Please, Democrats: Don’t Attack Bernie Sanders for Joining Your Party - Joan Walsh

[tishaLA]

....sorry if it's already been posted. I looked and didn't see it.

<...> Democrats should reject O’Malley’s attempt to stigmatize Sanders for choosing to run in the party’s primary though he has long labeled himself a democratic socialist, and chose to serve in Congress as an independent. For my entire adult life, there has been debate on the left over whether the Democratic Party is beyond redemption, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America just slightly less evil than the GOP, or a ready vehicle to improve the lives of Americans and blunt corporate power, if only progressives and socialists would get on board and pull its policies and politics to the left.

Count me in the latter camp, along with the late Democratic Socialist Michael Harrington, who preached the virtues of being on “the left wing of the possible” (defining what’s “possible” has always been the rub.) And now Bernie Sanders.

Unlike too many folks on the left, Sanders understands how American politics works: Without proportional representation, third party candidates are mostly spoilers, taking votes from the party they’re closest to ideologically. Independent Ross Perot helped elect President Bill Clinton in 1992; Green Party candidate Ralph Nader gave us President George W. Bush. (Spare me the arguments about how Gore was a flawed candidate who couldn’t win his home state of Tennessee; he was fighting the tide of change that’s turned the South solid red. Nader’s 95,000 Florida votes kept that tide from turning Florida blue, as it has been in two elections under President Obama, and would have been under President Gore.)

Sanders is already under attack from some precincts of the left for working within the corrupt Democratic Party instead of staying outside and trying to blow it up. Now O’Malley wants to come at him for that decision from the center? It’s misguided. If Bernie Sanders wanted to hurt the Democratic Party, he’d run as an independent next November—and help elect President Donald Trump. <...>

http://www.thenation.com/article/please-democrats-dont-attack-bernie-sanders-for-joining-your-party/

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. He only did it ....when it became expedient.

[UglyGreed]

2. Expedient perfect!!! That describes

Hillary's sudden move to the left.............

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. really? Nope...always WAS to the left

Here entire record used to create that image is right here....nothing NEW here at all

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[UglyGreed]

8. Hillary Wants to Help Families at the Bottom. So Will She Change Her Mind About Welfare Reform

Clinton said as recently as the 2008 campaign that welfare reform was a success, but its track record has proven otherwise for the country’s poorest.

In her second campaign for the presidency, Hillary Clinton doesn’t seem to be swinging for the middle anymore. If the first few weeks of her presidential campaign are any sign, she’s staking out ground firmly on the left and setting her sights on expanding the Obama coalition. She downplayed her gender in the 2008 campaign, but this time around, she’s even taking up the mantle of feminism to say she will fight for parents struggling to make it all work.

Clinton’s leftward shift includes calling for an “end to the era of mass incarceration” in a recent speech about the criminal justice system. That speech didn’t just represent a departure from a number of the positions she espoused during her 2008 primary campaign, including embracing mandatory minimum sentences. It was an about-face from the beefed-up sentencing and funding for police and prisons allocated by the 1994 crime bill, pushed for and signed by President Bill Clinton—a bill she supported at the time.


http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-wants-help-families-bottom-so-will-she-change-her-mind-welfare-reform/

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. Her record says otherwise...

Hillary Clinton on Families & Children
Click here for 61 full quotes on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.
Our generation is blessed by extra years with aging parents. (May 2014)
Grew AR Children's Hospital to one of nation's 10 largest. (Sep 2007)
Struggling families are invisible to Bush administration. (Aug 2007)
1980s: her church founded largest daycare in Arkansas. (Jul 2007)
Family planning & child spacing is international human right. (Jul 2007)
Mother’s difficult childhood sparked concern for kids. (Dec 2006)
Teen abstinence is the right thing to do. (Oct 2005)
Even welfare children are better off with their parents. (Nov 2003)
Caution in treating preschoolers with psychiatric drugs. (Mar 2000)
Parents’ dedication improves kids’ lives. (Jan 2000)
Boycott violent media and products. (Aug 1999)
Send message: It is the job of children to learn. (Jul 1999)
Help “sandwiched” parents care for elderly plus kids. (Jan 1999)
More funds for after-school programs. (Nov 1998)
Keep kids busy from 2PM to 8 PM to avoid trouble. (Nov 1998)
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence. (Apr 1998)
Teens not ready for sex; provide havens for alternatives. (Sep 1996)
Change what kids see in the media. (Jun 1995)
Men should be full participants in child-raising. (May 1994)
Improving women's lives improves children's lives. (Sep 1993)
1973: Legal parallels between marriage and slavery. (Aug 1993)
No tea and cookies for her, but no insult intended. (Jul 1992)
Child Law

Served as chairman of the Children's Defense Fund. (Oct 2007)
Support new parents to promote healthy child development. (Sep 2007)
For teens, not about birth control, but about self-control. (Jul 2007)
1970s: “I want to be a voice for America’s children”. (Jun 2007)
Supported foster care adoptions as First Lady & as Senator. (Dec 2006)
I've spent 30 years worrying about impact of media on kids. (Oct 2005)
Critics misinterpret 70s article on "Children Under the Law". (Feb 2004)
1974 article: put abused children into state care. (Nov 2003)
Leave politics out of Elian decision. (Apr 2000)
Governments can’t love child; but it can help families. (Apr 2000)
Decide Elian’s fate via ongoing INS legal process. (Apr 2000)
Treat kids as “child citizens” not “minors” under the law. (Dec 1999)
No dividing line between government vs. parents & children. (Dec 1999)
Early-warning hotlines for homicidal & suicidal students. (Jul 1999)
Expand Family and Medical Leave Act. (Aug 1998)
Raised issues of maternity leave at 1980s Rose Law. (Nov 1997)
Family Leave Act is a good start; paid leave better. (Sep 1996)
Against social service agency interference in families. (Aug 1993)
1970s: Learned child law theory at CDF and at Yale. (Aug 1993)
1973: Researched "Beyond the Best Interest of the Child". (Aug 1993)
1973: Create legal scale of graduated maturity for children. (Aug 1993)
1979: Child's future shouldn't be unilaterally by parents. (Aug 1993)
It Takes a Village

A family is a child’s first school. (Oct 2007)
Hillary’s “village” criticized as Big Government. (May 2007)
Chelsea benefited from “village” & from two parents. (Dec 2006)
It takes a village to raise a child, in interdependent world. (Dec 2006)
OpEd: "It Takes A Village" really means big government. (Apr 2006)
It Takes a Village and a president who believes. (Sep 2005)
"It Takes a Village" implies family as part of society. (Nov 2003)
Leave no child behind; it still takes a village. (Aug 2000)
Community support is key to valuing families. (Dec 1999)
Society is responsible for alienation that causes violence. (Jun 1999)
“It Takes a Village” is about relationships, not geography. (Oct 1996)
Children are not rugged individualists. (Sep 1996)
Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ban high lead levels in children's toys. (Nov 2005)
Sponsored bill against renting violent video games to kids. (Dec 2005)
Call for a White House Conference on Children and Youth. (Mar 2008)

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Families_+_Children

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. and

Hillary Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

In the face of suffering, God calls on us to respond. (Apr 2008)
Make sure the economy works for everybody. (Jan 2008)
Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones. (Dec 2007)
Considered idea of $5000 at birth to pay for future college. (Oct 2007)
Time-out for mortgage companies on march toward foreclosure. (Sep 2007)
Wellesley thesis: Saul Alinsky & people over bureaucrats. (Jun 2007)
Hedge funds incentivize risk, but need regulation. (Apr 2007)
Welfare reform was critical step despite flaws. (Nov 2003)
Lazio weakened housing standards and limited public housing. (Oct 2000)
Lazio fought against FHA on low-interest housing loans. (Oct 2000)
Equal access to capital and jobs. (Jan 2000)
Working should mean no poverty. (Jan 2000)
Community involvement helps, but only in short term. (Dec 1999)
Don’t criminalize the homeless. (Dec 1999)
1969 thesis: Alinsky’s reforms too short term & local. (Apr 1999)
Microcredit is an invaluable tool in alleviating poverty. (Feb 1997)
Link payments to good parenting behavior. (Feb 1997)
1976: Founded first indigent legal aid in Fayetteville AR. (Aug 1993)
Won series of high school awards, but barred from athletics. (Aug 1993)
Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000)
Establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Jul 2003)
Tax credits to promote home ownership in distressed areas. (Apr 2003)
Fully fund AmeriCorps. (Jun 2003)

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Welfare_+_Poverty

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. and Hillary Clinton on Social Security

Enhance benefits for poorest recipients. (Oct 2015)
Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase. (Aug 2014)
No lifting cap on payroll tax; that taxes middle class. (Apr 2008)
Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: No, teachers & police won’t pay if cap over $102K. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, removing $97,500 cap affects middle-class. (Nov 2007)
Have a bipartisan commission on Social Security and its tax. (Oct 2007)
1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security. (Oct 2007)
$1000 matching tax credit for first $1000 in 401(k) deposit. (Oct 2007)
Solvent until 2055 under Bill Clinton; now has lost 14 years. (Sep 2007)
Nothing else on table until fiscal responsibility returns. (Sep 2007)
Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy. (Oct 2006)
Social Security protects families, not just retirees. (Feb 1999)
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency. (Feb 1999)
Respect unique power of government to meet social needs. (Sep 1996)
Elderly poor are hit hardest by delays in COLA increases. (Jun 1994)
Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Social_Security

[Thinkingabout]

37. Great post, lots of good information, thanks for posting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. You are welcome

this meme (agreeing with Rand Paul no less) that HRC is a neocon is utter horseshit.

[Thinkingabout]

170. Yes when they don't have anything to offer just make shit up, works for FOX.

[raindaddy]

137. Hillary's a social liberal. On foreign policy and Wall Street she's a conservative....

Amazing that "liberals"are so willing to give Clinton a pass after supporting Bush/Cheney's attack on Iraq. Also the rewrite of history, that the Bush administration ever made a convincing argument that Iraq posed an actual threat to the US..

In mid-2009, then–Secretary of State Clinton was one of the key forces in the Obama administration advocating for a "surge" of new troops to Afghanistan. At the time, Gallup found that 62 percent of Democrats opposed sending more troops to the country.

In March 2011, she argued strongly for intervening to stop Muammar Qaddafi's slaughter of rebels in Libya. At the time, 57 percent of Democrats told Pew the US had no responsibility to stop the killing in Libya.

In 2012, Clinton and General David Petraeus presented Obama with a plan for arming the Syrian rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime. Only a tiny minority of Americans — 11 percent — supported the idea, according to a June 2013 NBC/Wall Street Journal. The poll didn't disclose an exact partisan breakdown, but Democrats and Republicans broadly agreed: "whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria," Bill McInturff, one of the pollsters who conducted the poll, said.

Then there's the Wall Street connection...What "liberal" Democrat in the history of the party accepts over 3 million dollars giving speeches to Wall Street banks in one year???? Anyone who thinks Hillary has the public's back when it comes to Wall Street is fooling themselves...

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. No...again...read the record

You cannot use ONE bullet point to make your case...you have to look at the overall record.

[raindaddy]

148. I gave a number of examples.. Again, can you name one "liberal" in the history of the party

that received over 3 million dollars from various Wall Street banks in one year?

Do you really believe anyone pays out that kind of money without expectations? Do you think it's possible that there's a connection between her receiving so much $$$ and her being the only Democrat running for President who doesn't support Warren and Glass Steagall?

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. Barack Obama.

Here is HRC's graph again for your edification



Oh and by the way....so far 45 members of the Democratic Progressive Caucus has endorsed her! But what the fuck do THEY know?

[raindaddy]

232. Barack Obama's not a liberal and I don't believe he made over three million $$ in one year...

giving speeches to Wall Street Banks..



You can post all of the graphs you want but they don't change the fact that Hillary Clinton is in the back pocket of the Wall Street banks.

That she was somehow gullible enough to believe that Iraq was a direct threat to this country and it was urgent enough she couldn't wait for the inspectors on the ground to let us know there weren't any WMD.

And if she does manage to become President half her administration will be made of of Wall Street and corporate insiders.. Which might be the hallmark of a third way neoliberal but not a traditional populist liberal Democrat.

[PosterChild]

143. I second that, great post!

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. You are welcome!

[LiberalArkie]

12. The link is dead.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. not dead

I mistyped...

[LiberalArkie]

15. But Govtrack has her about in the same place. In fact the same place as Teddy Kennedy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. No it doesn't actually...Ted Kennedy

[Dragonfli]

26. .

[UglyGreed]

35. That graphic

is accurate, the other one must be the new and improved Hillary for 2016

[Dragonfli]

50. I think even VR knows that, but I guess ya can't blame a person for trying

[ConservativeDemocrat]

60. You guys are hilarious, posting a chart with everyone in one corner

What that really shows is that the person who drew the graph is in an extremist corner.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[PosterChild]

145. +10 !! .... and the idea that ....

Ralph Nader is less "authoritarian" than any other politico is funny .

[MADem]

88. That non-American methodology for arriving at a point on a graph is based on a test that none of the

players assigned points on the little scale actually TOOK.

It's extrapolated, and based on fewer points of information than the other "On The Issues" effort, which is based on comments over decades and ratings by agencies such as the NRA and other public policy groups that critique candidates with regard to their stances.

Sorry, that thing is worthless.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

[Dragonfli]

146. The opposite actually, what is worthless is allowing someone to control the methodology

themselves by nothing more than their own input.

THe graph you mentioned is only based on the answers the candidate gives to the quiz as they clearly state, not on what you falsely claim it is based on. Also clearly stated is their own disclaimer

VoteMatch

Candidate's Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate's political philosophy by dividing the candidate's VoteMatch answers into "social" and "economic" questions. It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt!
Social Questions: Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Economic Questions: Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.


Candidate's Score (Clinton in this case)

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:


Social Score 80%
Economic Score 5%

The compass test is based in reality, not spin, not a test version of a focused group stump speech, and works across the globe quite effectively. I myself have taken that weird ontheissues test and manipulated it to make me far right and then far left.

It is exactly for this reason that ontheissues themselves say to take their charts (which are new and laughably inaccurate) with a grain of salt while the political compass methodology has been praised for it's accuracy across the globe for 15 years now, they don't let the candidates make up shit ON PURPOSE after having aids tell them which answers to provide for the focus group preferred outcome.

Q&A #9
How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them?
How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We rely on reports, parliamentary voting records, manifestos … and actions that speak much louder than words. It takes us a great deal longer than simply having the politician take the test — but it's also a far more accurate assessment. In our early experience, politicians taking the test often responded in ways that conflicted with their actions but conformed to the prevailing mood of the electorate.

We are occasionally asked about publishing the individual responses of politicians. We frown on this. The propositions are too vague to be considered statements of policy, and the individual responses are not significant in themselves. When summed to give an economic and social score, however, they provide an accurate profile of a mental state.

Whatever makes you feel better. Just take that test and make yourself appear far right or far left, whatever thing it is that makes you feel good inside it is very easy to do, just spin left like hillary in a primary to graph left and spin right like hillary in the General to graph center right.

[MADem]

154. You do realize that ON THE ISSUES does this very thing? With better input, that they display for

the reader, too. They actually provide the points they use to draw their conclusions, in list form, and in excruciating detail, too--dates, votes, statements, etc. And they UPDATE this stuff, too.

Without the data used, these conclusions just aren't trustworthy. Your site doesn't do what OTI does, with the detail OTI does it, and I don't think they update as frequently.

Further, OTI is dynamic--and your site doesn't appear to be. Politicians do "evolve" and your site doesn't seem to allow for that.


Stop running away from the conversation and making this about me. Sheesh. I don't need to feel "better"--I feel just fine. I am not running for office, I don't need to take that little test (AGAIN--this stupid thing has been making the rounds here since 2001). What is UP with the Pivot and Attack the Messenger routine around here? You drag in a test that provides results without raw data that tells us to trust them that they've done the work properly, and you claim that it's somehow better than the site that shows us how they draw their conclusions with a list of points that they weighed in making their determination. And you turn around and start telling me to "Take the test" like it matters. Stop galloping away from the point, which is that your website pontificates plenty but is sketchy on their details.

I can tell you that I'm the President of the Moon, but that doesn't mean it's true. Don't believe everything you read on the internet!

[Dragonfli]

166. Believe what you will, I pointed out the methodologies that you ignore

all those issues they list are a resource, but they are not part of the vote match graph thing at the end, and they do not claim them to be.

I know Hillary's history, some people think her views on welfare reform and not raising the cap on ss and other center right stances are progressive, but they are only progressive in the way the Progressive Policy Institute is.

Financially conservative, while somewhat socially liberal just as was the stated and intended goal of the DLC when it was formed.

Belief is a funny thing, so is changing the meaning of words like left or liberal or progressive. I believe in actions, not words and in a consistent definition of those words when they are used, so we will differ, yes likely even as your views change to match whatever star quarterback like political figure you latch onto.

Identity politics are just not my way, it would be best to simply ignore me, I am an old Democrat, we do not believe as the New Democrats or the New Democrat coalitions do, we believe in fighting for the poor, the working class, the disabled, but not identities or jerseys worn in what some view as a sporting match or competing for corporate dollars to win the sporting match.

I realize a paleo-Democrat such as myself has no place here anymore, with my thoughts of New Deals, Great Societies, Wars on poverty, civil rights - all those old fashioned used to be Dem ideals. This site and this world appear to belong to the neoliberals on one side and the John Birchers on the other (FR), with no place for antiques like me.

Just ignore me, you will likely seldom if ever see me again because I am not a neoliberal and do not belong here even if the Birchers are our common enemy, that much has been made clear to me and others like me by the bannings of such paleo-Democrats, I may be out of fashion but I am not so stupid as to believe my views have any place here anymore.

[blackspade]

181. I feel you.

I suppose I am a Paleo-Democrat as well.

[pangaia]

94. OOppssie...

[PatrickforO]

136. I wonder where Sanders would be in this graph, which seems more accurate to me than the other.

A little pink, I guess?

Just a joke, that. I like Sanders. It is funny to me when a candidate says something like, "Tell me something real" as concerns single payer healthcare. The things that would genuinely make American lives better - helping other people - why are these things considered to be an 'extreme position.'

I've never understood that - why people like Bernie are considered 'extreme' leftists.

Does this mean that if we advocate screwing over 99% of the population, but support things like gay marriage and women's reproductive rights, we are moderate?

And what if we advocate screwing over 99% of the population in addition to making gay marriage and abortion illegal and defunding Planned Parenthood while we're at it? And war - yes, yes, another war!!! This seems to make us 'conservative.'

I've got another take on this.

Tea Party = Extreme conservative (and clueless)
Establishment Republican = Extreme conservative (and REALLY destructive because of war and tax policies)
Third Way (Establishment Democrat) = Moderate conservative (significantly to the right of Ike)
Bernie = close to FDR

So again, why is wanting to help other people an extreme political position?

[Dragonfli]

169. "why is wanting to help other people an extreme political position?"

It didn't used to be, but we are what I now refer to as paleo-Democrats.

The Democratic party is now made up of mostly New Democrats (AKA Moderate Republicans back in the day), they are neoliberals, many with Neocon leanings unfortunately while the Republican party has now morphed into what appears to be an even more insane version of the John Birch Society.

Our political positions are not at all extreme, in fact taken issue at a time they are usually the most popular among non politicians, unfortunately the political and pundant landscape lives only in the bubble described above, the neoliberal vs the John Birchers sporting event that our Democratic process has become.

It will take a revolution to restore sanity to the process again and make helping people a unifying goal of one of the parties like it used t be at which time we would not be called extreme anymore, that is why I like Sanders, he understands that we have to have this revolution in order to restore sanity to the American political process once again because it has been infected and corrupted beyond the point where anything else could fix it.

I fear it may already be too late, if so, expect continued increases in poverty, wealth disparity and disastrous ecological consequences which may make the entire human political discussion moot as few humans will be able to survive the environmental changes.

[LiberalArkie]

28. Here is what I get on GovTrack.us

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Do YOU have all of the data that builds that? Because I CAN show it for mine...

because I DO have it for mine...and from the looks of it...HRC is STILL in VERY good Liberal Democrat territory even by YOUR graph..

Point being...^^^ that is not a Neocon.

[LiberalArkie]

38. That is what I said. I never said she was. Her score is right with Teddy Kennedy. So however anyone

considers Teddy, then they have to say the same about HRC.


Here is the link for her page with them. Above the chart they list the method of calculation the chart. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. Okay...I thought you were supporting the meme that she is a Neocon as some here propose..

sorry if I didn't understand you...

[tk2kewl]

20. your link is 404

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. not any more...

[tk2kewl]

23. your welcome

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Thanks...I accidentally clipped the doc type.

[roguevalley]

73. Our party is open to anyone. If anyone has a problem with that they need to

join the other one. Bernie can be a dem if he wants when he wants. Its the democratic way. Honestly, this is such a bogus argument.

[tk2kewl]

79. looks like you replied to the wrong post

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. He IS now....he wasn't for 40 yrs of elected office...

not once...not ever...until NOW...THIS election...in fact until this past week.

[Duval]

107. He voted with the Democrats most of the time. eom

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. Here is HIS quote..."I am a Democrat now"

hence he WASN'T one prior to that....

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-i-am-a-democrat-now/


Whats the matter do not take Bernie Sanders word for it?

[bravenak]

120. The NOW part was my key word.

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. Yep....meaning to all who read it...he WASN'T one before....just as I ALWAYS contended on DU

and was told repeatedly I was wrong about that....

[bravenak]

132. I see no one admitting that you were right. Normal.

I guess now he just needs to put in his time as a member and move up the ranks. Get some coalitions going. Something.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. Yeah he has to really work on that party comity

since he spent so much time disparaging the Party he has now been forced to join!

First might be not lying about the fact that you called for a sitting Democratic President be primaried! That's sort of a party rule....

[bravenak]

140. Really. What a STUPID lie.

And the lie about it not being a lie is even stupider. Like we don't have google to check their facts. Some think democrats are stupid and have memory problems. I remember his anti democrat talk.

[Dragonfli]

25. .

[LiberalArkie]

47. And I am not even buying that at all. Maybe for the votes taking place in 2001 but not today.

[Dragonfli]

52. That was based on her record up till 2008

It may not be accurate for this cycle.

I await the new one, after her SOS performance I image her authoritarian numbers will be worse.

[LiberalArkie]

54. That period of time was a very bad time. You damned if you voted in any direction. The majority

of the population believed in the war. Sure most of us did not, but we were not the majority. I don't fault her for her vote on that, but I can praise those that had the guts to vote against it.

[Dragonfli]

164. That graph took the war vote as only one point.

It is based on all actions while governing throughout her career until the 2008 primary. After the hawkishness of her SOS tenure and her pushing of things like fracking and the TPP during that tenure, I think an honest assessment when adjusted from 2008 until the present will not show a more favorable outlook when the new update is released.

Economically she has always been a bootstrap "get a damn job and reduce welfare you lazy single mothers" and "don't raise the cap on SS" kind of politician in her deeds, and socially she didn't even like marriage equality until only very recently and felt Americans, hard working WHITE Americans were her best demographic.

Words and deeds do not always match, especially when someone is trying to get elected to an office in politics.
She'd have made a fine Moderate Republican back when such existed and were not evil, helpful even on social and even labor issues believe it or not - but not much of a Democrat from the standpoint of the era I came up in; when the New Deal, The Great Society, and Civil Rights were what we were standing for at the time, hell, we even started a war on poverty and may have won had the Vietnam war not nearly destroyed the country and both parties as we knew them. Then Reagan came, and with him Reagan Democrats that evolved into DLC Third Way Moderate Republicans that found a new home in the Democratic party while the Republicans morphed into an even more insane version of the John Birch Society.


There is no left really any more in this county, the best we have is center left, and the furthest to the left of that center left is Bernie Sanders who is a capitalist and not a socialist but at at least believes in a mixed economy that includes some elements of socialized aspects of government like SS and the like, but would like to expand that aspect if only slightly to include healthcare and education into the socialized portion of the mixed economy as much of the world has successfully done.

I miss the pre-moderate Republican Democratic party, Bernie reminds me a bit of that party, a party that once championed the working people and the poor people, nowadays only Suburbanite middle class people that have investments and more than one vehicle are represented by anybody, that is all you ever hear about caring for any more in political speeches, the "middle class", too bad they are disappearing because when they do no one other than the wealthy will even get a mention.

I need to stop posting here, my era of Democrat is frowned upon here and targeted for banning by cave dwellers with secret forums and a gang up on and coordinate alert stalk off the website mindset, if I don't stop posting here I will suffer the unfair indignity of people like NYC Skip who was the first to welcome me over ten years ago who was run out on a rail by those that only care about identity politics.

Back when Skip welcomed me, my era of Democrat was still welcome, but not any more.

I don't know you, but nice to meet you and take care.

[LiberalArkie]

32. And as everyone could guess without even looking. I am not even going to say who this is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Exactly....you cannot accept THAT and then say HRC's is false.

she IS and always has been a Liberal Left Democrat.

[LiberalArkie]

43. I never said that HRC chart is false. I said I agreed with you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. I understand now.....

I was distracted by the flys you are drawing!

[LiberalArkie]

49. Can't live without the fly distraction.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. I can....

My feet are held to the fire....

[LiberalArkie]

93. I am still wondering what Malaise is feeding his fly?

[blackspade]

64. Made up chart is made up.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. Its NOT made up...Nate Silver quotes OnTheIssues.org

would a statistician do that if it were made up?

[erronis]

142. Am I the only one who wonders if the Famous Nate doesn't have an agenda?

It's really hard to be perfect all the time. Just ask D. Brookes (came from the Wash Times, WSJ), and Wm. Buckley (spawn of wealth and privilege.)

These two oft-quoted, self-righteous paradigms of flatulence may have been joined by some nerdy self-annointed statistician.

[blackspade]

183. Sure a statistician would if he had an agenda that he is pushing.

Is Nate beyond reproach? Is he infallible?
What exactly does he quote from that site?
Your goofy chart based on subjective scoring?

[secondwind]

83. Except when it came to the Iraq. War. Except for her approval of the TPP until it was no longer in

her best interests.

Don't get me wrong, please.. If Bernie is not accepted, and Hillary wins the primary, I WILL vote for her. But she cannot call herself a moderate.. her record says otherwise

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. No...wrong...her record DOES show it....

You just don't accept it....but Nate Silver does...he quotes ontheissues.org results.

[pangaia]

99. In that debate didn't she even have the gall to call herself a progressive?

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. she IS one...

what part of Hardcore Liberal is NOT a Progressive?

[pangaia]

159. And AGAIN...

Please no more signs.. I surrender.....no more signs...

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. Yes again....please show your insightful refutation of the evidence it represents...

Let me help you....here is Sanders...



http://ontheissues.org/bernie_sanders.htm


Do you also disagree with that one?

[pangaia]

92. Oh, that sign again...

[lewebley3]

127. Hillary has sudden move left: she has always been a lib

[LiberalArkie]

3. I guess that is why Bernie voted with the Republicans all the time as he wasn't really a Democrat?

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. Or before he CALLED himself a Democrat?

and disparaged them all to boot?

Independents can vote for Democrats in elections....doesn't make them a Democrat does it?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-i-am-a-democrat-now/

[Thinkingabout]

46. Since both are "hard core liberal", guess this means either Hillary is not a republican as said

at different times or Sanders is a republican. Wonder what the choice is now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. who ever said Sanders is a Republican...even I would attack that ridiculous statement

[Thinkingabout]

51. No, Clinton is call a republican more than once, if Clinton is a republican then Sanders is also.

Clinton is Democrat in every manner.

[blackspade]

184. Has Clinton CALLED herself a hardcore liberal?

The double standard inherent in this whole made up meme is painful to watch.

The gymnastics that you and others are going through to promote a M$M meme is painful to watch.
What is your endgame on all this anyway?
Have you even figured that out yet?

[VanillaRhapsody]

186. Irrelevent....Hardcore Liberal is not a Party....

There are no state ballots that would disqualfy you from.....Sanders HAD to affirm he was a Democrat or his campaign was over.....
I

[blackspade]

207. So, she's not a hardcore liberal then.

Because she hasn't SAID it.
That's your pretzel logic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

208. No she is....its not about MY logic

its about the fact that after saying years ago that if he DID join the Democratic Party...it would make him not only a Democrat...but a Hypocrite too...HIS WORDS!

Now here he is.....a Democrat...because he had no choice but to do ......JUST to save his failing campaign....

indeed.

[blackspade]

233. Well, keep pimping the M$M meme then.

[VanillaRhapsody]

234. so telling the truth is "pimping" now?

Is anything I said false?

Did he or did he not say that would make him a hypocrite? HIS words... not mine.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1409803/-Introducing-Bernie-Sanders-the-Hypocrite

[blackspade]

235. Your post reeks of desperation.

You are so focused on this made up shit that you can't see this 'controversy' for what it is.
Another M$M meme designed to keep the party divided.


This is really getting into tea party/wingnut territory.

[VanillaRhapsody]

236. WTF am I desperate for?

he has an 8% chance of winning now...

she has 91%

I just repeated HIS words....and posted a link TO them....sorry YOU don't like what Bernie said...

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party." ~~ Bernie Sanders

which he said just 9 yrs ago....NOW he is one...

[blackspade]

238. Desperate to keep this bullshit meme going.

What is the point of your pimping this if Sanders is down to 8% as you say ( )?
Just to kick the underdog?
If he has no chance of unseating Clinton in the primary, what are you going on and on about thread after thread?

[VanillaRhapsody]

239. HOW is it bullshit....its HIS words....

Its a DIRECT quote!

Okay I am "pimping" his OWN words!

[blackspade]

240. You didn't answer my questions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

241. What question?

You didn't answer mine.....but then you didn't need to...I had the direct quote.

YOU tried to claim it was some made up "M$M meme"....but its not ....HE said it!

[blackspade]

242. Go back one post...there were two.

[VanillaRhapsody]

243. You asked a question that was invalid...

its not a bullshit meme....its a DIRECT quote!


YOU asked at first why wasn't it about HRC calling herself a Liberal. And I am bringing this up to tell you WHY Bernie had to SAY he is a Democrat....BECAUSE HE SAID...

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."


^^^ THAT is the reason...and WHY I brought it up...AND why I had to post his DIRECT quote...because YOU didn't believe it. Or just failed to accept it.

[blackspade]

246. Wow, you're all over the place on this one.

And you still never answered my questions.

But keep spinning like a top to the M$M! Have fun!

[VanillaRhapsody]

247. yeah...you just came all the way back...JUST to say that...

not impressed...

[blackspade]

249. My impressiveness is lost on many.

But that's ok if you don't see my awesomeness.

When I rule the world you will all love me and despair!

[VanillaRhapsody]

250. I knew you were just fishing for some more smart conversation with a lady!

[blackspade]

252. LOL! Well played.

That was funny!

[tishaLA]

7. Didn't take long for the pissing match to start

and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. Or a Clinton supporter. Or an O'Malley supporter.

I support Democrats winning elections, which means, as Walsh says, including the "left wing of the possible."

[LiberalArkie]

11. It never does. I generally favor the most liberal who is usually the underdog in the races. If

I find something that favors Hillary and shows her progressive side, I post it. The same for Bernie and O'Malley. It is just easier usually of me to find things that favor Bernie. I found one this morning where HRC wants to get rid of charter schools and remove funding for them. I thought that was neat. Sure she sort of started that whole thing, but she said that the charter schools were just to come up wit ideas for the public schools to use. And I buy that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. shows her Progressive side?

YOU just posted a graph that does that FOR you....

this one...proves why you are wrong...and Its YOUR graph..

[Sheepshank]

45. well all have our opinions...I wonder who bought her opinion?

Bernie is still only running as if he were a Democrat.

I didn't get paid for my opinion.

[daleanime]

55. The very soul of generosity...

don't ever change. Not that you would. Oh well, have a lovely day.

[blackspade]

62. This bullshit again?

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Did Sanders join the Democratic Party? When? I must have missed it ...

Sure. I know he is running for the Democratic nomination; but, that is a separate matter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. When he signed the dotted line in New Hampshire that REQUIRES you BE a Democrat to be on the ballot

and then he said so...

He cannot be on the New Hampshire state ballot along with other states UNLESS they ARE Democrats.....just as I kept saying for MONTHS!

In an appearance on a TV talk show Sunday Mr. Sanders pushed back on the notion that he is not a true Democrat.

“I made a decision in this presidential election that I will run as a Democrat; I am a Democrat now,” Mr. Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-i-am-a-democrat-now/

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Sorry ... that doesn't wash ...

While I don't particularly care whether he is, or is not, a registered Democrat ... beyond the fact that it establishes a (unwise) precedent for the DNC and State Democratic Parties, the DNC indicates that Sanders is not a registered Democrat, and the Secretary of State for N.H. indicated that he would only take up the matter of enforcing the state's rule if there was a complaint ... and (wisely) the neither the DNC, nor the N.H.D.P., filed a complaint.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. doesn't wash?

the converse is "I wasn't a Democrat THEN"...

He HAD to affirm with his signature that he IS a Democrat to even be ON that ticket.

Are you saying he SHOULD be disqualified from running on the New Hampshire ticket?

Is Senator Patrick Leahy a Democrat since he is also from Vermont and cannot register as one...

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Okay. n/t

[pangaia]

91. With all due respect, and nothing personal...

BULL SHIT.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. Care to prove it...

I provide evidence to support my claims...how about you?

[pangaia]

105. You go first.

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. Okay

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[pangaia]

110. You keep copying and posting.

copying and posting.
copying and posting.
copying and posting.
copying and posting.
copying and posting.








copying and posting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. its called SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

didn't you write term papers in high school?

I am posting to her ACTUAL record for you....if you clicked you would know that...


Or am I JUST supposed to take YOUR word for it?

[pangaia]

121. Term papers... in high school?

Why my goodness, I do remember doing a senior thesis on the history of jazz in America. You are right.. File cards all over the living room floor....

Um., lets see. I flunked French twice in college... but did pass German... helped by the fact that my German professor looked like Gustav Mahler, and we spent hours discussing and listening to Mahler symphonies.

My MM master's thesis concerned particular areas of Kabuki and Noh. It was a grind, I tell you. All those musicologists with pens in their pocket protectors and brief cases in the thesis class.. and ... me

I received a DMA, which is a performance degree (or as some might say, I "took my doctorate&quot but still had to write a dissertation.. Ugh.. hated very minute of it.. Much preferred actually playing music.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. Yes...that is where I learned that you cannot just spout opinions....you have to show evidence....

so please...WHERE is your evidence?

You challenged my conclusions...now I am challenging yours...

[pangaia]

155. You didn't support your accusation that Bernie Sanders became a democrat when it became expedient.

In fact you didn't even mention Sanders, You showed some graph about HRC that you keep posting all over the place.
:&gt )

[Cassiopeia]

102. He only did it so

it wouldn't fracture the vote in the GE.

You knew that though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. He only did it because his campaign was doomed otherwise....it was done...toast

at least 5 states REQUIRE you to BE a Democrat when you sign to get on their state ballot....but YOU knew that!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-i-am-a-democrat-now/


"I am a Democrat now"

Funny it only happened AFTER 40 yrs that included disparaging them and even running AGAINST them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

129. Clintonites would prefer Bernie had run as a Democratic Socialist, so we'd have a President Trump.

They're just pissed because Bernie's going to stop their inevitable coronation.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[PosterChild]

149. My preference, as a clintonite....

..... would be for him not to run at all. We have a perfectly good Democratic candidate, O'Malley, to compete against clinton. We don't need a socialist sucking up the oxygen .

[blackspade]

185. What is wrong with being a socialist?

[PosterChild]

187. Two things....

.....,..., first, socialists are unelectable:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

........, second, they are unelectable for good reason, their ideology having been tried and failed.

[blackspade]

206. Wrong on both counts.

Socialism polls higher than capitalism and have you seen Europe? A whole pile of socialist countries exist there.
We already have our leg in the door of socialism....social security, the VA, Medicaid, SNAP......etc.

So thanks for trying, but red baiting only works with the ignorant and repubs.

[PosterChild]

244. Please take a look at the...

Polls that were linked in my response. And as far as the general electorate goes, the Democratic candidate is going to need quite a few of those ignorant folks to win. And s/he won't get them if the other side can truthfully say s/he's a socialist .

Bernie is just not going anywhere.

[blackspade]

248. I was addressing your erroneous conclusions about socialism.

Not Sanders' candidacy. They are two different things.

And in case you haven't been keeping up, Sanders still beats the rethugs in the general, so your unelectable meme is false as is your "socialism has been tried before" statement.

[PosterChild]

253. My conclusions about socialism....

.... are basically the consensus of all modern, advanced polities, and especially those who have actually been there and done that.

As far as sander's chances in a national general election , lots of luck. Of course that assessment won't actually be put to the test because he's not going to get the nomination.

See you on January 20, 2017 !

[blackspade]

254. Where are you getting this from?

"My conclusions about socialism....are basically the consensus of all modern, advanced polities, and especially those who have actually been there and done that."

Do you have a citation or an example?
What is the alternative?

[PosterChild]

256. Well, let's ask those Nordic "socialists" about that...

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he
(Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen) said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251752410

[blackspade]

257. Socialism is not about a government planned economy.

That would be Communism.
Rasmussen describes Denmark as a welfare state, ie a socialist state in it's modern sense.
He may not like the description, but the reality is that Denmark and much of the rest of Europe are socialist mixed economies.
As I already described we have many 'socialist' programs here and still manage to 'enjoy' the benefits of our predatory capitalism.

[PosterChild]

258. Socialism isn't a planned economy? LOL!

If it isn't a planned economy you want, why in the world talk about socialism, and why call yourself a socialist ? It just makes things harder for you.

Bernie is said to admire Eugene Debbs and have a picture of him on his wall. Not FDR. Debbs railed against the private ownership of the means of production and distribution and advocated for their collective ownership.

If Bernie doesn't actually advocate the collective ownership of the means of production, he should ditch Debbs and adopt FDR. Things will go a lot easier for him.

[blackspade]

259. You do understand that socialism has several forms correct?

There is market based and non-market based socialism.
Europe currently uses market based socialism to provide social welfare services.
Non-market based socialism has not been tried so it's success can't be gauged.
What Debs was advocating was the democratization of the workplace which is a fabulous idea built upon by modern economists like Richard Wolff.

And as for Sanders admiration, I admire Debs as well. I admire FDR too. No need to ditch Debs for FDR, one can admire both for the great things they did for the American people.

So what is your beef with socialism? As an economic system it has much more going for it than the 'regulated' capitalism that is all the rage with the 1%.

[PosterChild]

260. If you are asking what my beef is against ...

.... Denmark, Sweden and Norway's socio-economic system, the answer is, not much. Of course it does help that these countries have small populations relative to their mineral (oil) wealth. Heck, that can make a theocratic, tribal monarchy look like it might be a viable politcal economic system.

But since the prime minister of Denmark rejects the idea that his country is socialist and distinguishs it from socialism specificly as a market economy I, too, reject that characterization.

And if Denmark's economy is, indeed, the ideal you seek, there is no need for you to adopt the mantel of socialism either. Nor for bernie to do so. And if Denmark isn't the ideal, one wonders what the ideal might actually be.

As far as the redunant notion of non market socialism is concerned, we can assess it's potential simply by contrasting north and south koria. And the several countries that tried and failed in their attempts at it. The assertion that socialism has never been tried and therefore has never failed is such a rhetorical chestnut that I'm very suprised that anyone would bother to bring it up.

[blackspade]

261. And this is the issue about socialism.

There are several different forms of socialism, market driven and non-market driven.
Denmark and the rest of Europe to varying degrees use a Market-based system of socialism.
Non-market socialism entails democracy in the workplace and thus far has not been tried.
Your contrast between North and South Korea is not applicable in this case as North Korea is not a socialist country at all.
Rather it is a throwback to the middle age aristocratic model with lords and serf ruled over by an authoritarian leader.
What other countries have tried and failed at non-market based socialist economies?
We can eliminate the old Soviet block right away since they fall under state or managed capitalism.

I would also like to point out that the the current PM of Denmark, that you are hanging your hat on, is from the center right party in Denmark, so I take his opinion with a ton of salt.

[PosterChild]

262. And yet...

"Denmark and the rest of Europe to varying degrees use a Market-based system of socialism."

And yet they deny that it is so. Specifically because their economies are market based.

Now, if that's basically it, and that's all you want, there isn't realy any good reason to call yourself a socialist. If what you are after is something other than that, you might just want to explain what exactly that is.

So what, exactly, are you hoping to achieve above and beyond what is exemplified by denmark, Sweden and Norway? And if there is nothing further to achieve or strive for beyond that, why do you characterize yourself as a socialist ?

Enquiring minds want to know .

[blackspade]

263. Who are "they"?

The PM of Denmark? The center right guy?
Of course he is going to say that his country is not 'socialist.'

So what countries are socialist then based on your rubric?

To answer your question: Democracy in the workplace, worker cooperatives, post-Capitalism.
But, to be pragmatic, I'll settle for increased socialism, single payer healthcare, paid family leave, strong unions, reinstatement of Glass-Stegal, etc.

So there you have it. Now maybe you will answer the following questions:
What is the alternative to our broken economic and social system?
What is your problem with socialism?

I think a little research is in your future if you want to continue this conversation.

[PosterChild]

264. I think that the center right guy....

.... who has been elected to represent and speak for his country has the knowledge, experience and authority to correctly characterize and speak for it. If he didn't we would hear about it from the people he represents, just as if Obama were to incorrectly characterize the American economy as socialist we would hear about it.

It's pretty much absurd to characterize a country as socialist and at the same time characterize its PM as center right.

My problem with socialism, understood as the collective, political ownership of the means of production and distribution is that it doesn't work.

It doesn't lead to material prosperity, quite the opposite - it leads to impoverishment. This is basically because market mechanisms and price allocation of resources are necessary for rational, reasonable, and humaine economic decisions. This is why attempts at economic organization outside of a market ecology have been abject failures.

This is aggravated by the attempt to do away with any significant economic inequality. Without the incentives that material inequality provides an extreme free-rider mentality prevails and the result is a race to the bottom.

And finally, as an individualist and a liberal I am opposed to the supresion of personal freedom that generally results from collectivistic economic regimes and organizations.

Socialism is not a progressive ideology. Like other forms of illiberal collectivism, it has been relagated to the proverbial dust bin of history.

[blackspade]

265. A couple of issues here.

By the way, I appreciate your measured responses.

1) How is Denmark not a market-based socialist country? It is irrelevant that the PM, who is the head of state due to a parliamentary coalition, thinks that his country is not a type of socialist state. The facts are, as they say, facts. He might not like the characterization, but that's too bad for him.

2) Socialism has several different types as I have stated before. The bulk of Europe are market driven socialist states.
Non-market socialism has not really been tried in any real sense. What you are describing as the "collective, political ownership of the means of production and distribution" is actually state capitalism, not socialism.

As for the rest we will have to disagree. Human history is full of different forms of social and political structures and most of these do not fit into neat categories.

I am also a liberal, but we are a society, and in a society we do not go it alone as individuals. I don't feel that my prosperity needs to come at the expense of impoverishing my neighbors. That is why democratized work places and collective ownership of companies by workers not the government or shareholders seems to be a far more preferable economic structure to me than the free market capitalism that has caused so much social, economic, and ecological devastation over the last 150 years or so.

[PosterChild]

266. How is Denmark not a market-based socialist country?

I'll just state my opinion, which is widely held as exemplified by the PM's remarks at the Kennedy School, that "market-based socialism" is a contradiction and "non-market socialism" is a redundancy. State ownership of the means of production and distribution (however the state may be concieved) is simply not compatible with the market based mechanism of price allocation. In my opinion, those who advocate "market-based socialism" are either deceiving themselves or they are attempting to deceive others.

[blackspade]

267. I'm not talking about state based ownership.

That is not socialism. That is state capitalism.
I would suggest checking Richard Wolff out. He describes the differences in deatail in both books and his monthly semenars that are all on Youtube.

It's been stimulating!

[PosterChild]

268. You tell me that Denmark .....

..... certainly is a socialist government but that a government with full control over the means of production and distribution is capitalism? I'm uncertain that this allows for any sort consistent or cohesive conception of what socialism is.

[PosterChild]

269. Richard Wolff says....

In a socialism defined in terms of surplus organization, the producers and the appropriators/distributors of the surplus are identical; they are the same people. In such socialist enterprises, the workers collectively appropriate and distribute the surplus they produce. They perform functions parallel to those of boards of directors in capitalist corporations.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30678-critics-of-capitalism-must-include-its-definition

Under this conception of socialism, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are clearly not socialistic. Nor is any other EU nation.

The surplus producers in capitalism .... enter "voluntarily" into contracts with the possessors of material means of production (land and capital). ... The contract's goal is for the producers' labor to add more value during production than the value paid to the producer. That excess of value added by worker over value paid to worker is the capitalist form of the surplus, or surplus value.

It is clear from this conception of capitalism that Denmark, Sweden and Norway, in fact all of the EU nations, are capitalistic.

Furthermore, this framework clearly excludes state ownership of the means of production and distribution from being considered capitalistic.

[blackspade]

270. Continue reading.

He has a whole chapter on state based capitalism using the Soviet model as an example.

[PosterChild]

271. I may sometime..

... however, by the framework laid out in the artcle I linked to, the Soviet Union was clearly not a capitalistic social economic system. Furthermore he states

The 20th century's major (socialist governments) might then have replaced not only private with social property and markets with central planning, but also exploitative with nonexploitative organizations of the surplus. As ground-level organizations, (worker self directed enterprises) might have secured a democratic accountability of socialist governments and thereby the survival and development of socialist economies.

This indicates that state ownership of the means of production and centralized economic planning form the superstructure of his socialistic conception with the "worker's self directed enterprises" located at "ground level", that is, at the bottom of the heap. I don't imagine this ending up any differently than any of the "20th century's major experiments to establish socialism".

[lewebley3]

125. Agreed: Sanders is not a Dem

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. He is now....he wasn't before...

[lewebley3]

131. He only became Dem when he wanted to run for office: Not true Dem

[eridani]

189. Why don't you message his campaign that he really ought to run as an independent in the GE? n/t

[lewebley3]

222. I am a Hillary supporter: I am not interested in Sanders

[Armstead]

180. Who gives a shit? He can call himself a member of the Sons of the Desert for all I care

My Gawd this is getting obsessive.

Sandrs is a Democratic Socialist (or Social Democrat) or whatever...He was very critical of he Democratic Party when he was younger, and he still is when the Dems do something he doesnlt agree with. He also supports and caususes with them often.

He is sunning because he believes there should be a choice in the election. A lot of people apparently agree.

He is also trying to moce the party in the direction he believes in. Maybe it'll work, maybe not.

He chose not to run as a Third Party Spoiler because he does not like the GOP and did not want to make it easier for them to win by splitting the vote.

That's what it is.

[rhett o rick]

182. He is twice the Democrat that Clinton is. Democrats are progressive. Conservatives that

label themselves Democrats are really Republicons that label themselves Democrats. All those turncoats that betrayed their principles to help Bush and Cheney make millions off a war that killed millions of innocent Iraqi children, lose their right to label themselves Democrats.

It's time to kick the influence of big money out of Washington the DC, don't you agree? Or do you like big money running our government? It's rhetorical don't bother answering.

[eridani]

188. Obviously, pulling a Nader would be even more expedient n/t

[Cha]

190. Yes. He said he wouldn't before bc it would make him a "hypocrite". BS's own words.

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

Introducing Bernie Sanders the Hypocrite

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1409803/-Introducing-Bernie-Sanders-the-Hypocrite

[VanillaRhapsody]

194. Dayum!

Nice find Cha!

[cascadiance]

6. Those who criticize Nader (or Bernie) as spoilers should advocate Instant Runoff Voting....

... which would be a practical means to gain the value of proportional representation in preventing "spoiler" problems without a major overhaul of our constitution. if they were to advocate us all pushing for Instant Runoff Voting, then it would be fair to critique some independents in certain races to run and throw a race to a Republican if a move to instant runoff voting is in the works that would allow that candidate to run in a more fair race later and not give a Republican an office seat without a majority of voters supporting him/her.

If they don't support instant Runoff Voting, then I call foul on their critique as a means to protect the corrupt system we have now which allows special interest money from the 1% to buy both of our two major parties in so many races and rig elections to elect those to do their bidding.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

61. Nope. I'm more than willing to dump Bernie to keep the kook GOP divided

IRV helps extremists who are more interested in gesture politics than governing get elected.

This nation already has way too much of that as it is.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cascadiance]

63. So evidently you LIKE the corporate interests buying BOTH of our two major parties...

... and having no way to challenge them without splitting the vote, and then having the special interests corporate owned media to reinforce the BS that it is somehow a third party candidate's "fault" for running in a race and splitting the vote.

Instant Runoff Voting does MORE to ensure that we elect those in to office supported by a MAJORITY of voters when it allows us to rank candidates, and not put all of our eggs in to one basket.

"Reality based communities" would note that then we could look at the first pass of votes to see how many would really want to vote for someone like Nader, and yet have those that voted for him on the first pass have their vote counted for Gore in the "runoff" stage instead of not counted at all. Why wouldn't you have liked those votes switching to Gore and having him getting elected instead of Bush in 2000? Unless you LIKED having that happen and having Bush as our president then, and then trying to just push the blame off on to Nader for our problems with Bush as president.

With Instant Runoff Voting, it would be that much harder for big money special interests to "buy the field" the way those like the Koch Brothers do today, as it would just take a good independent candidate to run that gets a lot of first place votes while they Democrat gets the second place votes, so that we have a bigger chance of getting someone not bought by big money getting elected.

First pass vote counts being published in the news would also help those who get elected to get a much more real sampling of how the community supports all of the given candidates and their stances to help them govern better to serve that majority if they really believe in representing their community of voters.

[Dodo]

72. Apparently his reality is a very tiny bubble

Let him live on it, along with the rest of the "Conservative Democrats"

[MohRokTah]

9. I disagree with Walsh on this one. eom

[ibegurpard]

10. Screw Joan Walsh

She was one of the first to run with the "Bernie can't appeal to minorities" garbage.
Good luck getting people excited about Hillary Joan!

[JackInGreen]

27. Let's try and accept a kind word once in a while?

This season is madness ibeg, where there's a bit of nice let's accept it.

[merrily]

30. We can accept this while being cognizant of the other.

Whether people are bashing you or sucking up, no harm knowing where they may be coming from.

[JackInGreen]

34. Fair enough

I'm just fried from constant volleys of fire I guess.

[daleanime]

57. Too true....

[ibegurpard]

39. kind words from someone who worked to undermine him

From the start?
Like I said screw her.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Did she say "Can't" or "Doesn't"? ...

There is a big difference between the two statements.

[ibegurpard]

84. poisoning the well

You've heard of the concept right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Yes ... I've heard of the concept ...

but, did she say "Can't" or "Doesn't"?

[Jharr827]

13. I don't know

Who I am voting for yet but it drives me crazy people saying that! We are so lucky to have 3 canidents that are far better than any of the right wingers. We should be thankful we don't have a trump or Carson on our side.

[demwing]

18. "If Bernie Sanders wanted to hurt the Democratic Party..."

"...he’d run as an independent next November—and help elect President Donald Trump"

BOOM

[LuvLoogie]

150. Actually it was Bernie's only viable choice.

Running as an Independent would have marginalized him further. He would not have had access to the Democratic debate stage. He would not have as much money for campaigning as a good percentage of his current doners would not donate to him as an independent.

He would have to explain why he would be running third party, and Thom Hartman would take him to task. He would be vilified as opposed to praised by most Democrats. And the not-Hillary Party's DU contingent would be TOS'd.

[demwing]

151. that's one opinion

another is "If Bernie Sanders wanted to hurt the Democratic Party he’d run as an independent next November—and help elect President Donald Trump"

[LuvLoogie]

191. He'd hurt himself worse.

An independent run would mean his insular tendencies got the better of him. And everything I said would be true whether he started his run before or after the party conventions.

His candidacy is only viable within the Democratic party apparatus. It is the only vehicle by which his ideas will have any chance at becoming policy. What remains to be seen is whether after the election he retreats to his cloister in Vermont or he remains engaged and actually starts the work of building a legislative strategy within the Democratic party.

[merrily]

29. Duh? Don't attack anyone for not running as a spoiler. Or, if you do, at least be consistent and

STFU about Nader's having done that.

[Fred Sanders]

41. SOME Democrats* please stop.......I would agree and say.

*members and supporters of the Party prior to Sanders running as a Democrat, and of course excluding agents provocateur

[floriduck]

53. Look at the Hillary sheep

tripping over themselves to support Joan Walsh, one of the biggest Hillary cheerleaders since Hill announced. Joan would go on tweety's show to slam Bernie and his gun votes and his AA lack of support.

Watching the Hill people congregate here is like watching the little ants some use in their posts. These people have NO CLUE what Hillary is going to do to them if she is elected. And they are willfully choosing to not learn and research her prior positions on a whole range of issues.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a corporate loving politician who wants to rub elbows with the people who will financially protect her after her terms expire. If anyone thinks the people come first to Hillary, put the bong down now!

[FlatBaroque]

56. You mean she really doesn't want to be my champion?

[saturnsring]

156. sheep.lol

[fredamae]

58. What happeed to the "Big Tent" in the Dem Party?

It Used to be WELOME EVERYONE.......When did that change?

[valerief]

65. That's so pre-Third Way! The open arms only goes one way. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. So now the definition of Third-way....is anything YOU disagree with!

[ibegurpard]

67. when the corporate conservadems took over

And they've been throwing every piece of shit they can dream up at Bernie on Hillary's behalf all summer and fall.

[demwing]

152. When it became the Corporate Umbrella

[frylock]

163. I think that only applies to moderate former Republicans.

[jalan48]

59. Attacking Bernie on this is not a wise move.

Remember Ralph Nader?

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Ralph Nader failed miserably...

is that a threat?

Sounds like how the Teabaggers hold their Party hostage actually...

[jalan48]

68. No threat-it's just when a party gets too out of touch with the people someone new steps up.

it's unfortunate, but at some point the "threat" that the Republicans are worse stops working. Voters decide they would rather vote in a meaningful way. Bernie is saving the Party that problem-they should thank him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. Apparently since MOST Democrats support Clinton not Sanders.....she is not the one "out of touch"

she seems to have her "touch" right on the pulse of the party right now don't you agree?

[jalan48]

74. The meme is about Bernie being accepted as a Democrat.

Think it through.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. No ...I am responding to YOUR meme above...

think THAT through...

Remember she has support from about 80% of the Democratic Party....that should be a clue for ya!

[jalan48]

76. LOL

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Move to strike ... Non-responsive! n/t

[Fawke Em]

179. On what the party has become, maybe.

And name recognition.

But, for those of us who remember when the party used to stand up for the working and middle classes, not so much.

[MisterP]

70. if they can't keep any dissenting murmur out of the party, they'll at least rope it off

[AgingAmerican]

71. Only right wing Dems are obsessed with it

Ironic, or not, because right wing has no place in the party

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. Rightwing Democrats like this?

[AgingAmerican]

97. No, right wing Dems

AKA 'moderates'.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. So you agree....someone supporting Clinton is not a Rightwing Dem?

[Blue_In_AK]

78. Thank you, Joan.

A most reasonable opinion coming from a Hillary supporter. I wish Hillary's other supporters at DU would accept this.

[MADem]

82. The Democratic Party INVITED him to join the fray--and they did so for a clear reason.

O'Malley is simply looking for a headline with this line of somewhat sour grapes, a way to break out of third place.

It's not the end of the world, it is what it is--people are talking about it, so from that standpoint, the "say my name" routine worked for O'Malley for a brief, shiny moment.... to some extent.

The attack won't draw any real blood because that "awful Debbie Wasserman Schultz" and her "DNC cronies" (quotes are purposeful here in DU land, because some people regard our very own party leadership as some sort of enemy faction) were the ones who INVITED Saint Bernie of Sanders into the "DNC Corporatist" Tent to run in our Unclean, Bankster-Corporatist-PTB Primary.

It's a good idea for the True Believers to not think on that part too hard.

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. He JOINED...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-i-am-a-democrat-now/

[MADem]

111. Indeedy...and he was escorted into his NH filing by DNC members who made sure it was clear that

he's in our little club of PTB-Bankster-Corporatist DNC Bad Evil Awful and Terribly Mean Democrats! His political party leader is (gasp) "DWS!" Oh, the huge manatee~!

The cognitive dissonance has to be huge. Or "Yuuuuge" as that Dunce Donald might say....

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. EXACTLY....

he had to suck it up and finally BE one of us...or it was ALL over for "feeling any Bern"

[MADem]

138. I think he's having less agita than some of his followers, frankly.

They want him both To Be...and NOT To Be!!!

He's taken DNC money before, so he's used to the alliance. He liked to play the independent because it added to his cachet (the whole "Can't be bought" theme) with his VT voting base. Nowadays, though, he has more to worry about than 640 thousand voters in a small New England state.

He's come to the conclusion that Membership Has Its Privileges!

[VanillaRhapsody]

161. You are sooooo right!

[Duval]

100. Hey, tishaLA, this couldn't be posted enough, so

apologies are not necessary. I'm in your camp, too. O'Malley is not helping the Democrats by attacking Sanders. Enough with these attacks already. We have Issues to discuss and Bernie's are the ones that resonate with me. That being said, I am really tired of seeing the infighting re: Hillary/Bernie. Whoever wins, we are Democrats and the most important thing we can do is VOTE and encourage others to do the same.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. But attacking the Democrats is AOK!

the tone deafness continues!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

165. All you do is attack Democratic posters here, Democratic candidates you don't like, all with a

relentlessness that displays no respect for others and indicates a strong possibility of a bias driven world view.

[DFW]

108. Did Sanders actually join the Party? Or just the party (small p)?

If he wants to drop the Independent label and become a Democratic Party member, either permanently or for the duration of the campaign, I have no problem with that. Actually, I'd applaud it. I think if you want a party's nomination for President you should join that party. The presidential nomination is a different animal from Senate caucusing.

That having been said, it's just my personal feeling, and if the Party wants to nominate Bernie Sanders as an Independent, it should go ahead and do so. If he wins the primaries, then he's our nominee for president, even if the only party he officially belongs to is the Birthday Party. He has stated, as far as I know, that he will support the Democratic Party's nominee, whether he's it or someone else is. That is "Democratic Party" enough for me to want to extend him the same courtesy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. there is this

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-i-am-a-democrat-now/

[DFW]

124. I've seen that before, but that's too on-the-fence for me

You are or you aren't. I see no shame--or risk, for that matter--in taking a firm position on this one way or the other. He can run for our Party's nomination either way, so what's the problem in saying which way it is?

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. So you think he should be disqualified from being on that ticket....

where you have to affirm that you are a Democrat to sign it to appear on that ballot?

Do you also think Senator Patrick Leahy is not really a Democrat because he also cannot register as one in Vermont?

[DFW]

134. I think each state party has the right to its own rules on that score

If that State party's bylaws say a candidate for a party's nomination must be a member of that party, that's their right. If a State party says anyone can run in its primary, then let anyone run. I see no reason to make exceptions for one rock star or another.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. Again....he said he is.....in PUBLIC. He signed that dotted line in New Hampshire too...

saying "I am a Democrat now" is something Sanders NEVER said before in his whole 40 yr career.

He didn't HAVE to be one according to the DNC....however he DID HAVE to be one to run on AT LEAST 5 state ballots.....otherwise his campaign was toast!

Just as I have been saying for months...UNLESS he publicly said he was and signed...he wasn't a Democrat at all. NOW he is..

[DFW]

153. I wonder if he switched his registration in Vermont as well

Not to mention in the Senate?

Just an academic question, though, I guess. If he registered as a Democrat in the primaries, then he's a Democrat. At the end of the day, it's just an "I'm-with-you-now" label. I see the move as sensible and logical. It carries more weight than people yelling "corporate corporate corporate" all day long.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. there IS no registration in Vermont....

[DFW]

162. Now I get it

OK, I missed that.

[Gamecock Lefty]

133. I'm Glad Bernie has Evolved and Become a Democrat!

I would just like him to answer why he abhorred the two-party system as an Independent but now that he's running for President it's OK to be a Dem?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

147. LOL!!!! First reply was attacking him for joining the party!

[VanillaRhapsody]

158. After 40 yrs of disparaging them and proudly declaring "you are NOT a Democrat"

You expect that to be forgotten?

THAT's why he has so few Democratic endorsements!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

167. You're a riot....

Do you even remember Blue Collar Democrats?

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. I am a Yellow Dog Democrat? You?

I am guessing Independent.....still "Feeling the Sting" of Sanders "selling out" to the Democratic Party!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

177. Was that your best guess?

[VanillaRhapsody]

195. Why are you "feeling that sting" too?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

226. I hear younger people all the time saying they hope he wins....

They don't show up on those phone polls.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

176. He's gotten the good ones.

[VanillaRhapsody]

196. He has?????

[Spitfire of ATJ]

224. I'd rather get chairs of the progressive caucus.

[VanillaRhapsody]

225. all ONE of them?

How about how many MEMBERS are supporting Hillary?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/11/1430646/-Many-Progressive-Caucus-members-have-endorsed-Hillary-and-here-s-the-corrected-list


My count so far 45 of them!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

227. This is an anti-establishment election and she is the choice of the establishment.

[VanillaRhapsody]

228. Not according to 45 members of the Democratic Progressive Caucus including John Lewis

and this...which is supported by Nate Silver..




OH and By the Way....Sanders became a DEMOCRAT now....no denying his "Establishment" cred any more!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

229. You still don't get it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

230. No apparently it is YOU that does not get it...

HRC now has a 91% chance of winning the primary....and a 58% (to the Republican 42%) chance of winning the General.


that is not happening because most people "just don't get it"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

237. All you have to do it beat down all who oppose you.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. Nobody seemed to hate him very much when he was our tiebreaking vote in the senate.

He's apparently done something in the past 6 months that has set off unhinged loathing for him and his supporters, though.

Gee, I wonder what it could be?

[CharlotteVale]

168. K&R

[olddots]

172. my customised DU account

shows 72 replys twelve of which I see .

[Blue_In_AK]

173. You are wise, olddots.

[beam me up scottie]

174. I may have to join you.

That sounds wonderful!

[beam me up scottie]

175. A positive thread! K & freaking R!

I see some couldn't resist trolling it, everyone should just ignore them and they'll go away.

[Fawke Em]

178. Looks like the establishment is beginning to worry where the Bernie voters

will go should HRC win the nomination.

Many of us will vote independent and the kids won't be motivated.

And they know it.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. He's being attacked for holding up the inevitability train.

Let's be honest. It's supposed to be Hillary's turn, that's why he's gone overnight from a widely respected if considered a bit oddball Vermont senator to a drooling, shouting, crazy-eyed misogynist leading a phalanx of white supremacist, volvo driving, fedora-wearing klan member supporters. One who is HATED--- Oh, man, do some of the Hillary people HATE Bernie Sanders, now. I bet their dentists are having a banner year, what with all the teeth grinding.

But he's actually forcing her to run a better campaign than the empty, soft-focus videos and pablum one that all early indications were indicating she was preparing at first, so in fact he's doing her a favor should she be the "inevitable" nominee.

Good luck trying to get that through to her more enthusiastic "promoters", though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

193. That train is heading down the tracks....

He's not holding up anything.....

[Warren DeMontague]

197. Am i supposed to sputter incoherently, now, or what?

Throw out non-sequiturs, misspellings, and half-sentence ranting?

Oh, wait, that's other peoples' gig, not mine.





Guess what- i think you're right, she probably will be the nominee. And Sanders being in the race will have prompted her to run a better campaign, taking bolder and more well-delineated policy positions, as opposed to the meaningless gibberish about middle class champions and everyday americans her advisors were feeding her early on.

But dont let that get in the way of, uh, whatever it is y'all think you're gonna accomplish, here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

198. It was your analogy not mine...

But the fact remains.....there is very little chance for Sanders or anyone else left and its dwindling everyday..THAT train is leaving the station...

What will be accomplished you ask? The nomination and election of tanother Democrat after 2 terms of a Democratic President....a feat rarely achieved, the First woman President who is pledging to continue the successful policies of Barack Obama.....

There is no "revolution"

[Warren DeMontague]

199. Saying that "inevitability" is a lame thing to run on, doesn't mean she doesnt have good odds of

Winning.

In case you havent noticed, her chances got better when she started running a better campaign. Something people like me have been urging her to do for a while.

And none of that explains the dowright loathing of Sanders and ridiculous constant ad hominem bullshit constantly thrown here at "sanders supporters", that wretched hive of scum and villainy* all in leiu of discussion of actual relative merits of candidates postions.

The ONLY way to explain the past 2 months of tantrums on that front, is that some people view any sort of challenge to HRC's getting the nomination by default as out of line.

Which is ridiculous, even her husband says they're not gonna give the thing away, candidates have to win it.


* note to jury; Sarcasm, and star wars reference.

[VanillaRhapsody]

200. I didnot say that word....YOU did

[Warren DeMontague]

202. I didsay whatword?

What wotd did i

Say i wrd did! Word! Saidit! Said

Argumenting is funs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

205. The "e" word

You said that not I....

[Warren DeMontague]

209. ....

yeah, "exactly".

[VanillaRhapsody]

213. Thats another one...but not the one YOU used...

She is just more supported than YOUR candidate.....that is what makes her "e"

[Warren DeMontague]

215. yeah, "eeenevitable", right?

This is what I meant about non-sequiturs. Does not disappoint.

[VanillaRhapsody]

217. YOUR non-sequitur....you brought it up!

[Warren DeMontague]

218. derp derp derp

lates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

220. EXACTLY!

[Warren DeMontague]

221. that starts with a "U", doesn't it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. No...that would be Y!

[VanillaRhapsody]

201. He said once

That he would be a hypocrite to join the Democratic party....and now here he is....a Democrat.

[Warren DeMontague]

203. Okay

Then in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, I guess he owes you an apology, or nothing at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

204. He owes YOU the apology not me....

I have always been a Democrat...he hasn't sold me out to an organized political party...

[Warren DeMontague]

210. meaning what, precisely?

Can you please elaborate on exactly what it is you're implying in that post?

[VanillaRhapsody]

211. Did he not say...

that if he joined the Democratic Party he would be a hypocrite? And now he has joined MY party....I wasn't the supposed Democrat that supported the NON-Democrat (until now)....THAT would be you.

[Warren DeMontague]

212. are you suggesting I'm not actually a Democrat?

[VanillaRhapsody]

214. How would I know...other than the fact that you DID support a Non-Democrat...

in the Democratic Primary....there is THAT! It calls it into question...particulary since it WAS the candidate that said BEING a Democrat would make HIM a hypocrite....YOU supported THAT guy!

[Warren DeMontague]

216. Well way to fucking go.

You're lookin great, here, know that?

By the way, I've been a Democrat probably for longer than you've been forming coherent sentences.

At the very least.

[VanillaRhapsody]

219. I know...thanks...I have lost a few pounds...

so I feel even better....I am not as young as I used to be!

At the very least.


by the way...when you support the guy....who derides ALL Democrats....and says he would be a hypocrite becoming one.....it puts that "cred" into question. Thankfully for you...he has now sucked it up and became one...regardless of his own perceived hypocrisy!

[Warren DeMontague]

245. I want to know when someone's gonna show up to tell me I 'got my ass handed to me'

in this thread.

[72DejaVu]

251. I am happy to welcome Bernie Sanders to the Democratic Party!

I will, however, decline to support your request to be placed in charge on your first day.

[MrMickeysMom]

255. We should THANK Bernie Sanders for stitching together the broken fabric of our party...

... which is why once every so often, you need someone who comes in and reminds the American people how far we have ALL run to the right wing extremism. The last one was FDR. Truth be known, JFK would have evolved us to a state of not being dumbed down the way we have over the past 3 or 4 decades.

I never thought Democrats would have trouble remembering what unfettered capitalism has done to subsidize corporate control over Congress... but .... here we are...

Open your eyes...

Time to wake up...

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[wyldwolf]

273. one more person who will...

... pretend to be surprise election day when the polls are spot on. Fact is he knows polling is accurate, he's just catering to his listeners' conspiratorial nature.