The most evolved Dem candidate is Bernie Sanders. By a long shot.

[DanTex]

Here's a guy who evolved from a full-on socialist -- in the classical sense of government owned industries, worker's councils instead of bosses, and so on -- to a fan of capitalism who just wants a stronger safety net and more regulation. And yet, the same Hillary haters who insist that her much more minor evolutions are unforgivable insist that he should get a free pass.

His evolution is all the more remarkable because it occurred over the last few decades, a period of time when the excesses of capitalism became more pronounced. If you started out thinking that the capitalism had to be trashed, there is pretty much nothing that happened in the last decades that you could point to as evidence to support a change in viewpoint like Bernie's. The only logical explanation for his drastic shift to the right is that he wanted to actually get elected, and knew that he couldn't if he was preaching the elimination of private enterprise.

This is very much in contrast to Hillary's much less severe changes in views. The Iraq war, for example, turned out disastrously, Bush was lying, the WMD thing was a sham, etc., so, yeah, that's a good thing to evolve on. And to the extent that Hillary bashers hold her responsible for actions of the Bill Clinton administration (which in itself is silly: she was a force pulling the administration to the left, as everyone involved acknowledges), there too there is actual evidence that some of the more centrist policies passed were harmful.

In essence, we have Hillary, who evolved a little bit to the left based on actual evidence, and Bernie who evolved dramatically to the right with no rational explanation whatsoever other than political convenience. And who gets to most heat for changing views?

[SonderWoman]

1. He also went from conscientious objector to...

Voting for Afghan war and every war funding bill.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. ...

[SonderWoman]

25. I block videos on my phone.

I'm guessing its a video because I just see a big white space. But you gotta admit, that's a pretty dramatic shift for an "anti-war" person.

[Armstead]

71. I agree, It'd be really frightening to have this Hippie Peacenik Warmonger in office

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Bernie might smoke too much pot one night and decide to let loose the nukes.

[beam me up scottie]

92. At least he didn't laugh it up about going to war with Iran:

[cantbeserious]

2. That Is A Whole Lot Of Creative Speculation

The question is who would be better to govern a broken system that favors Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks:

A progressive that knows the art of compromise or a conservative paying lip service to the left.

I'll choose the progressive every time.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. How old was Bernie when he last "evolved" on a major issue?

2. Do you have handy a list of the specific positions that Bernie's evolved on, and what the changes were?

3. Did Bernie ever actively work to deny people their human rights?

Thanks.

[DanTex]

10. When he was 46, he was in favor of the government owning the major industries.

That was in 1987. At some point between then and now, he became a capitalist. By far a larger evolution than anything Clinton ever did. This is a fundamental change in the way he thinks the economy should be structured. Should private investors be able to raise money, build factories, and hire people? Or should instead the government own the factories. Pretty dramatic.

As to when he evolved and why, he hasn't made that clear. There aren't many details. Maybe he still believes in the government running major industries, but he just doesn't talk about it. He has said the he is willing to sacrifice economic growth in order to redistribution, but on the other hand, he's also said that he doesn't want to nationalize industry, so there's definitely been a change.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Do you have a link?

I'm not finding anything, but perhaps my google-fu sucks today.

[DanTex]

36. Sure. Here's a Bernie quote from a 1987 interview.

Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251581267
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech#.nkWvoO2G9

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Long interview, will read it later for context

In any case, do you think that "evolving" on corporate right is a bigger deal than "evolving" on human rights?

[HooptieWagon]

4. LMAO.

I never realized it was possible to pull so much straw out of ones bottom.

I do have to give you credit for including all the Clinton supporter red-baiting, straw man erecting, and victim card playing into one post.

[virtualobserver]

5. at least we finally know what desperation smells like

it smells like bullshit

[HooptieWagon]

9. He never fails to deliver.

I read his posts first thing in AM with coffee. It's nice to start the day off with a good laugh.

[virtualobserver]

14. the funny thing is, the title is correct

"The most evolved Dem candidate is Bernie Sanders. By a long shot."

That is a true statement.....and it was also true back in 1972.

[DanTex]

21. The whole post is correct, not just the title. You'll find that happens a lot with my OPs if you

actually read them.

I'm not sure how much Bernie evolved pre-1972, but, sure, he may have evolved back then also. But he was still a straight up socialist well into his political career in the 80s.

[virtualobserver]

40. What I find is that you start off with a false premise......

and then you run with it.

[DanTex]

42. Not sure what you mean by that. Bernie used to be a classical socialist, and now he's a capitalist.

That's a huge evolution, by any standard. Do you disagree? With what?

[virtualobserver]

47. Democratic Socialist then and now

"Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can.

Democratic socialists place the highest value on democratic control.

Corporations want to eliminate democratic control of our government.

[DanTex]

51. Sure, he was never an authoritarian socialist, but he was in favor of government ownership

of major industries, and of workers councils running factories rather than bosses, and so on.

To my knowledge, he's no longer in favor of nationalizing major industry. Which is a huge evolution. His views now are more accurately described as a social democrat rather than a democratic socialist. Basically a social democrat is a capitalist who wants a strong safety net and a lot of regulation. A democratic socialist wants the economy run democratically by the government rather than by private capitalists.

[virtualobserver]

56. "in favor of government ownership of major industries"

which industries?

[DanTex]

57. He didn't go into details about what should be nationalized. His term was

"the major means of production" so presumably he was OK with smaller privately-owned enterprises, you know, like restaurants, car washes, single-plant manufacturing firms, etc.

[virtualobserver]

59. He did not say "nationalized" he said "decentralization"

your error is in imagining that he mean national ownership by the goverment which would be CENTRALIZED.

He wants the workers WITHIN a company to exercise democratic control

from your 1987 quote...

"Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can."

Nationalized would mean TOTAL control of the major means of production....

Democracy, plain and simple.

[DanTex]

60. He said "public ownership of the major means of production" which means government owned.

Just because you don't put it in bold doesn't mean it goes away, you know.

[virtualobserver]

62. when you read his entire statement, it is clear that he did not mean that.

Bernie says exactly the same thing today about Democratizing the workplace.

from 2014

[DanTex]

68. What's clear is that he wanted the government to own the major industries.

This is obvious. He also wanted democratically run workplaces, but in terms of ownership, he made very clear that the major industries would be "publicly owned", which means "government owned". If he didn't want public ownership of the major means of production, then he wouldn't have said "public ownership of the major means of production."

I'm not sure why people even try to deny this. He's evolved, sure, but at the time that's what he wanted. Which is a hell of a lot different than a capitalist system where industry is owned by private investors who then keep the profits for themselves.

[virtualobserver]

72. only in your imagination

spin away, DanTex

[DanTex]

74. Again, he said "public ownership of the major means of production".

It's crystal clear. Everyone knows what that means. Even you, I suspect, but you prefer to feign ignorance rather than face reality.

[virtualobserver]

75. public is people, and he said "decentralized"

everyone knows what THAT means. It does not mean centralized government control.

Your entire case rests on your personal misinterpretation of the first line in that quote....
show me one more quote or statement that backs up your view

my case relies on the fact that Bernie has been saying exactly the same thing for decades, and I showed you a video in which Bernie said the same thing that he did in 1987.

this is just one more weak, zero substance attack from a Hillary supporter.

[DanTex]

78. "Public ownership" has only one meaning: owned by the government.

There is no ambiguity whatsoever. I didn't say "centralized government control" I said "government ownership". Those are not the same thing.

In 1987 he was in favor of both government ownership and democratic governance of workplaces. Now evidently he's still in favor of democratic governance, but he's no longer in favor of government ownership.

[virtualobserver]

80. if that was really his position in 1987

you would be able to find one more quote, one piece of campaign literature, something to back up your position.

All you have is your out of context interpretation of ONE LINE....


Was this a secret belief? He never mentioned this at any other time?

[DanTex]

83. Aha, so now you're saying that he misspoke when he very clearly advocated for

the major means of production to be publicly owned. Interesting.

That's the only interview I've read from him in 1987 -- that was pre-internet. But, I'd imagine there are other interviews where he says similar things, and if he gets the nomination, I'm sure the GOP will find all of them.

Still, given that he is a self-described socialist, and he started out his career with the socialist Liberty Union Party, I don't see any reason to doubt that he meant exactly what he said. Which is that the major means of production should be owned by the government.

[virtualobserver]

89. you "imagine", but you can't back it up. He didn't misspeak, you misinterpreted

I've read his views when he was with the Liberty Union Party, funny, it doesn't mention government ownership of anything.

[DanTex]

91. Ooh, this keeps getting better. So now, unless Bernie advocates for government

ownership of major industry in every single statement he's ever made, then it "doesn't count." LOL.

[virtualobserver]

93. If he never said anything like that during his entire career, it shows how flimsy your assertion is.

more weak BS from Team Hillary.

[HooptieWagon]

22. That is true.

It's not much evolution from being a Goldwater Girl to being a Third Way candidate representing Wall St.

[virtualobserver]

50. perhaps no evolution at all

her rhetoric evolves daily as needed, however.

On a "listening tour" and with extensive polling you find out what people think they want to hear.

[840high]

90. I noticed.

[artislife]

18. I have an image of a poster

at a Drawing table, like the ones cartoonists use, with a pencil and a blank sheet of paper.
Slowly, the poster writes the topic---how to create a clickbait OP against Sanders

And then the automatic writing starts with all the OP titles.

Some are crossed out, some have one or two stars and then there are dates and times to release them into the wild.

Next day.

Same actions.

[Puglover]

79. Wow I think you are on to something.

Really.

[MoveIt]

84. all that's missing from his OP titles is odd numbered listicles

"You wont believe the 57 ways Sanders supporters will give you cooties"

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Remember, the OP, last I heard, hasn't quite made up his mind yet who to support.

which explains the non-stop barrage of bullshit attacks on Bernie.

[HooptieWagon]

95. Lol. We see through their silly game.

[Wilms]

7. Only two sentences before lobbing "Hillary haters".

[Bonobo]

8. Sounds like "Bernie Hate" to me, maybe even full-blown BDS (Bernie Derangement Syndrome)!!

I think it's highly contagious especially in confined spaces like small, inbred groups.

[DanTex]

11. It's funny that nobody actually wants to discuss Bernie's evolution.

Or the issue of whether private investors should be able to raise capital and build factories and hire workers, or whether the government should be doing that instead.

[Bonobo]

20. It's frustrating to be greeted with your own dodges. nt

[DanTex]

24. Not sure what that means. So about Bernie's evolution, how do you explain it?

And why do people insist we should just ignore that?

[Bonobo]

27. It means your BS about Hillary Hate

Now you can see it in action from the other side.

[DanTex]

28. Hillary hate, yes of course that's the main reason why people ignore Bernie's evolving

and harp on every little thing Hillary does. Are you saying you agree with me about that?

[Bonobo]

33. No, you totally misunderstand!

I'm saying that you have made so many claims of Hillary Hate as the motivation for criticism of her that I am gleefully returning to you just a small portion of that obnoxious tactic here. And now I can see why you do it all the time!

Weeeeee!

[DanTex]

34. That's odd. So what do you think of Bernie's massive evolution? Don't want to talk about that, huh.

I can see why.

[Bonobo]

37. Your vicious unreasoning hatred of Bernie is disturbing. Nt

[DanTex]

38. Actually, I like Bernie, I think he's great. So what do you think of his evolution?

[Bonobo]

39. Really? How predictable. The hate is palpable. nt

[DanTex]

41. I like Bernie, I've been consistent about that. So how about that evolution?

[PowerToThePeople]

12. You are really just a red-baiting troll

Jury system lets people like you continue. DU2 would have had you tombstoned for acting this way.

[DanTex]

17. Yes, "red-baiting" is one of the terms people use to avoid giving coherent answers.

"Red" of course, refers to communism, soviet communism in particular, which of course Bernie has never been in favor of. Sure, he's said good things about Cuba and he honeymooned in the USSR, but he's always been a socialist, not a communist, and has never been in favor of authoritarianism.

Ironically, when you conflate socialism with communism as you have just done, you are the one doing the red-baiting.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. It is you trying to conflate.

That is why you are a red-baiter.

Sorry, your neo-liberal, third-way "turn my actions into my opponent's actions" blabber will not work here. People are familiar with this tactic all to well by now.

[DanTex]

23. Not at all: communism and socialism are distinct. You just like to call people names

like "troll" and "red baiter" regardless of what the facts are.

[PowerToThePeople]

26. facts are facts

https://www.google.com/search?q=DanTex+Socialist+Bernie&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

[DanTex]

30. For example, the fact that Bernie is a socialist, not a communist.

And the fact that he's evolved from a hard-core socialist to more of a European style social democrat.

[PowerToThePeople]

43. I am proud of his socialist economic tendencies

Better than some capitalist pig who is a bane to the human race and the planet.

I am putting you on full ignore now. Tired of the red baiting OPs.

[Bjorn Against]

49. In the OP you called him a capitalist so which is he, a capitalist or a socialist?

[DanTex]

53. I believe that he is now a capitalist, and that in 1987 he was a classical socialist.

This is based on the things he has said. In recent years he has said he is not in favor of nationalizing major industries, he just wants more regulation and a stronger safety net, but with a basically capitalist system. So that's why I say he is now a capitalist.

He calls himself a socialist, which might be accurate because socialism is a very broad and often vague term. But the outlooked he explained in that 1987 interview was classical socialism: government owns the factories, they are run on a worker's council/cooperative model rather than a labor/management model, and so on.

Of course, it's possible that he still believes in a government run economy, he's just not saying so anymore. But if what he advocates for is what he actual believes, he is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist, and as such he is a supporter of a capitalist economic system.

[Bjorn Against]

55. So why then in the post that I responded to did you refer to "the fact that Bernie is a socialist"?

You seem to be changing yor position on whether he is a capitalist or a socialist depending on what you think suits your argument best at a given moment.

[DanTex]

76. The point of that post is that I never called him "communist", and yet I was being accused of

red-baiting. Whether he is currently a socialist or not is debatable -- after all he still calls himself a socialist. Technically, like I said, I would describe him as a social democrat, based on his voiced views, and social democrats (as opposed to democratic socialists) are in fact capitalists who believe in a strong safety net and government intervention in the capitalist economy.

Anyway, the point of this OP is that he started out as a straight-up classical socialist, in the sense of government run industries and worker's councils, and now he supports a capitalist economic system with a large safety net instead.

[Bjorn Against]

81. So now you twist yourself in knots to explain how he could be both socialist and capitalist

In this thread you have stated as a fact that he is a socialist, you have also stated as a fact that he is a capitalist, now you are saying it is debatable. I think the point I got from your OP is that you are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

[DanTex]

85. LOL. Now you're doing the same thing. The only people talking about communists

are the ones trying to paint me as a red-baiter. I'm talking about socialism, not communism.

He used to be a classical socialist. Now he may or may not be a "socialist" depending on what definition of the word we use (as I'm sure you know, there are a lot of versions of socialism). But what has definitely changed is that he now believes in capitalism, whereas he used to think the government should own the major industries.

This isn't very complicated.

[Bjorn Against]

86. I edited my post, I meant to say capitalist and typed the wrong word

You did however say it was a fact earlier that he was a socialist, are you now saying that you were wrong and we should disregard your previous posts?

[DanTex]

87. OK, fair enough.

Again, whether he is now a "socialist" depends on one's definition of socialist. He calls himself a socialist, but technically I would call him a social democrat, and he no longer appears to be in favor of the government owning the major industries.

But a lot of things are loosely called "socialist", so if Bernie wants to call himself a socialist, I have no problem with that.

[pinebox]

13. And do you know why?

When you literally didn't support gay marriage up until basically 18 months ago and you're running against a candidate who has supported gay marriage since 1973, you may have a problem.

Sure Bernie's views have evolved BUT it also hasn't happened over night unlike Hillary who seems more like "which is the wind blowing" candidate than anything else. And then there's the whole donator issue. Bernie right now is on tv giving a campaign speech in SC and talking about the incarceration rate in America and touting his plan to ban and kill the private prison industry http://www.vox.com/2015/9/10/9299851/bernie-sanders-private-prisons Meanwhile, Hillary is tied to that industry and propped up by it http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton
Hillary doesn't go in depth on many things and is quite vague in where she stands on her positions. And what about KXL & TPP?

They're very different candidates with very different views.

[dsc]

29. He didn't support marriage equality in 1973

that letter isn't about that. Any gay person who was alive in that era (as I was albeit only 5) can tell you that. Marriage was a non issue to the vast majority of gays until the AIDS crisis which happened in the late 1970's. That letter refers to getting rid of laws prohibiting sodomy (which all but one state had in 1973). Incidentally Arkansas actually got rid of its sodomy law in the mid 1970's while Clinton was AG. It is this general cluelessness about gay history that really pisses me off about people who try to use this to say something which isn't true.

[pinebox]

46. Catch :)

I'm going to throw you a little quote from comments on this article because they say it better than I.

"Wouldn't the repeal of ALL laws against ALL homosexual behavior automatically put us on FULL EQUAL STANDING, (in the eyes of the government), with the rest of society? It's not Bernie's job to get people to change their opinions, that's OUR job. His job, then as now, would be to work to provide us total political freedom from oppressive, discriminatory legislation. His reference in the letter was simple and complete. It was part of a statement of a general platform for his political party, not an essay on queer history, either before then or since, and has nothing to do with things which occurred after the letter was written. Remember, this letter was written even before Stonewall.

Show me, please, any other political candidate from that era, nearly half a century ago, who stood for such principles.

I assume you're aware he lost that election, and wasn't elected to public office until 1981, first as Mayor of Burlington, VT., then as a member of Congress and now a Senator, and has not lost a challenge since that 1981 election.

Throughout his more than three decade career, he has NEVER changed his politics. That is strength of conscience! To me, that says full equality.

I'll get off my high horse now. He's old and tired... Peace!"
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

And if that's not good enough for ya, we'll talk Hillary's stance on DOMA & how she supported it while Bernie did not.

You may want to re-think things however when it comes to things in the 70s as it relates to Sanders http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

[dsc]

54. No it would not

It should be noted that one of the arguments made by the pro marriage side in VT (that admittedly was tossed out) was that there was no law against marriage equality merely a definition by the government that marriage was for opposite sex couples. The fact is merely removing the marriage law all together is the libertarian solution not the progressive one. Removing the law that defined marriage leaves no marriage law at all, it doesn't open up a new same sex couple inclusive version of marriage. That is what removing all laws would mean. It wouldn't mean editing the laws.

[Bjorn Against]

58. It is not clear when exactly Bernie became a supporter of marriage equality...

What is clear however is that he has never once publicly opposed marriage equality, every public statement he has ever made on the issue has been in favor of marriage equality. Hillary on the other hand has spoken in opposition to equal rights on mutiple occassions and did not change her position until fairly recently.

[dsc]

64. I have researched the isse

First, let me say not being in favor of marriage equality is hardly a sin, pretty much no one was (even most gays were either not even thinking about it or actually wanted nothing to do with marriage), but what is a sin is pretending that the letter he wrote in 1973 was about marriage. As for your point, the fact is I can find no public statements by him at all prior to 2009 and that is with two very public fights about this in his own state (one in 2000 and the other in 2008). Maybe he favored marriage equality back then as you are correct he didn't publicly say he opposed it, but we have no idea.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. Um, about the Arkansas sodomy law...

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ny_20010323_ar-court-strikes-down-antigay-sodomy-law

[dsc]

66. in fairness we are both right

the law wasn't eliminated it was amended to make it a misdemeanor taking the teeth out of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Arkansas

and yes that was in 1977 when Clinton was governor. It had been removed when we was AG.

[Android3.14]

15. I'll go with that

You are absolutely right that Hillary's changes are less, and are in fact far less than what her campaign is trying to force feed us to believe, especially when it comes to her support of for-profit prisons, and her lack of support for environmental issues, LGBT rights, racial equality and her support of the 1%-ers over the rest of us.

I like the idea of Bernie Sanders moderating his views while trying to move the country to the left rather than a candidate where the evidence points to the exact opposite. Hillary is moderating her views with false progressive imaging in order to deceive the electorate and move the country further to the right.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I'd say that would be Jim Webb, long time Republican and holder of major positions in the Reagan

freaking WH had to do some extraordinary evolutionary leaps just to stop being a Reagan/Bush Republican. Even more so than Chafee, who obviously comes in second as the other long time Republican turned Democrat running for office. These two, they voted for Republicans instead of Carter, Clinton. My guess is that most DU supporters of any of the candidates actually voted for Clinton and Carter and the other Democratic nominees while two of our current nominees voted for Republican friends of their Dad's.

[DanTex]

44. I'll give you that Jim Webb evolved a lot.

But changing from socialist to capitalist social democrat is a pretty large shift, arguably bigger than from a Reaganite to now a conservative Dem IMO.

[azmom]

31. Weren't you just arguing on another

Thread that Bernie was a socialist and supported public owned industries. Now, you seem to be saying that he evolved in the 80's and is no longer a socialist; he is now an opportunist.

[DanTex]

32. No. I was arguing he was that in the 80s (which, by his own words, he was).

He claims he's evolved, although he doesn't explain when and why exactly. My guess is political opportunism. What's yours?

[ram2008]

45. And you're basing this evolution off your failed interpretation of an article from 1987?

Laughable. At least his evolution hasn't caused the death of thousands and contributed to the decline of the American middle class.

[LWolf]

48. lol

[morningfog]

52. Bwahahhah! You never fail to crack me up.

I hope they pay you well.

[redstateblues]

65. I love the way some folks on DU start calling DanTex names

When they have no good answer.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. Bill had long hair when he was young and look at him now!

scraping the barrel eh?

[DanTex]

69. Yes, that's exactly like dramatically switching your political economic worldview

that Bernie had when he was 46 years old to now. It's just like a hairstyle. Exactly the same.

[Armstead]

70. You're very young, right?

Your obsessive effort to paint Sanders as eithehr an opportunistic hypocrite or some kind of Stealth Commie Socialist are kind of shallow.

To understand the context of Sander's views and "evolution" you'd have to have some familiarity with all of the dimensions of how the nation has changed since the 1970's -- and the changes many many people undergone, as well as the constant basic values that many people have tried to adapt to changing times.

That includes both Sanders and Clinton, and pretty much any candidate from the "Baby Boom" generation.

[DanTex]

73. Well, I used to be "very" young. Now I'm young-ish.

It's interesting that people keep bringing up the "commie" thing when I have never said anything about communism. As you know, socialism is not the same thing as communism. So what's with the "commie"?

Sure, I was a kid in 87, but from everything I've read, the excesses of capitalism today are more severe than they were in the 70s and 80s. Maybe since you have experience you can explain to me how those changes managed to convince Bernie that capitalism was actually a pretty good system after all.

[Armstead]

77. I haven't the time to explain it all but...

They country was torn apart at the seams in the 60's, and many people became either very radical or very conservative in response.

There were (are) also a LOT of people who became socialist in a way that does not fall into the stereotype of "government taking over everything" that you seem fixated on. There was -- and is -- a very large number of people who have worked in various ways to implement their ideals in pragmatic ways within our capitalist system. And many prople have had to reconcile their ideals into how to make a living.

This has taken many different forms. For example there are large movements that are promoting grass-roots, locally oriented economics that are more decentralized as an alternat8ve to the Mega-Corporate economy that has developed since the 1970's.

There are many peopel who were -- and in some ways still do -- identify with the iceals that are someimes called socialism, buit which do not fit the rigid definition you seem to be fixated on.

In other words, people have the same ideals, but they have adapted them in various ways over the years.

Sanders simply reflects the same journey many people have taken. For example, as mayor of Burlington, he was opposed by many businesspeople, bit once in office Sanders formed coalitions and partnerships with them to support economic development (business) initiatives to improve the community.

This is a lot more complicated than this little summary. But i'd suggest you read up more on contemporary (50 years) history, and what the word "socialist" really means in the larger context.

You might actually get inspired if you read about or read what some people who have been called "socialist" actually believe in, espouse and have accomplished over the years.

[MoveIt]

82. Is Yosemite Sam from Texas?

I read your posts in his voice, and that makes it better.

[elleng]

88. Well, he's the oldest, that's for sure.