2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's strategy becomes clear
It goes like this:
1. Propose the same pie in the sky stuff he has been for 25 years with no success. Single payer, free college, free paid family leave, and a host of other pricey proposals.
2. Avoid like hell actually presenting a plan for how it is all paid for, since it would not do to tell folks about all the tax increases on the middle class that would result.
3. Smear Clinton for not joining him in shining the voters on with a bunch of unrealistic, unpassable policy proposals.
IMO, it is one of the most dishonest political campaigns I have ever seen a Dem presidential candidate run. I am heartened to see that it does not appear to be working. I know he is not fooling any of the folks I know.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)In 2010 he admitted single-payer has no chance and said it would have to come from the states and not Washington DC.
Now he attacks Clinton for not proposing single-payer which he already acknowledged wouldn't have a shot at passing.
Very disingenuous to say the least.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Yet he is using it to criticize others.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)about the possibilities and benefits of moving left economically and he is doing just that. To move the nation forward, as he sees it, by showing people how they can have more and creating demand for it.
Most of Bernie's supporters won't accept it but, IMO, he has never expected to become president and knows that the details of making this happen would have to be worked out in the future under a different set of realities. Toward that end, though, he is trying making it more possible for the Democratic Party and the next president to move farther in that direction.
I believe he has accomplished that goal although being Bernie he is obviously going to press for all he can accomplish right up until the day he either decides to throw his support to the nominee or to continue his push from the outside (always possible for such a contrarian).
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You might have been able to make that case before he started smearing Hillary for not joining in him shining on the voters with pie in the sky proposals.
But now that he IS smearing her for not shining on the voters like he is it is perfectly clear he has bought into his own con.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)contempt for any views but his own. But I still believe right now he is trying to use what he has to push the nation economically left. He's not worried about Hillary now. Why should he be?
I'll judge him on his behavior in the general. THEN, I do expect him to do everything he can to defeat as many knuckle-dragging and religio/fascist conservatives as possible. Or I'll be spitting on his poster myself. 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Right? Or did you not see that ridiculous press release he put out claiming she was against universal healthcare? I found that ironic given that she has done so much more than he has to help get coverage in place for people that were unable to be covered previously.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)totally with the ridiculousness of pretending that she hasn't accomplished far, far more than he ever did. Still, how about "will?" As in will accomplish eventually? We still need single payer someday, and getting there offers him a role to play in future, if he will.
Candidates always do criticize each other and downplay each others' achievements during campaigns. That's because that's what works with us. If showing each other with praise worked better with us, they'd compete for the greatest gross weight of compliments paid, but it doesn't. That's just the way it is, and I try not to forget it even when something manages to prick.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)His economic view is correct. Right Wing economics have failed us miserably and ARE contempt worthy. So is any "Democrat" who supports them. There are hard numbers on this.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)are very foolish to believe the moderate left are your enemies.
If you cannot recognize the enormous differences between the conservative-libertarian and liberal-socialist economics represented by the candidates this election, how on earth can you vote what you clearly imagine you want?
Will you end up voting the right side of the ballot, imagining Cruz or Rubio is closer to your beliefs? Perhaps that fascist-leaning Kaisich, who's been hand-in-glove with the Kochs/business for 40 years, will surge and pick you up also with his phony "middle" message.
Right now you're sounding like easy pickings to me, Alittle.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Cheap_Trick
(3,918 posts)They are getting desperate. It's like 2008 all over again.
Cheap_Trick
(3,918 posts)before she was against it because Bernie was for it. All she has left are tales of being under fire in Kosovo.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Do you not even know what single payer is? If the only health insurance is Medicare than that, by very definition is SINGLE PAYER.
SMH.
Cha
(297,317 posts)And, he said he "never worked against President Obama". We're not the only ones who know that did happen.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=26215
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)No matter how much you want it to be.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)How, if you disagree with an opposing candidate on an issue, are you supposed to point out those differences without pointing out those differences?
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)A: "We need a political revolution!"
I'll take that as a no.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)confused two Hillary supporters and a Bernie supporter with your post, lol
If people in the 1960's thought as the "+'ers" here do, we would still be debating Jim Crow for Christ's sake! Maybe women's rights and LGBT rights should be fought for later too. I mean, how realistic is it that we can get the deep south to move on cultural issues anyway? (INTENTIONAL OMISSION OF SARCASM TAG)
A political revolution is an absolutely necessity today, especially in light of Citizens United and the wholesale purchasing of the government as a result; and those who choose to deride those facts, and try and make it seem like some sort of positive for Hillary Republican-lite Clinton are disingenuous at best and fraudulent Democrats at worst.
When something like universal health care - which might actually save money, remove unnecessary impediments in healthcare delivery, help people receive preventative care and prevent diseases instead of 'manage' them with non-negotiated drugs at whatever price is demanded, improve the quality and quantity of life for millions and actually remove an amoral practice (the profit motive in healthcare delivery that causes insurance companies and actuary tables to supercede medicinal needs and physician diagnoses) in the offing - is derided as "unrealistic" or not worth fighting for because it is deemed "unpassable", then its time to purge that mindset from the Democratic Party.
Either join the fight to advance a society worth fighting for or disband this "Democratic Party" and start a new with people not afraid of the road less travelled or the fight that may seem unwinnable at first. If the requirements for continued membership in the Democratic Party is to raise cash for the candidate, sit down and shut up....well, that is not a party worth fighting for or belonging to...
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)why ever have higher goals?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)What is dishonest is to smear people who don't believe in ponies. He went from naïve to dishonest when he did that, IMO. Especially his bullshit press release that says Clinton doesn't support universal healthcare.
That takes a lot of nerve given how much she has done for helping folks to have access to healthcare while he has sat on his ineffective tush and done nothing!!
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
tecelote
(5,122 posts)If you think America is on the right course and having the Clinton dynasty continue then vote for Hillary.
Your post does not point out dishonesty. Big dreams maybe but not dishonesty. Hillary, on the other hand...
Banksters on HRC: “She gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128078378
Will Clinton turn out to be 'Ms Wall Street' if elected? Seems she's not fooling anyone...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251844672
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I will join you to ask, for the 9657th time, what, specifically, has she done for Wall Street? No Bernie supporter has ever been able to tell me. Maybe you will be the first.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/
tecelote
(5,122 posts)More important is what she has not done. Reining them in.
We bailed out Wall Street while taxpayers lost their homes.
From 2008:
Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122169431617549947
- At least she told them to cut it out. But, we need more than that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Here you go:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-big-ban-break-ups-glass-steagall-120287
A proposal is not a guarantee. Both candidates are burdened by the need to prove that they will carry out what they promise. Only one will get that opportunity and for the sake of all of us, it better be Bernie Sanders.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Saint Bernard is vague on how he plans to achieve every single issue he talks about. Is that because he doesn't have a clue, or because he figures why make a detailed plan for something that is never going to happen?
Which is it?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)that she'll leave in the dust should she win the nomination.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... Refuses to provide any details for his pie in the sky proposals. IMO.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The banksters will be giving the GOP candidate even more.
When Clinton is elected, they'll get nothing.
Of course, Sanders' supporters will bash her for not reinstating Glass-Steagall, even though her proposals/improvements, Dodd-Frank, and Vocker Rule are even better than GS enacted 70+ years ago.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)My guess would be that she doesn't have one. I wouldn't imagine that devising such a strategy is a priority at this point.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)With the help of "fresh thinking" from DLC Democrats that helped get deregulation, Welfare deform and mass incarceration agendas "through Congress" and then signed.
There is something you should know about the conservative agenda you advertise with that logo.
[font size ="1"]President Bill Clinton with Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, at a conference in 2000.[/font size]
New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions
After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner. The DLC disbanded in 2011 during an apparent re-branding of the New Democrat movement when money ties to the Koch bros. and Koch representatives placed on the DLC's board embarrassingly became common knowledge among the Democratic left. The DLC is survived by the Third Way, The New Democrat Coalition, and Al From's Progressive Policy Institute among other corporate funded groups that continue to sell their Economic-Right/Social-Left brand of "Centrism" to America.
The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.
Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various center-right progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats.
I strongly believe it's time for a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various center-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the neoliberal corporate policies previously popularized by Reagan and Thatcher! For thirty years we have all but abandoned liberal solutions to economic problems, chasing instead the snake oil of supply side economics, austerity and neoliberal trade policy. These right wing policies have failed miserably, and rather than learn from the New Democrats failed experiments, the center-right faction of the democratic party has chosen instead to double down on failure with more free trade and austerity measures (to include cuts to Social Security).
In the face of a new gilded age of extreme wealth contrasted by an exponentially growing rate of poverty, a rapidly shrinking middle class and the emergence of an elite class of bankers, politicians and other predatory behemoths that are held firmly above the law and enabled to steal the remaining crumbs of wealth held by the masses without repercussion, it is not only time to return to Democratic principles of old that created the strongest most prosperous middle class in our history, it is time to reverse the damage done by the right thinking "New" Democrats and their failed policies with a new populism based on the needs of the people over the elite.
We do not need a "Fourth Way" to accomplish this, all we need is a return to the fundamentals of Keynesianism, a strong commitment to labor, increased spending on social programs (rather than cuts), progressive taxation, and an end to the cancer of privatization that would reduce the commons and the basic needs of the populace (such as health care and drinking water etc.) into the cash cows of profiteers of human suffering
Time to dump the "Third Way" for the unquestionably effective "Democratic way" made successful by the New Deal, The Great Society, and civil liberties. Our party can not serve two masters, the choice is clear, they must serve the financial elite, or the economically struggling populace
My choice has already been made.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832
brooklynite
(94,597 posts)It's seems to be the scariest thing they can talk about.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)With no place left in the Republican party, they of course only had one other option available to them.
Conservatives don't frighten me, but they help the affluent at the expense of society as a whole, that makes them undesirable to those that unlike yourself are not affluent, and are not conservative.
Reagan envy sucks.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Neither can explain how they will work with congress and fight interest groups.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Since he appears to be a surprisingly strong campaigner and politically savvy, I'll have to go with the latter. There's no other explanation for selling these politically unrealistic proposals to the American people who don't appear to understand how our government works. It's the reason he's so popular with younger voters - those who don't understand political realities - but can't get any traction with any other demographic who look at him with a jaundiced eye.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Especially re: the younger voters.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I really believe we need to bring civics back into our 1-12 curriculum. Nothing is more important than educating our fellow American citizens about our government and our civic duties as Americans. You'd be surprised how many don't understand how politics influences their lives, down to the wages they make at a local fast food restaurant.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)He's 74 y.o. and never tried to run for president before, so he obviously knew he wasn't viable. I'm also opting for pulling a fast one.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)a lot better than you think, and definitely a lot better than these snooty Hillary elites who think they're better than the rest of the Democratic Party.
It's a choice between accepting and submitting to the status quo and more of the same, or trying to move this country back towards the brink of outright militaristic fascism. Difficult legislation is passed by delivering righteous pressure to politicians to get things passed, and even though Washington is pretty much a broken clock, the politicians there are still afraid of incurring the wrath of their constituents.
It's your type of "liberal" who would have told MLK back in the day to "go slow", "that's not possible", to just accept things the way they are and hope things get better for your grandchildren.
Right-wing Democrats are dead weight, and you need to decide which side you are actually on.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Nailed it!
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Socialism is not a human right, and being denied socialism is hardly the same as being denied the right to vote or assemble.
Climb down off your cross already.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)were ahead of their time:
http://shetterly.blogspot.com/p/martin-luther-king-quotes_4.html
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Isn't obvious? They might as well be the same person!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and none knew who our Speaker of the House is nor the importance of that position in our government. And only a handful knew who our Senators are and that each State only gets two each. Don't even get me started with their knowledge of the U.S. House and the U.S. Congress as a whole.
Most believe that the president has the powers of a dictator; that he can decide what will become law and it automatically happens - without Congress. They've heard about Congress but have no clue what Congress is for. It's this lack of knowledge that enables them to believe any politician running for president that he or she can make things happen without Congress when he or she knows that isn't the case at all.
snooty Hillary elites
I haven't met one yet, so I have no clue to whom you're referring here. However, I've met plenty of Sanders supporters who love to look down on Hillary Clinton supporters and use abhorrent language when referring to them.
Difficult legislation is passed by delivering righteous pressure to politicians to get things passed,
Difficult legislation is passed through Congress, not the White House. But if those Millennials don't understand Congress' constitutional powers, how can they bring pressure to bear where it counts? Instead, they're cheering for Sanders, hoping he can make the changes he's falsely promising when he knows darn well that he'll need Congress. I have yet to hear him say that if they want all the things he's promising them, he needs them to vote for Liberals to replace the Democrats and Republicans in Congress so he can make their dreams come true. He hasn't, therefore he's pulling the wool over their eyes just to get elected president.
It's your type of "liberal" who would have told MLK back in the day to "go slow",
Hyperbole.
Right-wing Democrats are dead weight,
Then DO something about it. Put your money where your typing fingers are, and get out there, organize, find strong liberal candidates, and get rid of these DINOs. If you're waiting for Sanders to do it, you'll be waiting till kingdom come.
you need to decide which side you are actually on.
I'm a Democrat. I'm a strong Social Democrat (not to be confused with Democratic Socialist), and I'm on the side of the Democratic Party. What side are you on?
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)you are hanging out with? I personally know many 18-25 year-old's who are very politically active, know how our republic's government is structured, and unfortunately for you, tend to fall further to the left than the Hillary Democrats do. If you want to include the over-25 crowd in your points, then I'd gladly concede that most Americans are pretty dumb when it comes to knowing how our government operates, and many of those who DO know how it operates on paper, don't really understand the deeper workings involved in getting legislation passed (the impact of lobbyists, campaign funding, etc.). Republicans have long accused Obama of being dictatorial because they know the run-of-the-mill Republican is too dumb to know about checks and balances. Many Democrats are that dumb too, not just 18-25 year-old's.
Increasingly in this country (and thanks in part to the nefarious workings of the right-wing Democrats and they're comfy relationship to corporate America), most legislative pressure ends up coming first from the people towards a given corporate entity, and when that pressure is drawing bad press (i.e., could potentially hurt profits), only then do we see Congress step in with legislation to pass on to the president to sign. The movement for $15/hour (which Hillary, thinking like the corporatist she is, thinks is too high) started with the people and unions protested corporations, which in turn drew the attention of politicians who saw the wave of discontent rising. It is only a matter of time before our national minimum wage is finally bumped as a result, and this is going to happen with Democrats and Republicans (out of political expediency if nothing else).
You may be a strong social Democrat, but if you're pro-Hillary, then you're also a strong fiscal and foreign policy Republican. So what is it, Jekyll or Hyde?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)who spread the word via their social media since they're better at it than I am. We meet in person once a week (although that may escalate when voting begins).
I personally know many 18-25 year-old's who are very politically active, know how our republic's government is structured,
Then why are they supporting Sanders? It doesn't make sense. I mean, IF they actually do know how our government is structured, why do they support him? They should understand the limitations of the president, and they'd know that even Bernie Sanders won't be able to get $15 p/hr min.wage on the national level, which has about the same chances of passing through this Teapublican Congress as the F-35 fighter jet has of losing it's "lemon-aircraft" status despite the program's $1 trillion dollar price tag. Just in case you've missed it, Democrats in Congress aren't pushing for a $15 national minimum wage. They already have a bill making it through the House for a $12 national minimum wage.
You may be a strong social Democrat, but if you're pro-Hillary, then you're also a strong fiscal and foreign policy Republican.
I AM a strong social Democrat, but I'm NO Socialist, and the rest of your sentence is just hyperbolic insult so it's not worthy of debate.
But I've noticed you've failed to answer the answer at the end of my previous post...What side are YOU on? From what I can tell, it ain't the Democratic Party's. Green Party? Communist Party?
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)and I've voted for Democrats locally and nationally since I was voting age, I changed my registration to independent a while ago after the Democratic Party made it clear that "winning back" independent and conservative white voters was far more important than maintaining good relations with its base. I was formerly a member of the CPUSA and have worked with Greens locally before. The only problem is neither of these parties can even get on the ballot in my state, so I've been stuck voting for Democrats I wouldn't have otherwise voted for.
Knowing someone like Sanders stand between us and really bad laws being passed, it's most likely a comfort knowing he wouldn't sign it. The same can't be said of Hillary. She'll sign whatever Republican-based laws come her way then try to convince everyone it was a good thing (the same thing her husband did with his crime bill, which did nothing but ramp up mass incarceration). The presidency is one of the best bully pulpits in the land, and having someone preaching $15/hour constantly can significantly increase pressure on reluctant lawmakers.
The younger crowd who largely favor Sanders haven't thrown up their hands in disgust yet and given up the way most older Democrats have. The Hillary Democrats have basically admitted they are willing to accept the status quo in favor of someone they are convinced has a better chance of beating Rubio in the general election. Choosing someone based on "electability" is a cop out and an admission that you're older, jaded and ready to settle for whatever as long as it doesn't screw up the rest of your time on the earth.
Luckily, the younger ones are more optimistic in their outlook.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)This part specifically:
The presidency is one of the best bully pulpits in the land,
And you know that's not true anymore - not since the very same "pulpit" excoriated President Obama in the early years of his presidency for spending too much time commanding prime airtime instead of "running this country". That meme was viciously repeated throughout all mass media, defining President Obama as a crybaby. No such judgments, of course, were made of Republicans that had exactly the same access to the same "bully pulpit" and who were given more favorable air/print/broadcast time than President Obama.
So the bully pulpit, much like A.M Radio, is a relic of bygone times, and both only work for Republicans. It, and respect for the president, went the way of the DoDo, thanks to social media and phone technology.
Luckily, the younger ones are more optimistic in their outlook.
Yes, they are.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)I sure wish our party members could stop slicing and dicing each other, and the democratic candidates. We will end up like the republicans.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Ironically, GE polling consistently shows Bernie is more electable than HRC.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's just about ALL I've met here.
IRL, however, I haven't met a Hillary supporter. Puzzling. 
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)That's just about ALL I've met here.
You're either taking posts out of context or the problem of seeing these fictional snooty Hillary elites lies with you.
IRL, however, I haven't met a Hillary supporter. Puzzling.
Be puzzled no more! You're responding to one now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Sorry, but that's a false construct. It fits in well with the "elitist" charges and sets the stage for "speaking truth to power", but it make no sense when we realize that Sanders has been in nationally elected office for about the same amount of time as Clinton.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)someone's time in office or in public service, but about whom they try to latch themselves on to.
Hillary and her wing of the Democratic Party have always wooed the wealthy donors and the corporate sector, and I've noticed that many of her staunchest supporters tend to look upon Bernie's supporters as political novices naively floating along the rainbow with butterflies and moonbeams. Hillary supporters tend to think they have the answers and know what's best for the Democrats, and that view is true if you're looking to endear yourself to big-pocketed campaign donors, but that has nothing to do with the working class and poor people out there who need a voice in the halls of power.
Again, Bernie hasn't sought to cozy up with the rich and powerful and thus has much better foundation upon which to stand when he's speaking against the domination of the wealthy and corporations of our lives and political process.
treestar
(82,383 posts)single payer. Civil Rights are entirely another thing than a social program. Of course no one would have told him to wait or whatever. Nothing stops people from talking about single payer. No one seems willing to march for it. that's because it is not that compelling compared to what MLK was fighting.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)no idea that changes really has happened in the past and can happen in the future - but won't happen - will never happen - if the highest goal is only to tweak the status quo. I won't say that they are not Democrats. Hell, some of the worst southern segregationist like Lester Maddox and George Wallace were Democrats. But they sure the hell are not liberals or progressives.
JudyM
(29,251 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)
Cha
(297,317 posts)BS is not fooling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=26215
Thank you, BlueCali~
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I stand with the minority communities and choose the latter, too.
Mahalo for the reminder, Cha! 
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...even if that someday is decades from now.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)a lifelong politician. This is all he knows you think he would be better at it.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)No self respecting Democratic would want such things 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But Bernie is like Daddy saying "I'd get you a pony but mean old Mommy won't let you have one" when Daddy knows the real reason is the homeowners association won't allow ponies.
Bernie is as dishonest as any politician I have ever seen.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)...and pie.
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)Why did the image of cowpies come to mind? Was it simple word association? Or did the content of the post make me think of cowpies?
has nothing on you.
For you to write "Bernie is as dishonest as any politician I have never seen", you are either trying to incite a range of criticism, or are thinking about jumping into the GOP primary.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Promising the politically naive one thing after another that he is well aware has zero chance of passing?
That's a sincere question. The dude does have a single passable proposal in his ranting stump speech. Not a one.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)Thinking that if firebrands shut up and sit down we will make even incremental progress. The vast majority of the country has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a loud minority of firebrands until enough people were on board that things changed. The fight for a more fair and just society could take another century. So how dare you tell us that we shouldn't keep fighting. Every time we try it will be more and more successful. How many times do you think a woman's right to vote had to be proposed before it was reality?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
If you want to rail about charges of misogyny, start your own thread. Bringing up some point not addressed here wastes everyone's time.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and an unusual fondness for pie in the sky
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Or are you simply throwing handfuls of excrement through the bars?
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)perhaps you should call Nurse RAtched, and have her assist you in ratcheting up the strawman production
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I will not make that mistake again.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)leaving only the question as to what the proximate cause is for you making such a silly false claim
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)In response to jeff47's comment on the OP: "So, all Sanders supporters are misogynists wasn't getting enough traction in the focus groups? (nt)"
You wrote this: "apparently not -- they need to broaden their imaginary charges to include racism"
It's not a stretch of any sort to read your comment, "they need to broaden their imaginary charges to include racism," to assume that you are charging that the OP was accusing Sanders and Sanders supporters of racism. But, despite those words that you wrote, you claim you were making no claims of racism.
Golly effin' jesus! How could I possible come to the conclusion that you were making that claim?
Oh, maybe I just read your words. <=== NOT SARCASM
ARE WE CLEAR NOW????
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)are neither solicited nor warranted.
Only in the challenged mind of a Hillarian is suggesting that something be added due to absence a charge that it is present.
what will you do for an encore?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I'm done.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but rather a bland concession you were wrong from the start.
The only question remaining is whether that state was arrived at due to a reading comp skills deficit or one associated with integrity
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Trashcan this OP.
zanana1
(6,122 posts)Thank you! So many people listen to the trash on the mainstream media and don't bother to do a little research themselves. It is true that Bernie does not accept any large corporate donations, or donations from billionaires with special interests. Ordinary, everyday people contribute. People like us. From millions of small donations, he's been the first presidential candidate ever to raise enough money to mount a powerful campaign, based on ideals instead of how he's going to repay his overlords.
I'm getting ready to head out to his headquarters right now so I don't have time to answer questions about specifics, but the facts about Bernie are easy to find if people take the time to look them up.
Have a good day!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)zanana1
(6,122 posts)And what specifically is wrong with them? Facts, please.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
William769
(55,147 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I DO,however, get told to EDUCATE myself on Bernie. And then a link to his website that I have never once clicked.
sleepyvoter
(42 posts)instead of listening to Bernie supporters telling you, why don't you go to the website and see what Bernie has to say.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)So you say you keep asking for clear answers, yet you've already decided he has none and refuse to actually look or listen to any..
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Vague.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)"The Republicans are my enemy" and expecting them to work with you in Congress? Come on...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
kath
(10,565 posts)Unhide post #5
And she has sent similar things to others.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)try the almond milk because he's never tried almond milk.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hatred and anger poison everything they touch.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I started out just thinking he was naive. But the more I know the more I realize he is just a political huckster.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)yodermon
(6,143 posts)more than make up for the taxes.
AND the uber-wealthy will be taxed much more of course.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I guess it's more convenient to pretend.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Any of it! We're supposed to stand up and speak out. So far that's the only instructions I've heard beyond "millions of people coming together" and showing up on days there are important votes in congress. Do we all just take to the streets? In DC? For how long? How will the district handle that many showing up? And they'd have to stay for awhile because I've seen a million women there for rallies and anti-choice crap still passes.
How do we get time off work? What if we can't afford it? I'd need to kennel my dog and have the car serviced, put aside for gas and hotels. I don't know where that'll come from. Some people might need to find child care because the kids will have to stay home for school. Could we just phone, because I already do that. When we do all this, will the congress critters in red districts listen this time? Why when their constituents don't want them to? Or will everyone spontaneously realize that there's only one way to go?
Has there been any organizing of this epic undertaking? How will it work? What is the plan? We need way more details before deciding to attend this "revolution".
zanana1
(6,122 posts)Intellectual laziness.
zanana1
(6,122 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Funny, given you don't even like Hillary and admit you prefer Sanders.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Maybe he has an itemized list for his programs and a solution for how to pay for each.
I have seen nothing to suggest he actually knows how mich and how much we will pay. Vague.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)If you read his position papers you would find that he poses to get most of this stuff paid for by reducing the size of the military, taxing the 1% a fairer share more, a small tax that everyone pays for healthcare with no co pay, etc.
If you would have read the position papers on his website, you would know this.
So please do not ask me to do your homework for you. That would be cheating.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He is, after all, the candidate.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that he should use as an example please.
Thanks in advance.
AFAIC, all the information is there in clear plain American English. In this day and age, it is not the candidate's job to spoon feed you every iota of information.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)It is there in quite easy to read language. I mean it's not like reading Noam Chomsky. But then again maybe you want it to read like Dr. Seuss. I dunno, but it's out there.
zanana1
(6,122 posts)yodermon
(6,143 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(297,317 posts)some pundit?
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)Your expectations of life are far too low.
The stuff you mentioned in point 1 are not fantasy. They are part of ordinary life in much of Europe.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Who don't make what they damn well know are empty promises. YMMV.
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)Haha. He is the most honest one out there.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)He would tell his fans his policies have no chance of passing and that middle class taxes will need to be raised.
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He's shining you on, IMO. He knows damn well none of the stuff he's proposing will pass. And that would be fine if he wasn't trying to smear an opponent who refuses to shine on the voters as well.
He's not honest at all, IMO.
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)As I said above, your kind of thinking just confirms the status quo.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)can we help in anyway?
Docreed2003
(16,863 posts)How has Hillary been more honest than Bernie? He's acknowledged that he won't succeed without a groundswell of support. He's not selling a big lie. He's selling liberal policies that used to be the things all democrats supported: universal healthcare, affordable education, reigning in our out of control business and financial institutions, controlling the campaign finance system, and a living wage for workers. It's not a lie or a silly promise to propose fighting for those things. Those are liberal positions, and I choose to fight for them, even if it means that we lose, because the actual policies are too damn important. I'm fed up with people saying Bernie is promising moonbeams and rainbows, he's not, he's calling for a collective rebuke of the current system. I'd rather continue to fight against the current system, than accept we can't get better so suck it up and take what we can get. Far too many Americans have been suffering for far too long.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He is undoubtedly one of the most dishonest politicians I've ever seen in a Dem presidential primary. And I've been paying attention for a long time.
Which of his policy proposals do you think will pass, and how. Please explain. Can't wait.
Docreed2003
(16,863 posts)In no way is fighting for liberal ideals dishonest. Sanders has never, not one time, said that the things he is proposing will pass without a huge movement by those that agree with him. Please explain how that is dishonest? I consider myself a liberal, which some my say is leftist, and that's fine. Sanders is speaking about things that I feel are important to America and they are ideals and positions that very much from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Why begrudge people for choosing to fight for something that is an ideal? I could point to hundreds of progressive changes in this country that detractors said would never be approved. To answer your question, there are no proposals from any Democratic candidate that would pass the current situation in Congress. By your logic, why elect any of them. If we don't fight for our ideals, then we settle for the solutions that please the right. I'm, personally, done with settling with the far right.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)
You don't any basis for calling Bernie Sanders dishonest.It would be Hillary that is dishonest. She speakes from both corners of her mouth.
One being when her audience is Bankers,Wall St Firms and the Insurnce Industry
She tells them how she will work for the then hold her hand out for another big check then she's off to another stop telling voters she will work really hard for them Bull Shit. Hillary is a phony. She is certainly more in line with the right wing ideology and you know that and you are protecting her lie that she is as a progressive.
So it's Hillary that is the DISHONEST
one.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He knows that is complete BS. He is counting on his supporters not knowing the difference between single payer (the pony HRC will not promise, because she will not bullshit voters), and universal healthcare.
While Bernie was sitting on his tush ranting at the world, she was actually working and succeeding at getting real people actual access to actual healthcare.
Of course he is dishonest. There is no nice way to frame his bull at this point.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)she also said she would not favor a single payer system then gave this Republican talking point about raising taxes without any valid facts. An argument which seems to be in the Bill Clinton style of political BS.
So no Bernie Sanders was not dishonest.
The problem with Hillary supporters is the fact that you cannot back up your accusations about any of the issues with facts.
Example Bernie wants to phase in a $15.00 hr minimum wage. Now the way Hillary and her supporter frame this issue is as if Bernie wants $15.00 wage all at once, which is absolutely not true but that is what she has been preaching.Again a Republican talking point
Hillary Clinton cannot talk about the real issues so she has resorted to attack,attack.(Bills style) and that of Republicans.
Then after she or her campaign or her paid shills attack Bernie Sanders without any justification they try and turn the tables and accuse the Sanders campaign or his supporters of attacking Hillary. Which is not true but again is the Republican way and that is the strategy Hillary camp has adopted.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)You wrote that Bernie is as dishonest as any politician that you have ever seen. Now like Trump (and Carson), you walk back your comments. Now you include "in a Dem presidential primary". Not a lot of credibility on your part.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In fact I will repeat it for you. He is the most dishonest Dem presidential candidate in my lifetime. IMO.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)is more far right than most Republican Candidates
She, with here corporatist philosophy would be a much better fit running on the Republican ticket.She has the financial support of the financial community that is usually reserved for Republicans.
She could very easily win the Republican nomination.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I can't think of one, but perhpas you could throw out 6 names (isn't that about 1/2 of the candidate field right now) and explain why they are more Leftie than Hillary?
Not a real fan of hyperbole.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)You need to go back and read what you wrote. Of course I certainly understand why you are trying to change what you said, because it is so far out there, unbelievable. Like I said before, Trump has nothing on you. Oh, Carson too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I am fully aware of what I wrote. But thanks for your concern.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)It's your creditability not mine.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But hey, that's okay.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)
Paulie
(8,462 posts)Lyndon fucking LaRouche?????
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)+much higher gas taxes
+25% VAT
So, yeah, Bernie's proposals are pie in the sky when he wants us to be like Europe, but doesn't have a way to pay for it like Europe does.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Which of his pie in the sky proposals are the house and senate going to pass? And why haven't they already done so given that he's been proposing them for decades?
Please explain.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)but THIS campaign. Uh uh. Just no.
I always figured I was an interested but not overly educated person regarding politics. I know the basics-- even if I have to look things up from time to time. Now I'm reevaluating my own personal knowledge on a kind of curve, and I'm nowhere near the bottom*
*not including CT woo woo politics
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Killer Mike is very pro-2nd Amendment. And Cornel West called her and Obama war criminals. Amongst other things.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)And it's okay to support people that have different viewpoints from your own. That's called bipartisanship and goes a long way towards working together to get things done.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)she is attacking HRC as well.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)Just because we let our war criminals get away with it doesn't mean they aren't.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He doesn't run negative campaigns? Oh hell yes he does. And he hugs the guys that do the name calling, like Cornell West and "big mike" whoever the hell that is.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)And when someone calls them out on it, their response is the typical subject-changing "So you're IN FAVOR of ISIS!?" or other absurd nonsense like: "Great photo of Putin. Here's a photo of a dead baby! Hillary is a BABY KILLER!!" Some are so wrapped up on their hatred of all things Hillary that it's impossible communicate.
But his "dad-bod" sure is dreamy, isn't it. Ooooh! Swooon!
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Can I be as dreamy as Putin too!??!?!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Or, as a quick alternative, you could just pull your trousers up over your navel and pretend that's where your waistline starts.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Do you think he will pass and how? Do tell.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)In both cases predictions are all hypothetical and dependent on the conditions at the time.
However, I will contradict myself, and predict that Bernie, if elected, is more likely to say "NO!" to Republican proposals.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)People seem to be dancing around the oddly Republican framed campaign Clinton is running lately.
What Sanders is offering is a different version of America and government than we have had for the past 35 years.
Welfare reform has failed. The war on drugs has failed. The deregulation of Wall Street has failed. Free trade agreements have failed. Third Way education reform has failed. Our foreign policy is a spectacular failure.
But, hey guys, taaxxxxxxessssss, raaaaawr!
I do appreciate, however, that people aren't waiting until the primaries are over to get their Republican-Lite on. That's considerate.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Or at least it used to. Which of his pie in the sky proposals do you think will pass, and how? Please explain.
Prism
(5,815 posts)He has said there cannot be change unless the voters show up and demand it.
The man is actually being pretty pragmatic. He has said, "If you vote for me, but you don't vote for people who support progressive policies, they will not happen." He has said he will not win the nomination or the general unless people who demand change appear in the polls. That's not pie in the sky. That's him telling it how it is. If people want these things, they will vote for them. If not, not.
BTW, since I have you, I saw you calling all of this "a pony". Surely you know, as an LGBTer, the pony term was thrown at the LGBT community in 2008 and 2012 by Democrats in regards to gay marriage.
Maybe don't co-opt a condescending term that was used to box LGBTers about the head in recent politics? That term has a serious negative homophobic connotation, especially on DU.
That's his big strategy? People demanding stuff? Oh that's too funny.
Funny you should mention LGBT issues since I was part of that movement. We actually had a strategy. Pass marriage in the states, one by one. Allow people to see the world did not end when LGBT people gained marriage rights in individual states. Then a tipping point is reached.
Bernie could take a lesson from that on single payer. Expand the ACA to include a public option when we get a Dem congress. Once that is successful a tipping point will be reached.
But Bernie would rather shine you on with pie in the sky BS.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)perfectly reasonably expectation.. .but Bernie is not going *campaign* on what might be a *compromise* end result!
If Obama had pushed for single-payer, we might have gotten the public option.
Instead he pushed for a public option (perhaps halfheartedly), and we got the ACA with no PO.
"Look what a centrist I am" is not an inspiring rallying cry.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)The right to vote
the 40 hour work week
Desegregating schools
Marriage Equality
Equal Pay for Equal work
Gosh it's so terrible when people demand stuff. I am happy that you are happy with your oligarchy.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This is from DU - not free republic and not the new hate site. And of course it was let slide.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)because, you know, real liberal policies make someone unelectable.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and a large chunk of them are corporation-loving Hillarians
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)1. All of the things that Bernie is proposing are already done throughout the world. The United States is one of the only countries that doesn't have universal healthcare or paid family leave.
2. Bernie has, either on his website or through previous legislation, explained how he wants to pay for these programs. If you don't know at this point it's either because you're new to the primary race, you haven't done your research, or your playing dumb and trying to score cheap political points.
3. Bernie has been running on these principles since he was elected to the house in the early 90s. Calling him dishonest is in itself dishonest. You want to know how these things get passed through Congress? Well, the first step is electing a President who supports them. If you don't do that you can forget about things like universal healthcare. Second step, which really should be done at the same time as a first, is to elect representatives that support the agenda. If that doesn't happen, pressure the people in office. This is how democracy works.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)1. Irrelevant. This isn't Europe and we don't have the same political system. It ain't happening. We are not going to turn the world's largest economy into a socialist Mecca.
2. Bull. His web site does NOT go into any detail at all on costs and his proposals have never even been scored. That's how ignored they are in congress. His single payer bill has been sitting there for two years and doesn't have a single cosponsors. Did he ever mention that to his supporters? Of course not.
3. Yeah, like I said, he's been proposing this stuff for 25 years. No cosponsors and can't even get them to a committee.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Been drinking the Republican kool-aid?
TM99
(8,352 posts)will you be forgoing Social Security and Medicare when you come of age?
That I see such right wing talking points on DU from a supposed Democrat is appalling. I think you made a wrong turn on the way to Freeperville. 
Ya think?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)doesn't work trying to make it personal with her choices later on.
TM99
(8,352 posts)but yes, MaggieD has made it quite clear in numerous posts how she feels about the 'socialism'.
demwing
(16,916 posts)thank you!
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)You say that universal healthcare is done throughout the world and that is true. Guess what? Hillary and Bill tried to get universal healthcare in the U.S. back in 1993. Their proposal was crushed. Obama put forth his proposal for healthcare, and many tried to propose single-payer versions to take its place, some of which were quite logical and workable. But ONLY Obama's was passed. The others didn't even get out the gate. And once Obamacare was passed...have we short memories here? Republicans tried again and again to get rid of it; some republicans wouldn't allow it in their states. And this is the ACA which only gives assistance to paying for healthcare, not single-payer.
But your argument is "the rest of the world does it, so Bernie's proposal isn't that crazy!"
Well, no. It's not crazy in that it can be done in the U.S. What seems crazy is that everyone thinks it can be done as easily here as it was in other countries (ignoring that it probably wasn't that easy in other countries). Obama showed us what he'd be up against. He *BARELY* got ACA passed. And it's been challenged ever since. Do you think single payer would face any less battles? And single-payer requires that the government start paying doctors, nurses, therapist, hospitals...how is that going to be implemented? How many new, government departments need to be created in every city, offices and workers paid for, in order to make this a reality?
Look. Everyone here, believe me, AGREES that single-payer is the right way to go. But what makes such a campaign promise believable rather than "crazy" is a comprehensive plan that not ONLY explains how such a thing will be paid for, but how the person proposing it can (1) overcome opposition and get it passed, (2) set up an operation by which it can be implemented nation-wide. If there is a plan for this on Bernie's website, I'm sure you can quote it here. So, please do and let's see if it looks like it's as pragmatic and possible as you believe it is. As for Hillary, I think she knows how amazing it is that we got ACA, and she probably knows that we might have to hold onto ACA for a while before we inch towards single payer. She also knows about making such promises in a campaign, trying to make that promise real, and what can happen. She knows all too well, as her fight for healthcare in 1993 shows. So, maybe she's a bit wiser and more cautious about making such promises on the campaign trail.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)If you want something, but aren't willing to vote for it, how do you expect it to ever happen? See how there's a negative feedback loop there? And I'm not going to do research for anybody (no offense). There's various posts on this forum linking to Bernie's healthcare plan that he introduced in Congress a couple of years ago or you can look for it on government websites. Google is probably your best bet.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...you are right and that Bernie can deliver, then YOU are the one who should be asking "if you want something (Bernie elected) but aren't willing to work for it, how do I expect it to ever happen?" Because I most certainly AM willing to vote for for what I want. BUT I not voting for single-payer here. I'm voting for someone promising single-payer. And I'm not wasting that vote on anyone who is just saying that to get my vote. And so far, that's all I see here. It's like one of those phone calls: "You've won a trip to an Island get-away! Just send us $100 deposit..." Would you send the money? What if the person on the phone said, "If you're not willing to pay just a little for what you want, how will you ever get it?" That's bullshit. What if the person says, "google us, and you'll see we're legit..." Why should I? If the person wants my money, then they need to PROVE to me this is legit, that I will get that trip if I give $100 or I'm not buying it.
So. If you want me to vote for Bernie (or just believe you), then provide me with the info. Or get someone else here to do it. Bernie supporters are certainly willing to put a lot of time and effort into providing links to trash Hillary. It can hardly be more arduous to post a link showing me how Bernie will deliver single-payer. Hell, if I had proof he could do something like that, no question, I'd have that link and info ready for posting everywhere. I'd provide it unasked for. THAT is how much I'd be willing to do to get what I want.
How about you?
But I haven't found any such proof in my research--and I have done it, even used that there google machine you suggested. So. I don't believe he can deliver. Either show me I didn't do enough research and missed something really important, or stop telling me that his proposals are credible and I'll get what I want if I vote for him. That single-payer can be done doesn't mean Bernie can make it happen.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Slagging a solid and intelligent senator is all you've got.
How about offering solutions instead.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Is pretty obvious really, elect Hill and let wall street take over the reins of government so they can get on with taking us back to manors and serfdom.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Pity it's not supported by any actual facts.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)The brightest market analysts from all over the world confirm the sentiment of that post above. It's very clear that fraud, and other criminal activities in high places, is avoiding justice through a partnership of politicians and business owners. To be honest, what I've heard from Bernie isn't as much of a change as I'd like to see. We are talking about a very small group of people making these decisions which have been affecting our lives in horrible ways. Billionaires and politicians who help them get away with crimes should be held accountable. This one financial hierarchy is at the heart of what makes our world. And all they want is more money. They are not going to let go without a struggle.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I do. I don't like pols shining me on.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Am I wrong about this: I get the sense you feel a vote for Bernie is a gamble. And just taking votes away from Hillary? I can understand, especially given the consequences of having a true fascist in the White House. (I may have said I'd write in Bernie, but it would be really foolish at a time like this). I think it's important discussion, because people do change their minds. The reasons I like Bernie are really big reasons, but that doesn't mean much if your criticism is correct. Plus, we're all at different levels and experiences. Really the bottom line is who is going to gather the most votes in the actual election.
edit- I think it's just this kind of thinking that puts pressure on society to change. It was unrealistic to ask for weekends off of work; children to not have to work; 8 hour days. It usually doesn't happen unless it's demanded.
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Any of his proposals will get done or how much they will cost and who will end up paying for them.
I find it hard to find any Bernie supporter who is level headed enough to explain how we go from the ACA to single payer or how we get free public college tuition etc.
It is one thing to want these things it is another to put together a an to get there. It is as if we just elect Bernie and figure it out later. Well since Bernie isn't experienced in foreign policy and a number of other areas I don.'to think it is a good idea to put him in the White House just because we are progressive idealists.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)To actual achievements that benefit people. It is mind boggling to me.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Medicaid (Medi-Cal here in California), Medicare are not free medical programs. Neither are "free" colleges. For Medi-Cal and Medicare and SSI, Disability and Un-Employment benefits, they garnish paychecks to cover these.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Why is it so much ingrained in DEMOCRATS to reflexively shrink from "taxes"?
How do you implement Bernie's proposals (or ANY progressive agenda for that matter)?
You start with Wall Street and their preferential treatment from Washington.
1) Carried Interest and Capital Gains? Tax as regular income and in the bracket that the "earners" reside. No more 15% tax rate for the uber-wealthy and the non-productive segment of the economy. REAL investment in the economy is not casino capitalism and outright gambling with house money and tilted odds.
2) REDUCE military spending by getting out of the world police force leading role and curtailing military spending. You people on the HRC side wanna talk honesty and reality? Tell chicken hawk Hillary that unless Chelsea and her grandchildren are immediately designated for future front line service, its time to stop trying to impress everyone by talking tough and promising war unending to boot.
People wandering this thread with pithy statements and questions about "passable" and "realistic" and "no details"... this country has enormous resources available and most of them are squandered in a military so large and unnecessary that it boggles the mind. We spend HUNDREDS of BILLIONS a year on "defense" and yet we have a panicked populace because terrorists shot up Paris (France...not Texas). The sense of proportion and priority is staggeringly out of balance...and yet people STILL ask in this thread what a "revolution" would or should look like?
How about this? How about a recognition that more of the same and maintenance of the status quo is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need. If you are confused about what a political revolution would look like, start with the funding mechanisms of the campaign and work from there. Keep in mind that change always requires an abandonment of the same old, same old approach.
3) TAXES are not always bad. When tax money is spent on things like healthcare cost control and access, expanding or replacing infrastructure to improve accessibility and access to all, or when things like basic research, the space program, the national parks and dozens of other projects and programs are funded or expanded through better marshalling of the available revenue...THAT is what a political revolution should be focused on and provide.
When the best use of tax money that HRC can think of is more war and more conflict and more empty promises to "crush ISIS" (or did she mean "VC"... or "Communists"... or "Contras"....or "Iraqis"....or "Al Qaeda".... or "Islamic extremists", honestly, I lost track about 30 years ago on this meme), then I won't beg pardon or ask acceptance of why I feel there is a better option.
It should be self-evident.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)"Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act" which Bernie Sanders supports. Paid for with a small increase in the payroll tax.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s786/text
"College for All Act" which he introduced. Paid for with a tax on stock trades.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1373/text
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Clear
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Great Op MaggieD, thank you.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... To get real and tell the truth about him.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)sure your a dem.your using republican talking points.
smear clinton? i guess in clintonland telling the truth is smear.never mind she tried to smear him as wanting to end medicare and hinting he is both sexist and racist.
I see another member of clinton is great everyone else is terrable Including liberals and progressives.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Yeah, that's old. Ineffective. You know who's not a Democrat? Bernie.
the question is, what do DEMOCRATS believe?
do they believe in single payer healthcare? Or are they fine with rising premiums under health insurance?
do they believe in honest pay for honest work? Or are they fine with a mediocre rise in pay?
do they believe that education is the key to success and that equal access means higher education is paid for the same way we pay for highschool, or should we keep putting people in debt for trying to better themselves when the highest earners do not have this burden?
If a democrat is just a socially left republican, then are they really on the left, or are they dead center?
Dcoast
(77 posts)DU to make this comment.
I've noticed a theme in both pro-Bernie and pro-Hillary threads
In pro-Bernie threads, Hillary is thought of as someone who isn't liberal enough, isn't for liberal policies, is republican-lite.
In pro-Hillary threads, Bernie is pie-in-the-sky, fantasy, that what he wants can never be done, and we shouldn't bother to try.
So on one hand you have supporters who are willing to fight for what they want, and on the other hand supporters who have given up, say why bother, and are defeatist to republicans.
I haven't made up my mind on a candidate yet, because unlike most people on this board I don't associate someone's supporters with that candidate, but, looking forward to the general election, the enthusiastic message of "yes we will" sells a whole lot better than "eh, why bother".
Just my two cents.
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)And welcome to DU!
==========
yuiyoshida
(41,832 posts) 
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)people are supposed to "get stuff" that they are "promised."
What Sanders' candidacy is about is shifting the burden of democracy more to people and away from "leaders." It requires new ways of looking at problems and issues, but your posts seem to be stuck in the Beltway.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I really like how you stated that. I have been saying it's about more participation. The context being capitalism versus market socialism, where more people get the fruits of the profits of their labor. But "shifting the burden of democracy more to people and away from "leaders."". That's great.
Actually, this is becoming a good thread.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Do you believe it helps your candidate in any possible way, or does it just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside making up angry hateful jibberish?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Do you spend time pounding the Sanders supporters for their hateful screeds?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And as a consequence, integrity is the first thing to go.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I'll you mine if you show me yours.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)You are being kind.
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)but I do believe single payer health care is the answer to our health care crisis, and we can pay for it. I have it, it's called Medicare. My husband has it, it's called the VA. Many of my lower income friends have it, it's called Medicaid. I think our country will be a better place when everyone has access to health care. Do you not support these programs?
I do believe state and community colleges should be affordable and we can pay for it. These institutions are partially supported by my tax dollars so I don't believe it's unreasonable to expect them to be affordable and open to all who reside in the state. Do you not support that policy?
I don't think these programs are impassable or impossible.
IMO, it's this OP that's dishonest. I'm sorry to see Democrats not supporting universal health care or affordable higher education.
Dcoast
(77 posts)as to when single payer STOPPED being a democratic mission.
When did a good chunk of our base suddenly decide it isn't worth fighting for?
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)welcome to DU
Dcoast
(77 posts)charliea
(260 posts)You fight for what you want to have. I want universal health care, free community colleges, infrastructure that isn't crumbling, expanded Social Security, etc. If you give up before trying to improve the lot for all of us then why are you there?
Bernie may not succeed, might not get it all, or any of it, passed but that really doesn't concern me. It's the goals he espouses now, and has for his entire career, that show me a vision of my country that I can applaud.
I'll be on Medicare in a (very) few years and while I'm not a Democrat and have never been, if Bernie's still in the race when my state's primary rolls around I'll break that streak and join the Democratic party just to vote for him.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
-Mark Twain
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)My daughter too. Me, I'll die a Democrat.
charliea
(260 posts)Seems to be the same dynamic as our household. Good luck to us all!
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts) nyabingi
(1,145 posts)but many Americans see it as the direction we need to go.
In spite of having all of corporate America and the wealthy elite firmly behind her, Bernie is still drawing thousands because they know that in order to save this country, we are going to need a little "pie in the sky" (much the way FDR did).
You Democrats playing the "higher taxes" card are sounding exactly like the people you really are at heart - Republicans. Taxes SHOULD absolutely be jacked sky high for large corporations, hedge funds, and other corporate entities that avoid paying their share. Bernie has stated this many times so you shouldn't have to wonder where the money will come from for his "pie in the sky" plans.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)nyabingi
(1,145 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Riddle me that, batman.
Bernie has not got a clue how to be effective in congress. That is completely clear.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)Bernie's views and the legislation he's proposed is obviously much further to the left than what most of his colleagues would consider as legitimate, so they've gained little if any traction in Congress, even among the Progressive Caucus of Democrats. Anything even mildly suggesting an increase in taxes or regulation on the very wealthy has been a political hot potato for a long time, but that paradigm is slowly changing. They've treated Bernie like the cranky old man in the corner that everyone hears but ignores. They wouldn't be able to ignore him if he won the nomination, or even from seeing how much support his ideas have.
You Hillary folks trip me out thinking that she's going to be this super-effective leader and get everything passed because she's been there and done that. Let's get real here - she's not going to get any more passed than Obama did, and both were trying to pass mildly-left, mostly-right legislation as it is (let's not forget, the ACA was a Heritage Foundation scheme hatched a while back to keep bloodsucking insurance companies profitable and giving them access to public tax dollars).
Maybe you think Bernie could be more effective if he rubbed elbows with the Lloyd Blankfein's and Jamie Dimon's of the world?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So no wonder they won't work with him. No surprise there.
But again, why smear somebody else because they won't shine on the voters like he does? He sure didn't walk his talk back in 2009-10 during the ACA debate, now did he?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)1. Those are all policies that democrats have proposed in the past and can and should continue proposing in the present and future. If no one proposes them no one will see that they are significant proposals of the progressive caucus of the democratic party. These are the fundamental progressive principles of a strong base of voters in the democratic party.
2. There's more than enough wealth in this country to pay for these things and lower the deficit at the same time. Raising the capital gains tax, taxing the rich at higher marginal rates, reducing costly foreign interventions. If middle class taxes were raised it would be very small, and offset by increases in their wages. The significant tax burden would be on Wall Street, the rich and large corporations.
3. I don't think he's smearing Clinton unnecessarily. I think overall he has run a very fair campaign. Clinton's campaign has also done some smearing toward Sanders. I think she has run a pretty fair campaign too.
I think his campaign is good for the democratic party and good for Clinton's campaign. It gets both on the record as to what they are proposing and tests them in debates as well. It enthuses people to go for the principles that got us here: expanding opportunities for the poor and middle class while actually considering a peace dividend that can be spent to stimulate our economy via rebuilding our infrastructure. All the while strengthening and expanding social security and access to health care and education.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)No problem. I prefer a candidate that proposes realistic action that can actually be accomplished. Bernie knows damn good and well we aren't going to pass single payer. If he thought we could why did he not make a push for in 2009-10 when we had a dem majority in the house and senate?
I don't even have a problem with Bernie believing in ponies if he wants to, but he doesn't believe in them. My problem is with him smearing her based on something he knows very well can't pass. If he thought it could he should have fought for it when we had a dem majority. BUT HE DIDN'T - now did he?
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)Are you not reading the hopeful but reasonable responses from people who are tired of the Wall Street/DLC nonsense?
It's not about what Bernie was able or not able to do in Congress. It's not about promising "pie in the sky" goodies that "he" can't get passed through Republicans or pay for. Instead it's about enough Americans waking up to what everybody from Noam Chomsky to George Carlin has been talking about for years: the bought politicians, including your choice for President, have, along with their owners, got to be thrown out of power so that healthy communities may, just may,have a chance to grow.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)How will he get these ponies he keeps talking about given the reality that we have GOP majorities in the house and senate, AND given that Saint Bernard did not even attempt this when we had a Dem majority in the house and senate in 2009-2010? Instead, he said it wasn't happening. The only difference is he was not running for president then - correct?
He is conning you. Time to wake up.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)If Bernie were to get elected (and that's a very long shot due to media, bought politicians, lazy voters, Hillary cheerleaders, etc.) that would be a first step toward turning this thing around. There will have to be better reps elected from Congress to city halls, and people will have to change the system themselves. A voice from the White House can help this happen, but it still may not happen. However, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you that President Hillary Clinton would give no such chance.
And for you to talk about "ponies" is just sad.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... feelings of broken promises your goal? Look how fast the extreme left turned on Obama. Not seeing the upside here.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)I see where you're coming from now. Never mind. Good night.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)1 month after he took office? Wasn't it the extreme left? Am I wrong about that? I sure don't remember rank and file Dems doing that.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and I want someone rich to pay for it!
Yes, single payer has little chance of passing quickly. It is the direction I'd like to be going. And I think all democrats should be pushing for it.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Ya, great.
No wonder The Old and Tired Entrenched Establishment, including Wall Street Banksters like her so much.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Kinda like "lather, rinse, repeat."
Reality doesn't even enter into it with these folks. Reality appears to be as irrelevant to them as it is to the cons.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)to say he has no plan, and that such things can't be done in the richest country on the planet.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)How do his policies get through Congress?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I think if Sanders were elected, he would have serious coattails, and possibly a friendly majority Congress.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)#3 especially.
randr
(12,412 posts)was a part of a "strategy".
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)to have faux lefties charge him with pie in the skyisms....
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...that or neither of them can remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
It might not be at all what Bernie is proposing with his single-payer, but neither he nor his supporters can reasonably argue that Hillary isn't well versed in fighting for universal health care (they should at least remember how many times Republicans have tried to repeal Obama care, taking it to the supreme court, and/or not allowed it in states--fighting for this isn't easy). Hilary certainly went into the lion's den to fight for it, and got savaged, and has the scars. Does Bernie?
TM99
(8,352 posts)We remember the mandated insurance plan Clinton tried to get passed.
We also remember her fucking words on the subject not y'all's damned spin!
MRS. CLINTON: You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system. Obviously, I listened to arguments about its advantages and disadvantages, and many people who I have a great deal of respect for certainly think that it is the only way to go. But I said, as you quoted me, that we had to do what would appeal to and actually coincide with what the body politic will and political coalition building was. So I think if you look at most public opinion surveys, even from groups of people who you would think would be pretty positive towards single payer, Americans have a very skeptical attitude. They don’t really know that Medicare is a single payer system. They don’t really think about that. They think about these foreign countries that they hear all these stories about, whether they’re true or not, which they’re often not. And so talking about single payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine and all the rest of this. So I never really seriously considered it.
If Clinton herself never seriously considered it, how is it 'swift-boating' her to hold her to her own fucking words?
Stop rewriting history for your damned candidate. The truth is right in front of us, and it ain't the one you are peddling.
silenttigersong
(957 posts) lunamagica
(9,967 posts) cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If he does, why didn't he try to whip up this people's revolution during the ACA debate when we had a Dem majority in the house and senate?
Don't be naïve.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)1. I'm sure a pres has no more of a voice in policy than some obscure senator. Gee why didn't BHO for example get the job done as pres (like the ACA) that he didn't as a senator?
2. This is a great confession and concession that you don't want any of those issues to actually become the reality, and prefer an admin that will obstruct or fail to pursue them as any rightwinger would, making their achievement far later rather than sooner.
3. Painting HC as the anti-single-payer, warmongering, corporation-loving stalwart is what her record demands, it's just that her supporters can't help but see the silk purse as opposed to the sow's ear that she is
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He doesn't of course, as evidenced by the fact that he did nothing to whip up this "people's revolution" in 2009-10 during the ACA debates when we had a majority in the house and senate.
But he can talk about all the ponies he wants for all I care. The dishonest part is when he starts to smear others because they aren't also buying into his con and promising ponies as well.
Logical
(22,457 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)...who needs Republicans here?
They're already are.
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #145)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #150)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)At DU you can reply directly to someone else's post, no need to reference a post #.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Agschmid
(28,749 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Fred75
(22 posts)Bernie is right on with what he is saying. Look at the legislation he has introduced and things
he has done for his whole political career. He is one of the most honest politicans of this time.
HRC is just more of the same. She will have troops on the ground immediately. She's a war
hawk just like a republican. She will not get nominated to run for President of the United States.
She has to much baggage.
Fred75
Response to Fred75 (Reply #147)
SHRED This message was self-deleted by its author.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Here it is:
1. Pretend to move to the left a little bit to make herself look acceptable to progressives, i.e., now against TTP.
2. Avoid like hell the scandals that have followed her for 30 years ... from cattle futures to emails.
3. Act as if she is above the fray, but send out minions to smear anyone who speaks against her or supports another Democratic candidate as sexist.
4. Keep giving winks to Wall Street, the health insurance industry, and the defense contractor establishment letting them know they have nothing to worry about if by some miracle she gets elected.
I do believe that the Clinton campaign is one of the most deceitful ones I have ever seen in a contest for the Democratic nomination for president. Every real progressive knows that Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a supply-sider, and Repuglican-lite. She isn't fooling any of the liberals and progressives I know.
villager
(26,001 posts) RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)He is merely discussing points that they have disagreement in policy. I do not define that as an attack.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)He supports the "Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act" introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). It's paid for with a small increase in the payroll tax.
Hillary Clinton says she supports the creation of that program but hasn't detailed how she'd pay for it.
Bernie Sanders' plan for free state universities is paid for with a tax on stock-transactions.
Text of the Bills
College for All Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1373/text
Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s786/text
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He's had the single payer bill sitting there for 2 years. No cosponsors and hasn't even been scored yet. That's your tell that he's conning you.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)It would be a step towards having it someday to elect a president who supports it, but a tax plan for Single-Payer isn't needed soon.
Bernie Sanders explains how he'd pay for Paid Family & Medical Leave (payroll tax increase) and free state universities (a stock transaction tax).
SHRED
(28,136 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Cheap_Trick
(3,918 posts)Here's how he'll pay for it. Cut the bullshit.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bernie sure doesn't have a CBO scored cost associated with his 2 year old plan with zero cosponsors. Why is that?
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Is there a plan for that?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I think democrats should start drafting a bill for single-payer medicaid/medicare. Introduce it as legislation. To me, the primaries are just the beginning of this challenge, not the end. I'd like to see more and more people working toward this, long past the primaries and the presidential election. We've got to get the insurance industry out of health care.
I know it's a big paradigm shift. That will come from people, from voters, and from folks in Congress who aren't bought off by insurance industry lobbyists. I know it's a tall order. We've accomplished things in the past and we can again, with enough public pressure. It's the right thing to do. I'd like to see people writing articles and books on how this can be achieved. Younger folks who are enthusiastic about Sanders' campaign - this is just one example of how they can help make a better way forward.
MADem
(135,425 posts)victimhood; this is why he visits Liberty University, tosses Cornel West on his bandwagon, and gives a nod to Bernice "My daddy didn't take a bullet so gays could get married" King. He's trying to cobble together a coalition of disparate gripers, and he hopes that the "Waaah Wall Street Bankster" guy doesn't talk too much about issues to the "States Rights--Lurve Mah Guns!" cheerleader in the next seat over.
Basically, if you're a complainer, and don't truly expect solutions but love the whole Fight The Power victimhood vibe, you feel that Bern. I think they make a cream to ease that, though....!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Thanks for pointing it out.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)They complain but have few answers about the reality of the world.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Christ don't they realize how absolutely SUPER duper perfect the USA IS.
Nothing to complain about in this, the most wonderful perfect country on Earth, and the most perfect society that has ever been.
Those damn whiners. Same as those spoiled brats who complained about the Vietnam War.
Jeeze they probably even complained about Ronald Reagan when he was president.
Damn I hate those people who don't realize that This is the shining city on the hill. There is nothing wrong, and no need for improvement.
Jackilope
(819 posts)Seriously, you have Wall St. loving the idea of GOP or Clinton and you expect great things out of her?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I don't remember him saying a damn thing.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
MADem
(135,425 posts)This is wrong, that is wrong, everything is wrong! WAAAH!
Another meeting of the Society of Perpetual Victimhood will now come to order!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's pretty obvious.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Like a Litany of the Complainers, on steroids!! A one way conversation -- I'm gonna tell you what sucks, and you are gonna listen. And once you listen, you'll realize that this guy has no viable answers.
There's a reason why this show of his isn't sustaining the initial numbers. It's not about Hope and Change. It's about This Sucks and That Sucks, and there's just no real path to fixing it.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)seriously?
Jackilope
(819 posts)Poor Canada and the UK and Scandanavian countries and their universal healthcare. Bah! We don't need it. We don't need to see what other countries get when banks and Wall St. run the show.
Still not getting why you want a hawkish and cozy with Wall St. candidate or the enabling of her. She parrots some if Bernie's ideas, but pivots further right on them.
There are things that have to change. In 2008, Obama won on that hunger for change. I don't see any enthusiasm of people or actual real change with HRC. One huge change is public financing of elections and truly overturning Citizens United. HRC's financing and taking Super PAC $$$$ and donors of the Clinton a Foundation wave red flags.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that's what you would get!
Look at all your little buzzwords. Just because some "Jackilope" on DU says it, does not make it true.
You need to keep up, too, Jackilope. Bernie took the Super Pac line OUT of his stump speech, because he's been taking Super Pac cash since last August. Waaaah!
Jackilope
(819 posts)Are you cool with corporations paying less or no tax? Do you find it ok that other countries can have universal health care, while in the US not everyone has equal access to healthcare? Do you like having billionaires buying our democracy?
Your words prior to this was complaining of Bernie pointing out all the bad stuff in the US. I will assume that the status quo is indeed just peachy with you as you aren't responding to what was asked and dislike Bernie talking about it.
Again, I really don't get the enabling and making excuses for HRC. She is the lesser of two corporate evils, but certainly not one that is going to really shake things up or bring about huge change. Yeah, there is the SCOTUS recommendations and placements, so there is the "hold your nose and vote for the Third Way Corporate Dem" motivation.
Bernie polls pretty well against each of the GOP candidates. Not worried there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You want to worry about other countries? Move to them. We're in the US, and CU is the law of the land and will be until we can get a POTUS who knows how to pick Supremes. I can guarantee you that no judge nominated by Sanders would pass muster. He'd end up compromising on a pick pre-vetted by the GOP. He doesn't know how to play the game.
What I don't get is how boasting that Bernie is making gun signs with a rapper means that he's going to "win." His crowds are heavily peppered with young teens now, who won't be of voting age by the time election day rolls around.
Do you seriously think that "corporations will pay tax" under a magical Sanders presidency? You do realize that Congress--chockablock full of those rich corporatists you're whining about--will not vote to screw themselves "Becuz BERRRNIE." He'd be a one-term failure if he got in--and that won't happen. Same deal with health care--you apparently don't realize that CONGRESS makes law--not "Berrrrrnie!" And Bernie has no friends in Congress, because he has never ever helped anyone--so they aren't inclined to help him. That IS how it works.
I am a realist. I know that we have to elect someone with a sense of the legislature, the executive branch, and international relations. Sanders spent a quarter century on the Hill and has damned little to show for it. He doesn't have friends, either--he's never helped a Dem get elected. You think they haven't noticed that he's "unhelpful?" Do you seriously think that the deal he cut with DWS (the "evil" DWS, as DU likes to liken her) will make up for all those years of his Talk To The Hand?
So..let's recap.
He has no friends in Congress.
He has no superdelegates (oh wait--maybe one).
He has no path to the nomination.
He's old, he's tired, he's hectoring.
He does not INSPIRE anyone save people who show up to see the rapper. They sure aren't coming for the tired old "Everything Sux" stump speech--you can see a dozen iterations of the Exact Same Speech on YOUTUBE. The guy doesn't even care enough to talk WITH the audience--he talks AT them.
Meh to Bernie. Not a "bad" guy, but he is not presidential timber and he never will be.
Neither Carson nor Trump will be the GOP nominee, so don't throw your hopes up against those two bozos. It won't matter, anyway. Sanders is not going to be the nominee.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)1) policies they have had for a generation or longer are pies in the sky.
2) their states' finances are lacking a plan
3) maintaining their tried and tested and hugely popular policies is unrealistic or unpassable.
Clinton's supporters must be desperate to twist reality like that.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Is there a plan?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Great question. I think it was you who got me thinking about the feasibility issues involved for The Revolution. I mean, I know we're supposed to stand up and speak out. So far that's the only instructions I've heard beyond "millions of people coming together" and showing up on days there are important votes in congress. Do we all just take to the streets? In DC? For how long? How will the district handle that many showing up? And we'd have to stay for awhile because I've seen a million women there for rallies and anti-choice crap still passes.
How do we get time off work over and over when all those bills come up for votes? What if we can't afford it? I'd need to kennel my dog and have the car serviced, put aside for gas and hotels. I don't know where that'll come from. Some people might need to find child care because the kids will have to stay home for school. Could we just phone, because I already do that. When we do all this, will the congress critters in red districts listen this time? Why when their constituents don't want them to? Or will everyone spontaneously realize that there's only one way to go?
Has there been any organizing of this epic undertaking? How will it work? What is the plan? We need way more details before deciding to attend this "revolution"
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Are classes cancelled? Is this taking to the streets planned? Do we need permits? Do we go home at night? How long do we stay? It's cold up here, do we have bonfires? Do I bring the kids or babysitter, and how can I find one if they are all at the Revolution?
What happens if nobody cares that we are in the 'streets'? Then what? Is there a plan B? C?D?
Nobody knows. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)...who will turn on him like a pack of snarling canines when they realize that they aren't electing a king who can rule by decree! I think that's the plan--because no one seems to understand that most voters HATE Congress....except they love their OWN representatives. They want to throw all those OTHER bums out.
And those professional politicians are rich, and they aren't going to stand still while their pockets are picked. Taxing those bums is going to have to be an incremental effort, like boiling a frog.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Their government and people accept those plans. Our people do not. How do you get Republicans to implement Socialism HERE in the ways Bernie wants? How? Nobody ever says how. Ever.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)It is easy to make promises when there is no chance (or only a 6% chance) of being the nominee http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But it reminds me of the person running for junior high class president that campaigns on a promise of free ice cream and no homework.
And you'd have to be about 12 to believe it too. Or a millennial, I suppose.
And that is all well and good. But what peeves me is that he turns around and smears Hillary, who is actually the only adult in the room that won't promise a ton of shit she cannot possibly deliver.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But one of the old ones apparently. I do not BELIEVE.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Wish that could be said for most of his followers. But then they wouldn't be followers.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The kids at school are like ANTI voting, many of them. Thankfully we have lots of older students.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Of them being non-stop that Dems sux just as bad as cons.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Bernie somewhere between naive and full of himself.
Bernie does not have a good working relationship with members of congress, just as Obama does not.
Hillary has this. You will need relationships to get things done.
I am seeing Bernie making promises without any explanation as to how he will pass them.
Obama did the same thing in 2008 and the professional left fell for it and they are again.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I guess it worked for him, but it led to lots of disillusionment later. Sadly, the politically naïve often fall for this sort of thing.
That said, Bernie is proposing a lot more pie in the sky than Obama ever did. He has taken the empty promise to a whole new level as far as I am concerned.
Cha
(297,317 posts)I just posted this to Dawson..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=846534
But he did promise stuff he couldn't deliver. I guess he thought he had to when he ran against Clinton.
But at least he didn't campaign on a wholly fake platform like we're seeing now. And I do agree with the post in your link.
Cha
(297,317 posts)he's accomplished so much and worked so hard in spite of the unprecedented obstruction from the left and the right.
the so called "left" whine about him no matter what.. they make up stuff.. they're still saying it's his fault we didn't get single payer.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Dishonest would have been if he'd smeared Hillary for not making promises he knew couldn't be kept, which seems to be be Bernie's sole campaign strategy. Obama did not do that. Not that I recall anyway.
Cha
(297,317 posts)snip//
Nevermind the nation was falling off the fiscal cliff. Nevermind the global economic system was hanging in the balance. Nevermind we were on the verge of another Great Depression. When the nation needed single-minded focus, the Republican political establishment put power over the national interest.
So, the next time you hear Republicans and conservatives bloviating about the “failures” of the Obama presidency, remember the role they played in them. And remember how their resistance hurt the country they are elected to help govern.
MOre..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html
Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration
snip//
The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."
According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.
For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.
MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
President Obama did a damn Fine Job in spite of the gop obstruction. And, he's a popular President now..
PollingReport.com
?@pollreport The way Barack Obama is handling his job as president:
Approve 50%
Disapprove 45%
(Gallup tracking, 11/12-14)
http://j.mp/uUTIhl
Retweets 11Likes
10:03 AM - 16 Nov 2015
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/11/16/the-first-lady-hosts-an-event-honoring-the-history-of-broadway/
And, I'm looking forward to when they're campaigning together for Hillary against the gopropaganda machine in 2016!
Please don't compare sanders to President Obama.. Sanders spent his time railing against Obama, too.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=26215
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)as you know! I'm glad you're pointing this out, as we as individuals can have similar goals yet vary slightly in the expression of them. While still being friendly. I don't fit the stereotype of a Sanders supporter who is overly negative toward Hillary or other democrats. I suspect there are many like that in all walks of life. And I know you aren't like the worst things said about Hillary supporters either.
I hope you enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving time with family and friends and loved ones. I'm thankful that we've maintained such a nice online friendship. It will remain long past the primaries. I value these interactions and am grateful for them Cha!
Cha
(297,317 posts)we're in the beautiful minority. Cheering the President on.. rooting for him to win.. his win is our win for our country and her people. He has their interests at heart.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones, lovemydog! Thank you for being a friend~
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Only incremental change and right of center policy prescriptions sold as a new direction.
Taking your laughable points in order:
1) What you call "pie in the sky" represents real change rather than right wing Democratic foolish attempts to be "almost like the GOP" in all but name.
2) As to taxes, of the 1% actually paid their fair share there would be more than enough money to pay for Sanders' proposals.
3) The proposals are unpassable because of Democratic demoralization that is the true legacy of triangulating William Clinton and his right wing war on workers and the poor, thinly disguised as being realistic. THAT is triangulation, where the goal is to move the debate to the right by accepting the GOP economic policies. When voters realize that many Democrats are barely better than the GOP, these folks often decide not to participate in the political process.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)being on board, or Democratic enough.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Is not a strength I want in a president.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)A president can promise the sky and the moon, but as Obama soon found out, Congress is a barrier. The House has a fairly large and vocal Tea Party contingent. These people are not the Republicans of the 60s & 70s. They oppose anything Obama proposes tooth & nail. Obama is fairly centrist, imagine what they would do with Sanders' proposals. How much could Sanders really accomplish from his agenda?
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)George Bernard Shaw
(But used by Robert Kennedy in nearly every speech he gave in 1968 so it's often misattributed to him. One reporter said the press and even RFK's dog knew that when he said "As George Bernard Shaw said..." it was time to head for the bus.)
Perhaps you should be asking "why not?"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But I asked myself why not and the answer was obvious.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)let's just accept whatever crumbs Hillary and her pals are willing to toss to us and be humbly grateful.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He's FOS, IMO.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)of all americans.
Yah, that just sucks.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... To anyone paying attention. Bernie specializes in tilting at windmills and accomplishing nothing.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)silenttigersong
(957 posts)You never got a pony when you were little or maybe you did and it was a way to shine on other kids,I got a pony you do not.Nah Nah ne Nah Nah.Instead of pie in the sky i wish you would produce some pie charts.So having said that, what could be the ramifications of health care for all ?Well one outcome could be a reduction in violence ,less gun death,that should get cha cuz thats one of the attacks on Bernie.Get real, guns will go underground economy.Because their are people who want to keep their guns in case their is a armed revolution.Suffice to say you ought not belittle Bernie's Political revolution -as this is what very well could happen.If you could research inequality please do that.Now ,as far as education free college,who cares if Trumps kidz get it free also(In contrast to Hillary's I don't want Trumps kidz getting free tuition)maybe cuz they have nicer ponies already.But actually this statement is really economically ignorant and sez I want things just the way they are,reassurance to a class that has alot of ponies they wont have to ride with wild ponies.Or maybe you have been saving up for a pony and your almost there with your portfolio, and its in reach .What if the scary guy, who says a few bucks more in taxes will help citizens have access to medicine, is really gonna get in the way of your pony.If you choose your pony ,I say get a life .I don't want Third way turd pie.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)You HRC fans and your evolutions.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)Even change political party to one he has always despised.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's for sure.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Those awful liberals are always proposing stuff. Always saying we can do better.
Screw that. We want things to stay the same.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)actually.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Total bullshit.
If he was dishonest he's say the usual milktoast pap that most politicians engage in.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)you think you'll get healthcare for all? That everybody will get free college tuition? That he will break up big banks? And he'll overturn Citizens United? no. And Bernie Sanders knows that too. Bernie Is making promises that he knows he can not back up with results in order to get vote and get elected. That's why he's dishonest. His worshippers and supporters are projecting onto him like people project onto religious figures so they can not see the dishonesty like people like me can.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)For example.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He says, in every damn speech and interview, that he can't do snything alone. That it will require a significant number of citizens to actively get involved and support and help him push for these goals, and actively push back against the forces that want to block progress.
He is trying to revitalize the notion of participatry democracy.
Perhaps it would be more "honest" to say we're all fucked, and the mass of us are a bunch of losers who don't deserve anything because we're all idiots. Perhaps he should just say the system is hoplesdly rigged and will never change so just don't bother to vote because it doesn't matter.
I don't think appealing to our better aspirations is dishonest. I'm sorry if you have become so dead-end cynical that you think it is.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... where he criticizes her for not making the same empty promises.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Politics, in the best sense, is trying to inspire people and motivating us to do better.
I DON't relate to your claim that doing that is dishonest.
If that's your definition of dishonesty, then any campaign promise or proposal made by Clinton is also dishonest.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And that's because you want to.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The truth is that it depends on the program.
He is proposing a transaction tax on financial speculation for his college plan. Whether that would cover it all can be debated...but its a proposal, not dishonest.
We'd all pay for health care. That is a basic feature of it. You might disagree with the idea, but he's not pulling the wool over anybody's eyes.
Disagreement with policies, or their prospects is fine. But claiming it is dishonest is disingenuous in itself.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You can dress it up all you want, but he's conning folks. No doubt about it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Then it's swift boating.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=851485
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So I raise this glass to Bernie, Killer Mike, and all the many posters laboring night and day to stage the most ridiculous campaign I've seen in my adult life. Salut!
