are people who assumed that their hard work and conventional success would leave them with no worries. Its the type of rumbling that could lead to political volatility.
Lower uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers. At companies theyre mostly executives above the rank of VP but below the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and even Fortune columnists who earn their living as consultants).
Lower uppers are professionals who by dint of schooling, hard work and luck are living better than 99 percent of the humans who have ever walked the planet. Theyre also people who cant help but notice how many folks with credentials like theirs are living in Gatsby-esque splendor theyll never enjoy.
http://business.time.com/2009/02/04/the-revolt-of-the-lower-upper-class-begins/
I know the great and noble struggle of the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent trumps all. I have to keep remembering how inconsequential my life is in comparison to the great struggle of the haves vs the have mores.
Agony
(2,605 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Clinton Democrats and just about everyone else, it seems.
Agony
(2,605 posts)at all...
are you OK?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)insisting they are a Koch conspiracy, corporate plot, or crypto-Clintonian enterprise---all because a number of Sanders supporters believe their candidate should not be criticized?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But the op won't let facts get in the way of swift boating.
Remember she said a vote for Bernie is a vote for white male rule and her attempt to claim he's courting the religious right is just more of the same.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
MADem
(135,425 posts)NH is not an 'open' primary but it has a shit-ton of "independents." And it probably will help him, at least in those two (IA being the other one, that's a caucus; largely white population, not too liberal a state) early contests. It might doom him on Super Tuesday, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primaryNew Hampshire's status as the first in the nation is somewhat controversial among Democrats because the ethnic makeup of the state is not diverse and not representative of the country's voters.[9] This is shown in the 2010 Census data, with the percentage of minority residents being nearly five times smaller than the national average (New Hampshire is 92% non-Hispanic white, versus 64% nationally).[10] Politically however, the state does offer a wide sampling of different types of voters. Although it is a New England state, it is not as liberal as some of its neighbors. For example, according to one exit poll, of those who participated in the 2004 Democratic Primary, 4-in-10 voters were independents, and just over 50% said they considered themselves "liberal". Additionally, as of 2002, 25.6% of New Hampshire residents are registered Democrats and 36.7% are Republicans, with 37.7% of New Hampshire voters registered as "undeclared" independents. Also, New Hampshire was the only state in the Northeast to vote for George W. Bush in 2000. This plurality of independents is a major reason why New Hampshire is considered a swing state in general U.S. presidential elections.
Now, this is all well and good--but this pretty much puts paid to the fiction that Sanders is a lefty. Not all socialists are liberal--just look at Europe. The right isn't rising there by accident, and many of those righties don't want to dump their socialist system--they just want all the foreigners out of their countries.
The guy said he wasn't a liberal--it's time to believe him. His views are mixed--he leans left on some issues, he leans right on others. He appeals to young libertarians, and NH has their fair share of those.
If Clinton went there, to Liberty U, to speak, and it were reported on this website, she'd be having her ass handed to her right now..."Sellout!" "Chicken going home to roost!" "Hmmmph--no surprise there!" But hey, it's not about the act of going to an intolerant, piece of shit, fake college, propaganda/indoctrination quasi-prison where students are treated like sub-humans and not afforded the dignities and rights of most young adults, it's all about WHO goes there. Some people are more equal than others. At DU, anyway.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)It would be a bloodbath here. However, we know full well that Falwell would never invite her. I don't know if he has invited Sanders because he thinks the students actually like him or he is trying to rat fuck the Democratic primary, or perhaps exert leverage on the GOP to go even further right. Lots of possibilities.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She'd have every name in the book tossed at her--not that she hasn't, already.
Some people get a pass for doing what some would regard as "right wing pandering," and others do not.
It will be an interesting lecture, I'm sure. Those guys probably want to pick his brain on his views re: Israel, because they think they can only be raptured if Israel gets involved...!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)May 17, 2007
...The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the television minister whose 1979 founding of the Moral Majority galvanized American religious conservatives into a political force, died Tuesday at age 73...
Born to a man who sold bootleg whiskey during Prohibition, Falwell became the father of a religious and political movement that sought to "reclaim America for God." (Read about Falwell's influence on politics)...
In his 1980 book, "Listen, America!" Falwell said religious voters "cannot be silent about the sins that are destroying this nation," which he identified as pornography, abortion, "amoral liberals," drugs, welfare and the abandonment of biblical morality.
"If Americans will face the truth, our nation can be turned around and can be saved from the evils and the destruction that have fallen upon every other nation that has turned its back on God," he wrote. "There is no excuse for what is happening in our country. We must, from the highest office in the land right down to the shoeshine boy in the airport, have a return to biblical basics..."
Falwell later retracted his statement on 9/11:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America," he said. "I point the finger in their face and say 'You helped this happen...' "
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell/index.html?iref=allsearch#
There is a lot more there. It's possible Sanders will frame the abuse of the poor as something that America must 'atone' for in the Jewish style.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Who is the one always saying crazy stuff about gays and everyone else on his TV show?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He runs his own crazy college, and has nothing to do with Liberty. Liberty is fundamentalist. Robert's operation is pentecostal.
Do you think this badgering over bullshit has any productive end?
Sanders is to the left and is a populist. Populist candidates typically attract both far left and far right types, for reasons I don't fully understand, but some people just respond to populist rhetoric, and aren't really driven by any particular philosophy to do so. It's why the GOP has their hands full with Trump - some people just like the guy who speaks plainly and bluntly, regardless of what it is, because it conveys confidence and leadership.
But so wucking fut?
Whether someone I don't like happens to like something I like, I really don't give a flying frog's fart. People have preferences in politics for things that have nothing to do with philosophy, issues, or whatever. Trying to say that since some percentage of self-identified "conservatives" prefer Bernie, that it somehow makes Bernie or his supporters conservative, or that it makes Hillary "more liberal" is just nonsense.
You know what?
I'll be some far right nuts prefer Bernie because he's an old white man, and they think the oldest whitest guy is the best one. So what? Their reason is stupid. But what should Bernie supporters do about them?
There are some people who prefer Hillary because she's a woman. There are die-hard Sarah Palin fans who would vote for Hillary, for that reason alone. Their reason is stupid too. But what should Hillary supporters do about them?
If either candidate has a run-of-the-mill appearance, it makes the local news, and because of doing this speech in a bizarre place for any D candidate to be, it's going to be national news. His biggest single problem is simply name recognition. Really. Outside of the politically-obsessed, the reaction is "Bernie who?"
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I don't know. No less than the twenty thousand threads lambasting Clinton. So I decided to hit back. Sue me.
Also I'm fucking sick and tired of seeing people wield the term "progressive" as an exclusionary tactic, like anyone who disagrees with them in anyway is inferior. Then we find out they throw one leftist cause and constituency after another under the bus while defending Liberty University. I have every right to point out hypocrisy.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...how personally invested people get into these things.
Either Clinton or Sanders is fine by me, but all y'all make it seem like it's apocalyptic doom one way or another.
Nobody is "defending Liberty University" and if your thing is "I'm going to be an ass because someone else was an ass to me" that's just a sad way to live.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I posted some information and a question. I didn't denounce Black Lives Matter as a Koch conspiracy or a corporate plot. I didn't make any personal attacks, and I didn't call anyone an ass.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)So that's why bad things happen. Falwell has also got that 'grandfatherly' routine going for him, too.
This really appeals to the Reagan generation, the affection for old men who are grouchy or bizarre. It was evident in the intense loyalty to Ron Paul.
I don't 'get' these folks who need a daddy figure, but it's said the Germans were looking for one with Adolf, too. A person who would be a 'strong man' to fight their enemies for them.
They made up many more enemies than they had, and in the end, Adolf said because the Allies were winning as they closed in on Berlin, the German people deserved to die.
So they were enemies. He ordered they fight to the death as they had failed him and were not worthy:
German casualties, etc. in the Battle of Berlin were estimated to be:
92,000100,000 killed, 220,000 wounded and 480,000 captured.[12]
And inside the Berlin Defence Area:
About 22,000 military and 22,000 civilian dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
Nice daddy.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)On how to make life better for the 99%....he's not going to leave anyone out, which in my view is commendable.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)shows that he has the guts to face potentially hostile audiences. Sanders has the bravery of someone who is secure in his own beliefs, and that is a very, very good thing in most people's views.
But, the strategy is always to attack an opponent's strengths as proof of a weakness and to project a distorted reflection back upon the other candidate. Isn't it? Who is the political strategist who specialized in that tactic?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)You support courting far right wing votes, and then liken Democrats to Republican strategists if they dare to question the infallibility of the chosen one. So are conservatives bad or good? You can't have it both ways.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Many are just now forming their political leanings. Most are probably there because their wealthy, white, right-wing mommies and daddies sent them there.
If he opens just one set of eyes, it was worth it.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I'll answer her publicly: I'm from the South. In fact, I'm in Tennessee, one state over from where Liberty University is located.
I know that the BEST time to reach someone who has been programmed by their parents is when they're in college and away from said parental units for the first time ever.
So, Seabeyond, I don't agree with your assessment that they'll always be "programmed" to be far right fundies.
Take this letter, for example:
I think especially in recent years, as homosexuality has become less and less of a taboo, people who might ordinarily remain closeted in their communities are beginning to feel comfortable coming out and living without fear of their true identity. Because of this, the likelihood of '21st century evangelical Christians' knowing and being close to someone who is gay is incredibly high. As with other issues, I think it's sometimes difficult for us to change our views until it gets personal it certainly didn't change for me until my older brother came out to our family halfway through my four years here at Liberty.
Throughout my years here I've met more and more people whose views changed when it became personal. I think when we look at someone who we love, and who we know that God loves and created, it's impossible for our hearts not to change on the subject, and for our minds not to see them as totally deserving of the joy that most of us will one day have through marriage.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/liberty-university-really-going-liberal.html
So, Seabeyond, if you have a beef with me, don't slink around and PM me. I have actually supported you on several womens' issues on this board. I also, as a woman, don't feel I have to vote for the woman running if I don't think she represents the vast majority of my views.
I hope this message isn't locked because I didn't call her a name or treat her with nearly the same animosity in which she PMed me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The jury didn't lock my post and the comments were priceless:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=474639
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
this is a blatant call out and of a poster who can't even defend herself. This is despicable.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 26, 2015, 12:57 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seabeyond sends the pm. PMs are not confidential. Sea doesn't get some special dispensation because she can't play nice and is on, what?, her 50th time out?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: She can't defend herself because she can't post because of?? Why is she posting?
Fair game imo. I wish everyone would chill out; we have a long way to go.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Appears to be an intense discussion between two posters who obviously know each other. I'd say it's just an honest case of a difference of opinion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is NOT disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate
artislife
(9,497 posts)Is not good? Going, listening and then telling them how he believes he can make their future better.
They get to decide.
Bad.
Oh.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie's so far left that he appeals to the right!!1!
Argle bargle blah blah blah...
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)This happened to me once way back when....2003 or 2004, somewhere in there. Someone sent me a nasty personal message. I reposted every word of it, and got chided by several people who didn't think I had any business posting the contents of MY email. I don't play that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I agree with you, if you don't want your nasty pms posted don't send them.
You don't get to cry foul after the fact.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Stalking, weird posts that mean nothing and cackling. It is almost like the lady herself is online.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I've seen the alerts on your posts and they're exactly like the ones on mine.
Now that you've crossed the self appointed guardians of feminism on DU you're a target.
Because everyone knows that we're not really feminists or even women, we're MRA sock puppets and trolls sent here to attack Hillary.
artislife
(9,497 posts)These ones
I have had many traps laid before me but they are pretty obvious..but who cares!
artislife
(9,497 posts)Ahhhhhhhhh.
I now know the words to avoid.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)When she can not respond to you publicly. Very brave of you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seems some folks are abusing that privilege instead of waiting to confront others directly when they return.
Doesn't seem very brave of them, does it?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)If he stands up for true progressive principles, including the rights of women, people of color, and LGBT.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)he has a long record of doing so.
Response to Live and Learn (Reply #308)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)And he is Jewish, which they also prefer for end time prophecy. Falwell was very big on Israel.
Sanders may make the argument that sharing the wealth is what early Xtians did. Rand, Cruz and other conservative candidates have been there.
They produce well trained attorneys to argue against choice, etc. Falwell was against homosexuality and abortion. Their alumni are young zealots employed in Constitutional lawsuits.
This is the generation that is not going anywhere, not leaving conservative life. I expect BS's evangelical style will appeal to people in that community.
More links:
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/05/liberty-university-invited-bernie-sanders-and-hes-going-good-for-both-of-them/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/heres-why-bernie-sanders-plans-to-speak-at-liberty-university-next-month/
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I would say by the standards you just articulated, any and all US presidential candidates could be considered harbingers of the Apocalypse.
As for Bernie's clear beliefs and principles, that is a welcome novelty among American presidential candidates. All the better that his politics are ethical and consistent.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How low are HC supporters willing to go to swift boat Bernie?
What's next, sly questions about his dual citizenship?
I have to say I didn't expect you to be the one blowing the anti-semitic dog whistle but now that I know who is willing to go there I'm glad.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Conservative Christians will seek to use him, but he won't fall for it. Most Jews don't, they know the fate of the rabbit. He is there to educate them.
I don't see his support of Israel as a problem. He's not doing it because he's Jewish, no more than Obama or HRC support Israel. They are strategic partners and the chances that the USA will give them up, is unlikely. Does that make me 'too cozy with Israel?'
I'm not swiftboating BS, you jump to conclusions far too fast. As to your allegations to me about anti-semiticsm, you can take that up to my Jewish friends, doctors, lawyers, BNL, my Jewish ex if he was alive to speak who was the father of my child, his Jewish godfather, my Jewish MNL, my former Jewish fiance, and the rest of them. Does that make me 'too cozy with Israel?'
I didn't know he has dual citizenship and don't care. You seem interested in Israeli dual citizenship. Many of the people in my family do and have good reason to, their history mandates they have a place to escape. I only know one person who has taken the chance to move to Israel. The rest want to stay here and I want them to stay, also. By your way of thinking, I am 'too cozy with Israel.'
This country was once their place to escape to, although the UK took in more than we did at first. The largest Jewish population is in the USA:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm#_Toc26172079
Kindly cease the personal insults and accusations of people you don't know.
My post was not a slam of Bernie and you cannot prove any such thing. I will vote for him if he is nominee. But not as a third party, and he has promised to not run third party. Does that make me 'too cozy with Israel'?
Will you term yourself by what you seem to think is a perjorative term, now?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Dog whistles are supposed to be silent to all everyone but dogs, if you had left that part out I wouldn't have objected to the rest of your post.
Better luck next time.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)No dog whistling from me. You need to apologize for your post.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is a Jewish candidate and yours isn't the first attempt to paint him as too supportive of "arming" Israel.
Nor will it be the last, I'm sure.
Maybe you should make sure you protect your war hawk candidate before throwing those stones at Bernie.
Because she's the one who voted to give Bush his war in Iraq.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)A policy concern is not antisemitism, and that is incredibly rude of you. Fresh is a good person, and she doesn't deserve that shit from you because she has the audacity to hold different opinions on candidates. You need to learn to respect your fellow citizens Democratic rights without engaging in personal attacks.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071699
Apparently hypocrisy isn't just for breakfast anymore.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)It's very cruel. You hurt her. I don't know why you think it is necessary to be like that, why you can't find something to say that doesn't involve personal attacks. You have a knack of targeting some of the kindest, least offensive posters. First hrmjustin and now Freshwest. It is unacceptable.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I even posted an OP about it after the last round which some folks obviously didn't read.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026814897
If you're so worried about people getting hurt maybe you should consider that before you post your next attack on Bernie and his supporters.
Because we're sick and tired of being accused of not caring about race or gender issues by opportunists who are more interested in scoring points for Hillary than discussing those issues.
George II
(67,782 posts)You're "cute" like that, you don't like something so you characterize it in YOUR terms, even though it's totally false.
C'mon, got any?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Feel the Bern!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was ignoring George and missed that.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Great job Scottie, as always.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And I've got yours.
George II
(67,782 posts)Are you ever going to come up with that or are you just interested in phony personal attacks?
Got anything?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Get back to me when you figure it out.
George II
(67,782 posts)If you did, knowing how you operate you'd GLEEFULLY point out where you did it.
George II
(67,782 posts)...(which isn't too far in the future) and we see his aspirations crash and "Bern"!
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Don't hold your breath.
underpants
(182,806 posts)And he is showing that he will speak to anyone anywhere
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)People are determined to support an independent who is courting voters from the far right. Wheew. At least they aren't Third Way.
The "real Democratic Party."
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)He's got good ideas, everyone should listen. I remember one time way back in the days of yore when this was the party of inclusion.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Have tarred and feathered Hillary if SHE went to LU to speak. Just saying.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)That's one of the main differences between Hillary and Bernie...his message is consistent.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)...they don't need any more attention. They deserve picketing by Democrats; not politicking.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)He needs a majority of all voters to win.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)ANYONE can vote in the primaries for any party, as long as it's one party.
Many conservatives that I meet like Bernie because of his consistency and honesty, though they may disagree with his ideas. They are tired of the clowns in their own party who have been giving them the shaft for a long time. They want to vote for Bernie because of this.
If this secures a nomination for him on Virginia, it is a genius move.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)as his supproters recently did in Oklahoma. The irony is people claim they want to restore the "real Democratic Party," yet they are counting on conservative support. I think it might be time to #redefineprogressive, reflect on, and be forthright about what y'alls priorities actually are.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)and it meant a two-masted fore-and-aft-rigged sailboat with the mizzenmast stepped far aft so that the mizzen boom overhangs the stern. So I don't mean what the hell you mean by y'all. It's not in my dictionary of American English.
Bernie is looking for supporters from wherever he can get them, because he knows that blue dogs, third way, and neo-cons who call themselves "Democrats," are merely DINOS, and not REAL Democrats. If there are people out there who call themselves Moonites, or Martians, as long as they can vote, Bernie wants to get the word to them, ESPECIALLY if they live in states where they have open primaries. This will afford Bernie the best chance to get the most support from the entire spectrum of citizens of the US.
I do not see other candidates doing this. Could it be that they are afraid to do so? Could it be that they do not have a message that rings true with EVERYONE?
A Yawl's priority is in the water, sailing, otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)He's looking to change minds for good.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Democratic minority issues. ie LGBT, Women and POC instead of courting RW bigoted Christians.
Jerry Falwell Liberty University, yikes that scares the heck out of me.
Philosophy of Education
Liberty University is a Christian academic community in the tradition of evangelical institutions of higher education. As such, Liberty continues the philosophy of education which first gave rise to the university, and which is summarized in the following propositions.
God, the infinite source of all things, has shown us truth through scripture, nature, history, and above all, in Christ.
Persons are spiritual, rational, moral, social, and physical, created in the image of God. They are, therefore, able to know and to value themselves and other persons, the universe, and God.
Education as the process of teaching and learning, involves the whole person, by developing the knowledge, values, and skills which enable each individual to change freely. Thus it occurs most effectively when both instructor and student are properly related to God and each other through Christ.
http://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/
OMG, it sounds like they are training little robots at that school. Frightening.
okasha
(11,573 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And it makes no sense to me. What is this Y'all supposed to be a contraction of? Yo all, Yemen all, Yucch all?
I really never heard of it. It's poor English any way.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Fortunately, you do not determine what is or is not linguistically accurate or appropriate.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)presidents appearance on Fox, the sole purpose of which was to tell O'Reilly that he's not a liberal.
Fwiw, I think both are wrong headed
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I don't even watch television. How could I comment on a TV appearance. Your memory of me is faulty in many instances, such as your post in the locked thread where you accused me of supporting TPP, drones, No Child Left Behind, and a whole list of things I have specifically opposed.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)His platform is a people's platform and conservatives and Republicans are people, too.
Corporate and .001% puppets have used silly things to divide us for too long inn order to steal our country. As Americans we agree on at least 80% of the issues. Bernie's platform addresses those 80% and those 80% are what have a critical impact on our daily lives and the future.
William769
(55,147 posts)We I guess that's what one does if one can't find support in the Democratic party. Good luck with that.
So much for the Democratic nomination though.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and opening some that are currently closed. Unless . . . he has another run in mind. This is the first time that has actually struck me as a real possibility.
William769
(55,147 posts)His only option would be to run third party, and of course tat would be is downfall also.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When you can't promote your candidate on her record, swift boat the most progressive guy.
It's just business as usual for them.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Bernie supporters are the one with the purity problem.
William769
(55,147 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)with Republican votes? The word for that is ratfucking.
But if that's what he's doing, real Dems will turn out people of color, women and lgbt's like never before, because we all know what we'll lose if there's a Republican President or a nominal Dem beholden to the Republicans.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It is a smart move. It sure makes the purple states a little more blue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)But this is chutzpah
He is walking into the lions den without fear of anything.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)So now are we all moving to the right? I need a meme!
Giving a speech at a conservative university is not even close to "moving to the right."
Bernie's views and actions will remain the same as they always have. If his message resonates with students at Liberty, that's great. If open-minded students like what they hear and delve deeper into progressive ideals, all the better.
senz
(11,945 posts)And don't get yourself a meme; all they do is stop thought.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You need to stop following that arrow to the right and feel the Bern from the left!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Gun control and Black Lives Matter thrown under the bus.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
edbermac This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and I didn't send it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Bernie could reach out to the ultra- conservative evangelicals at Liberty while simultaneously drowning a kitten on stage, and it would be teh most awesome, cleverest move EVAH!!
In all seriousness, Republicans would love nothing more than to run against Bernie Sanders in the GE, even if it means gathering support for him in the primaries.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)you'll say what?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Falwell would never invite her.
We see pictures of her appearing with a former SoS and head of state of Israel as signs of her unfitness for office, yet we have in this thread every excuse in the book for why courting right-wing votes is suddenly a good thing.
Unlike many, I do not reverse engineer my views to fit a candidate. Nor do I define myself ideologically around politicians. My views are my own. I make a decision and vote best on my assessment of the best available options, but that vote does not determine who I am. I will never denounce leftist, black activists because I fear a candidate can't handle criticism. I will never post anything to suggest I see one great man of woman as superior to the citizens she seeks to represent.
I think the contortions of justification in this thread say a great deal.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Clinton, like all politicians, has changed her approach to abortion over the years. Here's what she needs to do now
Hillary Clinton has always been politically adaptive, but her 2016 rebrand as a van-riding populist has a lot of progressives wondering what else they might expect in the coming months. A lot of attention is rightfully being paid to whether Clinton will match her Elizabeth Warren-style rhetoric with a substantive economic reform agenda, but Im just as interested in what version of Clinton we will see when it comes to reproductive freedom.
The history of Clintons complex and sometimes contradictory views on abortion includes but is not limited to the following narratives:
1. It is an important part of womens healthcare
2. That its sometimes a sad, even tragic choice
3. That its also a constitutional right
4. But maybe it never needs to be exercised
5. Though it should never be regulated by the government
6. Except for those times when it should be
This kind of thing isnt unique to Clinton, but as the right to abortion becomes increasingly theoretical for millions of women, her centrist impulses will leave access vulnerable while clinics close in record numbers, states criminalize safe abortion methods and an onslaught of anti-choice policies leave women in increasingly desperate circumstances.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/20/hillary_must_go_bold_on_abortion_why_cautious_language_wont_cut_it_in_2016/
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)going there, but it doesn't make much sense. Most of the people at Liberty are of the libertarian/tea party type and already probably can't stand the Black Democrat in the White House, so I don't understand what would give BS the impression that they'd be welcoming of a Socialist Jew. His time would've been more wisely spent doing more outreach to those who are far more likely to be part of the Democratic primaries, especially with his dismal polling. I'm beginning to wonder if he cares about winning the nomination.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Many Republicans are vulnerable on the TPP, being corporate slaves as much as the corporatist Dems are. There is a lot of resistance to that that probably he will find and measure at Liberty University when talking about this there, that will help him down the road in framing his message to Americans at large...
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3329/Democrats-And-GOP-Rebels-Save-The-Day-On-Obamatrade.aspx
freshwest
(53,661 posts)BKH70041
(961 posts)In case someone was looking.
What the PPP poll doesn't tell you is how many identified themselves as very liberal, very conservative, etc... Without that, I can't put real numbers to the percentages.
And people who consider themselves to be very liberal on the poll would find at this site they're considered to be somewhat conservative or even very conservative.
I don't think there are any doubts that the left of the left supports Sanders while more moderate voters prefer Clinton, at least to the point this site defines those two categories.
But Sanders going to Liberty Univ. to me isn't a big deal, nor would Clinton going there. How this site would react to either is of no consequence to anything real.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)For one thing, Clinton has more than 2-1/2 times the support that Sanders has, and of them the majority consider themselves liberal or very liberal. On the other hand, the majority of Sanders' much lower level of support, the majority of them consider themselves to be somewhat or very conservative.
I think his quote is also very telling (and a bit wishy-washy, too - highlights are mine):
It goes without saying that my views on many* issues womens rights, gay rights, education and many other issues -- are very different from the opinions of some** in the Liberty University community.
* "many", not all?
** "some", not all?
Pretty disappointing.
senz
(11,945 posts)He has said so over and over again. He's not playing insider politics. He doesn't care if you try to associate him with narrow little Christian conservatives. He looks beyond labels and sees Americans who are hurting under the oligarchy.
He is undercutting Fox News, bringing the truth to their misinformed audience. Imagine that!
Can you imagine Hillary daring to do something like that?
You should thank him.
fbc
(1,668 posts)Which is why he is the best candidate in a national election.
Bernie is a godsend. For once, we can vote for the candidate with the best chance to win the national election without compromising our values.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Not 15%, literally 15 respondents. Crosstabs are fun, but not when the sample size is so small as to be meaningless.
As for Bernie speaking at Liberty...considering his record and what he's campaigning on, I'd love to see him go speak there. Democrats should always go speak in unfriendly places to spread our message to even the handful of people who might be open to convincing. There are places like Liberty where horrible ideas survive in an echo chamber, and if Bernie gets to shatter that echo chamber by telling a crowd of young evangelicals that LGBTQ people deserve full equality and abortion is a woman's health right, then that's a win in my book.
President Obama spent the first few years of his national political career not only speaking in front of evangelical audiences, but giving homophobes platforms whenever he could! Unless Bernie comes back from Liberty with a Falwell in tow at future campaign stops, I can't imagine the results of this speech being that bad.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Do you mean 15 total or 15 very conservatives?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Which works out to 14.88, so obviously some rounding comes into play. But anyway, this means Sanders got the support of about 6 people who said they were "Very Conservative" Democrats.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)If it were 15 in the whole sample, that would be another thing.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)As a social scientist who has conducted surveys, I would not put any stock in that number with such a small sample. If you polled hundreds of people who identified as conservative Democrats and found that Bernie did really well among them, then maybe we could talk about it.
BKH70041
(961 posts)In my post #70, I said:
"What the PPP poll doesn't tell you is how many identified themselves as very liberal, very conservative, etc... Without that, I can't put real numbers to the percentages."
... so I agree with you. What page did you find the numbers on?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)"Survey of 496 Democratic Voters"
Question 8 finds that 3% identified as "Very Conservative." 3% of 496 is 14.88.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Yet refuses to even respond or acknowledge, let along change the dishonest OP.
It's a shameless attempt to obfuscate and smear.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)of our government representatives into a football game you just might see that what he is doing is taking a progressive message where it is needed most. He is presenting it in a sane and rational way. He is treating these kids like adults in a way that their conservative overseers never will.
Give'em hell, Bernie.
George II
(67,782 posts).....right-wing conservative homophobic, racist, anti-semitic Christian zealots. I think that will be the result of his appearance.
Agony
(2,605 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)You know the title of Thomas Franks' book in which he trashed DLC and Clintonian politics for betraying working class people for Wall Street money.
Bernie wins the conservative areas in VT so he seems to be using a successful tactic from his state-wide campaigns on a larger stage. He also is still trying to improve his general election electability stats that he can use to show Dem voters that he has as much or a better chance of winning the general election than Hillary.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)More of the same recycled stale attacks.
Come up with something new will ya?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)yes it does become stale
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)When he goes in there and basically asks the question "What would Jesus do?" in regard to providing medicine to everyone as a human right, feeding the poor, treating others with dignity and respect even if they are not the same as you, and he argues that it is our moral duty to show real compassion toeard others in need (not fake), I think it will resonate with these kids.
Bernie will present all of his economic issues as moral issues (which they are) and most of the kids there will get it because they're young.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Orrex
(63,212 posts)I'm sure that Hillary would be equally praised if she'd appeared at Liberty U...
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)People would immediately relinquish all claims she was too "Republican" and celebrate her bold choice!
Our daily episode of how the justification turn. Up next, intellectual gymnastics: How to denounce Black Lives Matter and praise an appearance at Liberty University without skipping a beat.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was in bed the other night, checking Twitter one last time before falling asleep. Thats how I learned Senator Ted Kennedy had died. There have been a lot of wonderful things said about him by progressive groups over the past couple days, but I havent seen a lot of coverage about one of the speeches he gave.
In 1983, Kennedy spoke at Jerry Falwells Liberty Baptist College (now Liberty University). While respectful of religious faith, it was proudly in support of church/state separation and liberal causes. It is funny and honest and not something you hear very often these days.
The entire speech is available online, but here are a few choice excerpts:
Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation. They seem to think that its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College. In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr. Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew. And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.
The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyones freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, Dont join the book burners the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned or this isnt America. And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget: Todays Moral Majority could become tomorrows persecuted minority.
Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not antifamily or blasphemers. And their purpose is not an attack on the Bible. Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family. For my part, I think of the amendments opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character.
Talk about being able to reach across the aisles thats impressive.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/08/27/senator-ted-kennedys-1983-speech-at-liberty-university/
What's up now: How to throw your credibility out the window by swift boating a liberal progressive Democratic candidate on DU without thinking about how it reflects on you and your candidate.
Encore!
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #181)
Orrex This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)...Ted Kennedy spoke there? Was he campaigning for President at the time, like Sanders is?
You seem to like glossing over inconvenient details that don't suit your purpose.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)C'mon, you know the answers, why are you terrified of putting them out there?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't have superpowers like you do.
Was he pandering, trying to reach young minds before they could be molded into fundamentalists...who knows?
Why do people do anything?
Why do birds suddenly appear...
Oh, wait, those are buzzards I see circling over this thread.
And they're wearing Hillary buttons...
OMG!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
jalan48
(13,866 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that Sanders' message of economic populism resonates with voters from the entire spectrum of voters.
Would it not be a good thing if candidates would talk about economics and social justice in a way that DID appeal to all voters?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and men in particular. I happen to think it is, and his supporters reflect that composition.
One cannot get that conservative support while upholding the rights of women and people of color.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)it is not surprising that his initial supporters were mainly white. But a message such as his should resonate with ALL voters who are not rich and sociopathic.
I feel that Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, a successful strategy, necessitates speaking everywhere, to anyone. Given that the US corporate press will give far more uncritical coverage to the GOP, and given the massive financial disparity in GOP vs. Democratic spending, a Democratic message must be spoken and a Democratic candidate needs to speak everywhere, not just big cities in blue states.
Why do you think that Sanders' message is directed at the white middle class, and particularly white males? What about his message will not appeal to most Democratic voters?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)overall. He has started to try to make appeals to supporters of Black Lives Matter, but that has been undercut by the actions of too many of his supporters. As another OP pointed out, after a certain point one can't help but see supporters as reflective of leadership ability. It's not just DU. It's all over.
He has openly lamented the fact that the white male voter has gone to the GOP. They did so following the Civil Rights movement. You think his message SHOULD appeal to ALL Democratic voters. I submit that is the call of each individual voter to make. Clearly many people of color don't see it that way. I would refer you to the the black press, Twitter, and comments about concerns some members of that community on DU have expressed. I am in no position to speak for them. I could summarize how I interpret their remarks, but you would be better advised to read them yourselves. Some of his comments on immigration are also problematic. You can read about that as well.
I can tell you why I don't find his campaign appealing. I'll link below to a previous post on how I don't believe his campaign cuts across class boundaries. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=482991
I don't buy what he's selling. He makes a lot of promises he has no ability to deliver on. I heard him promise to overturn Citizens United in his conference call before the house parties last week. He can't legitimately make that promise. All he can do is promise to appoint judges who will view the legal principle underlying the case differently. He can't control how many judges resign, what cases come before the court, and ultimately how they will rule. Nor is C.U. the only decision limiting campaign finance reform.
He promises not to take money from Super Pacs, when he knows it is in fact illegal to do so. He is capitalizing on the voters' ignorance about campaign finance law, and I find that troubling. That is probably the number one thing that got me thinking something wasn't right. People repeat that claim over and over again as a reason to support him, when it's an empty promise. Not only that, there are Super PACs raising funds for him, and he recently hedged a reporters questions about that. He also has an authorized PAC that was fined for refusing to comply with the basic filings of the all too meager existing campaign finance law.
Gun control is another issue I care about, and he has cast some bad votes, the Brady Bill and immunity for gun corporations. I can't figure out how that last one reconciles with his anti-corporate rhetoric.
I also find his use of the Koch brothers as a foil for everything an insult to my intelligence. They are not the source of border policy in this country. They are one wealthy family, and there are many more. The problem is not them as individuals but the systemic influence of big money. I prefer Clinton's discussion of Dark Money and issues rather than scapegoating the Kochs. It's not that I care about the Koch's feelings. It's that I don't like to see many systemic issues made small. I don't like how he uses them as red meat to gin up anger among his supporters.
Too many of his supporters have been incredibly hostile to Black Lives matter. That bothers me as someone committed to human equality. I don't see that as simply about others. I don't trust people who are hostile to such movements because I know I can't trust them with my own rights.
That gets to women's reproductive rights. He has a good voting record on those issues, as many people point out. However, a president doesn't just passively vote on what is presented to him. His priorities set his agenda, and reproductive rights do not appear to be a priority to him, as I addressed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=497463
I will vote for someone I KNOW will fight for ME. I don't know that about Sanders. He may well fight for white upper-middle and middle class men, but that isn't me. I understand that refusing to surrender myself to their interests makes me the enemy around here. Nothing I can do about that. My vote is my own, and I have no obligation to put others' privilege before my basic rights and concerns.
Then there is the fact he has absolutely no record of success in implementing any of what he promises. What matters is not what politicians promise but what they get done. His record in that regard is not persuasive.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You closing argument is quite well put:
"I will vote for someone I KNOW will fight for ME. I don't know that about Sanders. He may well fight for white upper-middle and middle class men, but that isn't me. I understand that refusing to surrender myself to their interests makes me the enemy around here. Nothing I can do about that. My vote is my own, and I have no obligation to put others' privilege before my basic rights and concerns.
Then there is the fact he has absolutely no record of success in implementing any of what he promises. What matters is not what politicians promise but what they get done. His record in that regard is not persuasive."
My comment:
Obviously any President can only accomplish what the Legislative and Judicial Branches will allow. That is the structure of the US government.
Regarding:
Gun control: My position is that the US would be far better served by adopting the Canadian Firearms Act, but such a thing in today's political climate may be impossible. No matter my position on the role and work of the NRA, the organization is very effective at leveraging their financial contributions.
Regarding money:
Sanders does use the Koch Brothers as a symbol for what is wrong with campaign finance laws in the US. It is a simplistic rhetorical device, but such speech can make the message easier to digest.
Regarding womens' issues:
I agree that a President's priorities DO set the agenda. A President can put those priorities in front of the nation in a State of the Union speech, among other venues, and force the nation to at least consider the issues. Any President is also constricted by what Congress will consider.
My personal candidate will be the Democratic nominee. I find much to like in the candidacies of all of the Democratic candidates, and some things to dislike. But my dislikes will not cause me to NOT vote for the Democratic candidate.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)No question about that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She panders to the religious right when it serves her purpose:
ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate -- we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.
Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/clinton-seeking-shared-ground-over-abortions.html
Hillary was also adamantly opposed to same sex marriage, here's what she had to say before she "evolved" in 2013:
My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children
Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman
We already know Bernie has always supported civil rights for minorities, how can we be sure Hillary won't flip flop again?
George II
(67,782 posts)Really? Why did he disappear from the civil rights movement from the time he "marched with MLK in 1963" and he went to congress in 1989, or maybe even later? Was he fine tuning his message for 26 years in Burlington Vermont?
Being a native of Brooklyn NY (as am I, we grew up a few miles from each other) which was and still is rife with racial issues, if he was such a champion of civil rights why did he flee to the Green Mountains and not stay in Brooklyn where he might have done something positive?
He's only a civil rights champion when it suits him, as he's only a "Democrat" when he needs the party.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Letter from 1970s shows Sanders was way ahead of this curve.
By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet
June 26, 2015
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
...
Notice that not only did Sanders call for gay equality and an end to the drug war, he also talked about the need to tax corporations, end unjust overseas wars, heal the environment, and empower working people. If nothing else, Sanders has been extremely consistent.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.
On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.
But she isn't the only option.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.
Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html
While Hillary was busy siding with religious bigots and protecting "traditional" marriage from teh gays, Bernie was fighting for them like he always did.
Did you forget about lgbt people's civil rights, George or do you not care about them?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)class people is laughable. Who's getting screwed the most by economic inequality? The poor, minorities, and women.
I notice that you're still staying "conservative" as opposed to "conservative Democrat", despite having been corrected on that point. Pretty slimy.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)and that means courting their participation
Lucky Luciano
(11,256 posts)KT2000
(20,577 posts)what he has to say. Some will have their eyes opened.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)that he's a straight shooter. I went to a restaurant last night with another DUer and we were wearing our Bernie badges. There was another couple there who said go Bernie to us. It turned out one of them was a Democrat and the other wasn't. But he said he had contributed to Bernie and was going to vote for him even though he wasn't a Democrat but an Independent and usually voted conservative. He said he liked his honesty and I think many Independents who think of themselves as conservatives, regardless of what you may think of them, do appreciate honesty.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)We're all talking about it right? His message is not going to resonate with fundamentalist Christians who are also free market fetishists. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity but I'm not so sure about this one. We'll see.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)He said he would go anywhere... and debate anyone.
He's a man of his word.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)A President is President of all the states in the US... not just the ones who like you.
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Liberty University. Bernie is trying to get in on the numbers game, trying to perhaps outdo Cruz so he is speaking at Liberty University which provides a compulsory attendance. I just care about Democratic voting people to turn out for the primaries and general election.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)He has no need to "outdo" Cruz, although he manages that simply by breathing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128033462
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bragging then I will know.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)may do them some good.
You never know what may happen. I think he gets a good chunk of the Republican vote in his own state.
I like someone that knows how to "shut out" the Republicans in an election.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)actually align more with liberal policies.
If you get rid of the self-labels "liberal" and "conservative" and ask about specific issues, many, if not most, self-proclaimed conservatives are actually quite liberal.
Most Self Proclaimed Conservatives Aren't Actually Conservative
But it's a shtick. There are, with a few rare and marginal exceptions, almost no genuine conservatives in America.
Political labels liberal and conservative can be highly misleading
It's fairly certain that some folks who embrace the liberal view on most issues do not consider themselves liberals. Consider, for example, that polls show majority support for gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, which are liberal positions by any reasonable measure. But some people who hold those positions likely do not consider themselves liberals.
Bryce Butler
(338 posts)I love everything about this. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, either. This is the same Bernie Sanders who has been campaigning in deep red Arizona and Texas and drawing huge crowds there. The man has balls the size of boulders and does not consider any populace a waste of his time. He is the rare politician who genuinely cares about all the people instead of just the ones who vote for him. And who knows? He might just pick up some new voters along the way. Like Bernie says: it's better to show up than it is to give up.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Your strawman lost a bit of stuffing in the thread, I'll get the broom and sweep it up though.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)A quote and explanation would be appreciated. Unless of course you're accusing me of thought crime.
Autumn
(45,088 posts)to quote a wise man.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Clinton was viewed as favorable by 47% of very conservative voters.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 8, 2015, 03:51 AM - Edit history (2)
Cordially received.
Kennedy and Falwell - Liberty Baptist College (later Liberty University) 1983
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Regardless of where Americans live.
What a concept.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)a former Secretary of State or the head of the nation of Israel, or a Republican president. That would be completely unforgivable. Whereas appearing at a university that trains lawyers to strip away the rights of the women, people of color, and LGBT--that's okay. I wonder if the Citizens United team was trained at LU? Most of those RW lawyers are. Well, at least he isn't associating with the disreputable types than Hillary Clinton does. So what if they are homophobes, racists, and misogynists. It's all for the cause of uniting the white male voters in the great and noble struggle of the haves vs. the have mores.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Were you as outspoken about homophobia then, too?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)He isn't there to associate himself WITH anybody
He's there to address and explain why ALL Americans have to act to prevent ruination sustain a livable planet, which includes very sound economic policy, certainly renewable energy. He has pointed out for decades along with what has unfolded. He's not there to kiss the cradle of where Citizen's United was born. He is continuing the same message, and why should this not include where it is needed the most?
Is he saying anything differently there? No! So, what different message is be courted? Nothing
It's the same much needed message. It quite simply, is a call to wake up.
I imagine that message is totally LOST on you, the same way you think it had to be lost on wherever he speaks.
The homophobes, racists and misogynists you fear, I suppose, should be left alone
Don't tread on them.
How absolutely foolish an idea
an inch deep and mile wide!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Bernie at Liberty University: selling out all the traditional Democrats.
What an absurd double standard.
The whole idiotic attack is based on the implicit assumption that a politician (ipso facto a panderer) who speaks at LU will parrot their views to try to gain their support. Instead of making such a sweeping assumption, how about you wait until Sanders tells the LU audience, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." If he says that, then, yes, trying to get support from conservatives would indeed translate to selling out the progressive side.
I don't think he'll say that.
Incidentally, back here in the real world, that view of marriage is actually a quotation from one Hillary Rodham Clinton, campaigning in 2000, as reported in this very informative link posted by beam me up scottie.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Is not mine. You won't see me calling Black Lives Matter a Koch conspiracy and then defending Liberty University, as some have done. I also don't believe I have ever posted about Clinton and Walmart.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I admit I didnt spend hours searching to see which Clinton supporters had defended her Walmart work and which hadnt. The number who have certainly exceeds the number of Clinton detractors whove called Black Lives Matter a Koch conspiracy. I havent seen people on DU defending Liberty University the point most commonly made is to agree with Sanderss decision to take his fight for progressive values to that venue, precisely because he knows (and we know) that LU is on the other side.
Because you havent posted about Walmart, though, heres your chance: If Bernie at LU is bad, then isnt Hillary on the Walmart board (as a steady position, not a one-time appearance) even worse?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Straw men are her specialty.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)None.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)PRETEND to a very liberal, fight-for-civil rights, feminist, environmentalist, pro-gay rights, economic progressive for decades. Then ... BAIT AND SWITCH to reveal you're very, very rightwing in reality!!! That plan would have worked if it weren't for you meddling kids!!!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...he's in it to win it, and there aren't enough self-identified progressive voters to make them his only target audience.
He is stating a consistent message that he hopes will appeal to many audiences who see the corruption that is at the heart of our political and economic system. It's not just progressives who see this, and who are concerned about this.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)If those 42% vote for Sanders, are they still very conservative?
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Like Hillary.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Anyone in the Senate can, from what I understand. You simply go to one of the prayer meetings.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)to interact across the isle over religion, Christianity, I believe. I don't know if Jews attend. However, given that Sanders won't even join the Democratic Party, I don't know how concerned he is with getting along with Republican legislators. I don't know that he hasn't attended either. I really have no idea.
Only in an era when people celebrate the non-functioning of government is it seen as a bad thing to interact with representatives of a different party. That is a large part of why government doesn't function, and some prefer it that way. They aren't poor and disabled. They won't go hungry if government shuts down. It's all about their egos, affirming their anger, which is much more important than the lives of those who depend on government.
So you find some virtue in Sanders not associating with his co-workers, yet have no problem with his courting the most racist, homophobic, misogynistic group of voters in America at Liberty University. I disagree. In fact, I don't want anyone as president who refuses to associate with Republican congresspeople. Leadership requires being able to work with congress. I understand that is irrelevant to those who see the role of president as entertainer in chief, meant to validate their anger. I don't see it that way.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)The family..
Journalist Jeff Sharlet did intensive research in the Fellowship's archives, before they were closed to the public. He also spent a month in 2002 living in a Fellowship house near Washington, DC, and wrote a magazine article describing his experiences.[16] In his 2008 book about the Family,[2] he criticized their theology as an "elite fundamentalism" that fetishizes political power and wealth, consistently opposes labor movements in the U.S. and abroad, and teaches that laissez-faire economic policy is "God's will." He criticized their theology of instant forgiveness for powerful men as providing a convenient excuse for elites who commit misdeeds or crimes, allowing them to avoid accepting responsibility or accountability for their actions.[38][/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family:_The_Secret_Fundamentalism_at_the_Heart_of_American_Power#Beliefs_and_theology
In the late 1940s, the Family helped roll back key pro-labor provisions of the New Deal. Later, the Family did its part for the Cold War by cultivating anti-communist strongmen around the world, including repressive leaders like Suharto of Indonesia and Jonas Savimbi of Angola.
The roster of current and former Family members includes senators, congressmen, Fortune 500 CEOs, generals and at least one Supreme Court justice. The Family does not publish membership lists, and its members are sworn to secrecy, so a full accounting is impossible.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has been involved with the Family since 1993 when, as first lady, she joined a White House prayer circle for political wives. Clinton has also sought spiritual counseling from the current head of the Family, Doug Coe. Sharlet argues that Clinton's longtime association with the Family has helped her forge working relationships with powerful religious conservatives such as Family member and anti-abortion crusader Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.
http://www.alternet.org/story/87665/worse_than_fascists%3A_christian_political_group_'the_family'_openly_reveres_hitler
Just for starters...
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)My memory was faulty. Bernie Sanders has also attended their events. If it disqualifies Clinton, it disqualifies him as well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251500101
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)The Fellowship is pretty "Christian" and doesn't have much of any appetite for democratic socialism. And you don't exactly speak and go home.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He didn't join, he's not a member, he simply mentioned it on his website.
It's not at all comparable to Hillary's involvement.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Nothing in that post or the accompanying articles suggests Sanders attended the National Prayer Breakfast, an event that's attended by thousands at the cavernous Washington Hilton. I could attend if I wanted to.
Hillary was in private meetings with small groups of the Fellowship's top members, including Doug Coe. It's the consummate DC Christian insider's game and not exactly hospitable for a socialist Jew from Vermont. Big difference.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)Even if he reaches one semi-brainwashed person in the crowd it's worth it.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)He is not courting liberal/progressive voters, he is courting a liberal/progressive message that can reach across identities.
It's easy to misunderstand when you're used to candidates treating you as a vote block to exploit with pandering.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Staking a path between the two parties? Is that what you mean?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Entitled: Why Liberty University is requiring its students to attend a Bernie Sanders speech
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/07/why-liberty-university-is-requiring-its-students-to-attend-a-bernie-sanders-speech/
Interesting tidbit from the article:
snip<>
For a while, the newly formed group went about its business as College Dems at any other school would. They held meetings and drank too much coffee and campaigned aggressively for Barack Obama.
But the following spring, the clubs leadership received an e-mail from the vice president of student affairs: I must inform you that the College Democrats club is no longer going to be recognized as a Liberty University club, it read. We are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University.
Citing problematic aspects of the Democrats platform support for federal funding of abortion and hate crime legislation, promotion of the LGBT agenda, socialism, etc. the e-mail said that association with the party ran contrary to Libertys values. The students were ordered to stop referencing the school in the groups name and promotional materials and informed that their club would be removed from the schools Web site.
So apparently, there are Democrats at the school who, for some strange reason, some people on DU feel we should turn our back on.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)She and Obama both appeared on the 700 Club in 2008. Obama was actually quite good on the show. When challenged on LGBT rights he told them they were just plain "wrong". Hillary, asked the same question, changed the subject per the DLC triangulation strategy.
I think that Bernie, like everybody else, is courting all voters. And like Obama tries to sell them on his ideas, not by pandering to the wrong ones. O'Malley seems to be honest as well. We seem to have a pair of pretty decent ones this election.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I see Sanders make promise after promise he knows he can't keep. What is that if not pandering? Clinton is more circumspect in what she promises because she knows she has a good chance of having to deliver on them one day.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Why should I care?
I don't think going there is some nefarious plan. I think it's rather useless in terms of getting new supporters to his primary campaign, but Sanders is free to do this if if he thinks it's helpful to either his campaign or promoting his ideas outside of that context.
Response to mythology (Reply #318)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)In the poll you cite, only 19 voters identified themselves as very conservative. 19 is just too small of a sample to draw any conclusions from the results.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I will do no such thing. PPP is a highly regarded polling source. I will not respond to your demands for censorship. Clearly this evidence has struck a cord, or you would not be so desperate to bury it.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Doubling down on your mistake is not the best way to save face.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Hillary, in contrast, dares to dance with the Kardishians.
Hopefully she didn't autograph any home movies passed her way, however much money offered.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Good for him!
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)to speak. I look forward to viewing his speech. I hope someone will post the video here at DU!