Sen. Bernie Sanders says this one issue keeps progressive policies from advancing

[Hassin Bin Sober]

Sen. Bernie Sanders says this one issue keeps progressive policies from advancing


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/15/bernie-sanders-says-issue-halts-progressive-policies/613365002/


WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders, speaking at a policy forum here Tuesday, identified a singular roadblock to achieving success on a host of progressive policies — and it wasn’t the Trump administration.

It’s American oligarchy.

Re-framing a familiar theme from his 2016 presidential campaign in stark terms, Sanders on Tuesday argued that the small number of multi-billionaires who now have power over the country’s economic, political and social life is “one issue out there which is so significant and so pervasive that, unless we successfully confront it, it will be impossible to succeed on any of these other important issues.”

The solution, he said, is not only ending voter suppression, “extreme gerrymandering” and overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which helped pave the way for super PACs, but moving toward automatic voter registration. He called for Wall Street, billionaires and big corporations to start paying their “fair share” in taxes, and for “substantially” increasing the estate tax.

[Trumpocalypse]

1. Hassan. A question for you.

Why do you only post articles about Sanders and nothing else?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210586790


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210496831

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210545747


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210507239

[Trumpocalypse]

4. Only two?

And both non-political. Interesting.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Look again. Your hypothesis is falling apart before your eyes

The two slams against trump are not political?

Interesting.

But enough about me. Move along now...

[Trumpocalypse]

8. So you went back and added two more.

You should have started with them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. You should have done a search before spouting.

Kick in a few bucks to the site and have access to better search functions.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. I just asked a question

And you answered it. No need to be so hostile.

[George II]

25. Indeed!

[NurseJackie]

63. That's par.

[sheshe2]

95. Unhmm

[sheshe2]

103. I know, silly...

yet I love the movie Sister Act

I have watched hundreds of times,

[ehrnst]

124. Indeed. (nt)

[Snotcicles]

121. And... *poof* nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. HBS, you're fine... always enjoy your posts.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Thanks!

[ehrnst]

167. Me, too.

[CentralMass]

185. Same here HBS.

[Uncle Joe]

119. +1

[WhiteTara]

38. That's Hassin--as in Hassin bin Sober

HbS posts prolifically; almost 20,000 posts worth and over the years has posted many topics.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

57. Thanks! Not to mention, I am an aristocrat

http://wallofshemp.freeservers.com/WAV/SOBER.wav

[doxyluv13]

44. Who appointed you gatekeeper?

People post what interests them or what they agree with. Who are you to challenge that? Many Democrats feel that Sanders is the future of the party. You may disagree.

[whathehell]

104. Lol..Thank you!

[MicaelS]

194. What is wrong with that? n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

195. Never that it was.

Just asking a question. Why are people so threatened by a simple question?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

199. Your question was not 'if' I post nothing but Sanders threads, but WHY I post nothing but ...

... Sanders threads.


Your ‘question’ was more than a question. It was also a statement of something not true.

I’m over it and accept your apology but don’t say this was only a question. Because it wasn’t.

[Trumpocalypse]

200. Again I do apologize for mistaking for another poster

But it was only a simple question. No need for all the hostility.

[JNelson6563]

2. My guess is: Division.

As long as we're divided the top of the pyramid is safe and sound!

[babylonsister]

6. Hassan, thank you for everything you post!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. Aww shucks. Thanks!

[WhiteTara]

94. That's Hassin--as in Hassin bin Sober

[R B Garr]

7. Tad Devine knows some oligarchs. nt

[sheshe2]

9. Ha. nt

[sheshe2]

58. Back atcha

[George II]

91. You calling someone here "derp", i.e., "meaningless or stupid"?

[sheshe2]

98. Not surprised.

Another one called me ignorant.

Charming.

[betsuni]

118. You're comparing sheshe2 to Rachel Dolezal, a white woman pretending to be black.

Sure you want to do that on DU? Why? This isn't the Conservative Cave.

[ehrnst]

169. I call your insulting implication that sheshe is a liar and raise you one

[NurseJackie]

68. LOL! (Daaaaamn!)

[Docreed2003]

81. Jeff Weaver does too....just saying; nt

[Blue_true]

87. Of the Russian criminal persuasion. nt

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Hassin Bin Sober

[Hassin Bin Sober]

92. You are welcome! Thanks for your contribution

[Lucky Luciano]

12. Booooo Bernie!!!

Just kidding!

[enough]

13. I agree with the idea, completely. Is there some word or phrase that could be used

instead of “oligarchy,” so that people could immediately understand it and instinctively relate it to their own experience?

[tblue37]

21. Yeah--the 1%. nt

[mudstump]

28. Fat cats...

[ProfessorPlum]

74. aristocracy?

the 1% doesn't really convey the fact that this power and money is preserved among families.

[EffieBlack]

14. I can't help noticing that I never heard complaints about the "oligarchy" until 2016

In fact, I don’t remember that particular term - which I always associated with Russian hierarchies - used in our politics to any great degree prior to then.

[leftofcool]

17. I didn't see any complaints about racism, climate change, criminal justice, health care, etc...

[sheshe2]

24. You were around in 2008-2012 correct?

The Obama years. I saw complaints and a hell of a lot of action from his administration.

[EffieBlack]

50. You didn't?

I certainly did. Lots of them.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

54. leftofcool,

Until the problems with the oligarchy get straighten out, issues concerning "...racism, climate change, criminal justice, health care, etc......" are not going to be corrected.

The oligarchy are the very people who support racist candidates, racist policy, out of control pollution, a criminal "justice" system where public defenders stay under funded and the rest of judicial system is at the mercy of those who have the most wealth, and the poor are simply to be used as cheap labor without decent wages or benefits-(including health insurance and health care).

Until you get the people who are buying this corrupt and disgusting economic system under control, everyone but the wealthy suffer.

Bernie is correct in naming the target we should all have our primary focus on.

[leftofcool]

79. Yea, because as soon as we get rid of the rich folks, racism will just go away

You really ought to check to see what folks in the AA Group think about this.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

82. leftofcool,

if you want to stick with a useless, simplistic argument, you have one there.

It has nothing to do with getting rid of the rich folks. It has a lot to do with overcoming the power they have to diminish the lives of the rest of us.

[leftofcool]

89. Like I said

See how the folks in the AA Group feel about your statements.

[sheshe2]

101. They just called you simplistic.

They just called me ignorant. Nice poster.

[pnwmom]

108. This is a joke, right?

You didn't see any complaints about racism, climate change, criminal justice, and health care????

[Uncle Joe]

26. Here you go

This is from 2014

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/democracy-vs-oligarchy

This is from 2010

https://www.thenation.com/article/no-oligarchy/


Here is a video from 2014

This is from 2012


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-road-to-oligarchy_b_1699580.html

P.S. Our corporate media conglomerates don't refer to the Kochs or Waltons the dude in Vegas as oligarchs, they just call them billionaires.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. Well, there's those. And the Occupy Wall Street.

And Du for, like, ever.

And this...

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Uncle Joe]

212. That's true Hassin Bin Sober

[Autumn]

249. And to think.."You mean all this time we could have been friends?"

[appalachiablue]

78. Very impt. point that big US media says 'billionaires' not 'oligarchs.'

Last edited Wed May 16, 2018, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Oligarchs control and rule, and the term has unpleasant associations and history, esp. for the masses & in a democratic republic.

BERNIE didn't originate or revive the term during the 2016 campaign season; it was in use at least since the global Crash of 2008.

It's also characterized other US periods- the early 20th c. 'Roaring 20s'/Great Gatsby Era, and late 19th c. 'Robber Baron/Gilded Age.'

NOT A SECRET

'Oligarchs' like 'Plutocrats' has referred to the British ruling class, elites in South America and all over the world and for many years, not only for Romans. The term isn't limited to academic circles as some here have claimed.

Thanks for making this significant point Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

211. Thank you appalachiablue

[ehrnst]

229. +1000 (nt)

[S.E. TN Liberal]

67. EffieBlack,

We come from different backgrounds.

I was hearing the words, "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" widely being used in the 1970's in the articles I was reading.

[EffieBlack]

69. That may be.

[garybeck]

96. Bernie has been talking about oligarchy for a long time

i live in vermont and have seen him speak many times. this is not a new issue for him.

[murielm99]

99. He speaks in Vermont?

What a surprise. Usually he is out gallivanting and giving speeches to people who are not his constituents.

I would be very angry with my two Senators if they were out gallivanting all the time. I am happy to say that they are either in D.C. or home listening to their constituents. Tammy Duckworth has a new baby, and she is still on the job.

[sheshe2]

102. ....

[ehrnst]

127. His approval rating has declined among his constituents since 2016.

One has to wonder why.

[whathehell]

106. No, it's not and it IS a very important idea

congruent with traditional Democratic values.

[betsuni]

111. I think of Russia or early 20th century U.S., but not the U.S. now.

"Oligarchy" is too dramatic for me. If all Americans voted, it wouldn't be a problem, liberals would be in charge and regulations and laws in effect.

[elmac]

15. Sen Sanders is right

Get the greedy bastards out of the way and we may just have our Democracy back, but, I don't see it happening.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. Of course Bernie is right... always telling it like it is and shining the light of truth on those

who need to be exposed.

[ehrnst]

131. I'd like him to shine some of that light on his personal finances,

As long as he's talking about how money influences politics.

He won't be able to push off questions with, "Jane does our taxes and she's busy," if he runs for POTUS again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. I agree with you ehrnst, if Bernie runs in 2020, he, like all candidates, should then

disclose at least 5 years worth of tax returns... I hope he does both.

[ehrnst]

146. I think that the example set by Hillary for 8 years should be the minimum, if not the standard.

Anyone who balks at releasing them in full, not just the summary, at least prior to the first debate, should be disqualfied from running as a Democrat, and rightly so.

I think some states are looking at making it a requirement for being on a primary ballot.

[ehrnst]

163. I simply stated that all candidates should follow her eight years of returns

before the debates.

See, the reason that we know anything about Hillary's finances is that she released them. In full.

Can you tell me what was "left off" her filings?

Can you elaborate on the "pass through shell companies Hillary used for her speech income?"

Is it like "Our Revolution" being able to accept dark money?

How about keeping one's entire tax returns hidden from standard candidate vetting - should that be the new standard for Democratic candidates?

[George II]

180. I can't believe I read what you responded to here on Democratic Underground.

[DanTex]

164. LOL. I suggest letting go of the anger and resentment you are harboring.

[Gothmog]

174. Maryland has already adopted a ballot access laws requiring release of tax returns

Release of tax returns will likely be mandatory in a number of blue states in 2020. California and New Jersey both adopted ballot access laws but they were vetoed. Each of these laws will require candidates to release tax returns to get onto the ballot. If a candidate wants to be on the ballot in these states, they will have to release tax returns.

If the Democrats take the House in 2018, then trump's tax returns will be the first item on the agenda. If trump's tax returns are released by the House, then trump may not sue to block these laws.

[R B Garr]

165. Exactly. Let's see those taxes. Let's see Tad Devine's taxes, as well.

The GOP is awash with foreign money and Tad Devine used to work with their kingpin, Manafort.

[whathehell]

107. Yes he is.

[sheshe2]

18. I find it interesting that he never mentions millionaires anymore.

He always did.

A land where millionaires and billionaires have never had it so good, while tens of millions struggle just to survive is not what Christianity is about.

And we have got to make sure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations pay their fair share. Every year, millionaires, billionaires and profitable corporations avoid $100 billion in taxes by stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens. We cannot allow that to continue.

The true greatness of a country does not lie in the number of millionaires and billionaires it has. Rather, a great nation is one in which justice, equality and dignity prevail.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/vermont/income-inequality-moral-issue

Now he is one.

[R B Garr]

23. Yeah, I've noticed that, too. And the Amazon billionaire is singled out,

but never the Russian oligarchs who actually harmed our country. Seems drafted for a limited audience...

[sheshe2]

27. I forgot about the Amazon billionaire.

Thanks RB.


Interesting, Russia is a huge topic and Mueller is doing wonders. The Steele Document is huge, yet he is mum on that. It is like it never happened, though we all no full well it did and the implications of the truth coming out. The GOP is going down.

[ProfessorGAC]

123. There's A Pretty Good Reason For That

One can be a millionaire and not be anything close to the power elite.

My wife and i have a net worth above 7 figures as i close in on retirement. Hardly makes us the wealthy elite. It means we'll have enough to be comfortable without having to work every day like i have for more than 4 decades.

The problem does appear to be billionaires, many of whom with inherited wealth, that think they have a birthright to accumulate even more, at the expense of all else.

[zipplewrath]

159. yup

I'm surrounded by people who are millionaires and don't know it. It's ALL your assets, minus your debt. People have $500K homes they bought 20 years ago for $250K and have $50k left in debt. $400K in their 401K. Two cars and that condo on the beach (that they rent on AirB&B mostly these days). Guess what, You're a millionaire. And that's before we talk about any pension benefits you have coming to you. Yeah, I know, you "only" make $75K a year, but your wife pulls in another $30K.

Is this the "majority"? Heck no. But probably 20% of the households in the country "qualify" at this point as "millionaires".

[ehrnst]

132. Oh, right. Now he's one of those millionaires.

So he's not using that word anymore.

I personally don't care how much money a politician is worth, I care more about what they actually accomplish.

[Squinch]

19. Later in the day, Senator Sanders sneezed. And thus sneezing was invented.

[sheshe2]

20. Holding back a lol.

[Squinch]

135. But thank God, now you can sneeze because that trail has been blazed.

[ehrnst]

137. Or the "the fire has been lit" or "the progressive voice has been awakened"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512213859#post16


https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512213859#post6

[sheshe2]

151. Thanks for the memories.

Lol 😂

[Squinch]

203. Yes, yes! He lit the torch! By touching it to the bonfire the Democrats had previously built!

All hail, Senator Sanders!

[ehrnst]

209. What kind of fascist hellhole would America have been for the last 30 years without

all those amendments?

[mcar]

35. ...

[LisaM]

41. I'm at home and I laughed out loud. n/t

[EffieBlack]

51. That's pretty funny.

[NurseJackie]

65. Sounds familiar...

[peggysue2]

83. LOL!!

Still laughing. Though I'm sure it will be frowned on

[CentralMass]

187. Then many bitter people got online to bitch about it.

[Squinch]

202. No, no! We all WANTED to sneeze, but none of us knew we COULD sneeze until Senator

Sanders lit the torch and led us to sneezing success.

Also, nice gender slur you got there.

[Hortensis]

22. Hardly an epiphany, but the more who say it, the better.

Sen. Sanders has a bigger megaphone than most of us, and if he only stayed focused on the dangers posed by the new kleptocracy 2016's tragic loss ushered in I'd be yelling right along with him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. Apathy/not voting/voting poorly

are also huge issues, probably bigger ones. Those things he mentions are problems too but we can't do jack about them if we keep on not voting/voting for Republicans.

[peace frog]

31. Thanks for this, Hassin

Bernie is right, about this among other things. Your posts are welcome and appreciated.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. Thank you!

[mcar]

36. Sounds like the Democratic party platform

The solution, he said, is not only ending voter suppression, “extreme gerrymandering” and overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which helped pave the way for super PACs, but moving toward automatic voter registration. He called for Wall Street, billionaires and big corporations to start paying their “fair share” in taxes, and for “substantially” increasing the estate tax.

Electing Democrats and taking back Congress in November is the key.

[stevenleser]

37. ;-)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. Are you saying Bernie sounds just like a Democrat?

[sheshe2]

46. Cute gif.

It is the Democratic Platform he borrows from. Not his own ideas.

[lapucelle]

56. If the point is that millionaires entrenched in powerful positions

exploiting a system without really having to actually do any work are a problem, then I concur.

Trump's children are a perfect example.

[sheshe2]

60. Correct.

[George II]

90. Aren't Bernie and Jane millionaires?

[Lordquinton]

110. Aren't the Clintons?

What's your point?

[ehrnst]

133. Did either Clinton ever blame millionaires for a "lack of progressive accomplishments?"

And Hillary was very strong on campaign finance reform.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

The point is, now that Bernie is a millionaire he has stopped using that word as a perjorative.

[betsuni]

134. +1

[George II]

147. Did they speak at the forum discussed in the OP?

What's your point? Surely you're not trying to re-fight the primary now, are you?

[Lordquinton]

171. Just balancing the information, nothing more

Still don't know your point. Surely you're not bashing Democratic public figures now, are you?

[George II]

172. Lordquinton, this is a discussion about a policy forum in Washington in 2018. What Hillary or...

...Bill Clinton did after they were out of office is immaterial and irrelevant. Yet you for some bizarre reason felt the need to introduce their names into this discussion.

I find that puzzling.

[Lordquinton]

181. The state of the party is irellevant?

That's a strange thing to argue.

[George II]

183. Where did you get that?

[Lordquinton]

188. I read your post.

[George II]

193. Then where did you get that?

[Lordquinton]

218. Already answered

Good day

[George II]

221. Where? Yes, it was a GREAT day for me. You?

[R B Garr]

189. I bet Tad Devine knows what's relevant. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

243. I thought only republicans did that shit.. so sick of this shit

[George II]

244. If it isn't "yeahbut" it's "whatabout" and then claim something was said that actually wasn't.

And then take to the hills

[Autumn]

142. Most politicians are, or like Bill and Hillary they become wealthy after leaving office.

Last edited Wed May 16, 2018, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

I remember the Clintons were deep in debt after the Starr witch hunt when Bills term was up. Bernie and Jane aren't up there with the earning potential of the Clintons. Yet.

[George II]

148. Again, what do the Clintons have to do with this discussion? But as you point out....

....they were deep in debt when Bill Clinton's term was up - operative words "WHEN BILL'S TERM WAS UP".

Surely you're not trying to re-fight the primary now, are you?

[Autumn]

152. Bills primary was over many years ago George and there is nothing to fight over.

If you think my post pointing out how our Democratic politicians and Bernie who is affiliated with the party tend to become millionaires is re fighting the primaries by all means use the alert button in the bottom left hand corner. It's a fact of life. Politicians tend to become wealthy.

referenced post

Most politicians are, or like Bill and Hillary they become wealthy after leaving office.

I remember the Clintons were deep in debt after the Starr witch hunt when Bills term was up. Bernie and Jane aren't up there with the earning potential of the Clintons. Yet.

[George II]

153. There are thousands of out of office politicians in the country, yet you zeroed in on the Clintons.

It's one thing for politicians to get wealthy after leaving office, it's another to do so while in office.

[Autumn]

154. And many do. nt

[R B Garr]

161. Isn't it the hypocrisy? When your entire political platform revolves around

smearing people who have money and then you make huge efforts to gain wealth, doesn't that raise eyebrows? And it's one thing to point out actual events, but to fabricate whole dialogues about others is really disgusting. Like refusing to release tax returns as another example -- when you impugn someone's character but you don't release your own taxes for scrutiny.

[Autumn]

170. That's not what Bernie does. He doesn't smear people who have money, there are

many people who have money, and those people aren't the problem. He' goes after the 1% and corporations who should but don't pay their fair share. There's plenty of hypocrisy all around.

You have a wonderful day.

[R B Garr]

177. He didn't separate the 1% from his smears about Wall Street fraud,

nor the bankers. Entire industries were pigeonholed as frauds. I'm sure there are lots of everyday people working on Wall Street and in banks who are not frauds. We won't even get into the accusations about opponents..... Of course, I could go on and on, but....

Yes, there are plenty more examples of that same hypocrisy.

[Autumn]

178. Sure. nt

[R B Garr]

179. There is tons more, but you know...

[Autumn]

190. You are right, I DO know. So do you. It all depends on ones personal values and perceptions.

[R B Garr]

191. Then it is about the hypocrisy. When you place yourself as a moral

authority but are not forthcoming about your own business, then that is hypocrisy. Transparency 101. Glad we agree.

[Autumn]

192. Wrong we don't agree. and no I won't refight the primaries with you. Bye.

[R B Garr]

196. At least you are honest about the obvious double standards.

And this was about your concern over the Clintons after they left office, not the primaries.

[Autumn]

197. Concern? Stating facts as a comparison is concern? Sure.

Whatever floats your boat and makes you feel fine.

[R B Garr]

198. Again? Only one placed themselves as a moral authority. You brought

up the Clintons' and when they left office. Neither of the Clintons have waged moral authority wars against other Presidents who leave office or any other moral wars.

If you are going to hold yourself up as a moral authority and then claim privacy or privilege when asked to disclose similar information, that is hypocrisy. You are apparently okay with that, so thanks for the honesty.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

59. sheshe2,

During the 2016 Democratic Convention the Platform Committee was busy writing the platform.

Bernie's people were very busy trying to get the platform to state support for several positions that were more Progressive/further left than the positions being pushed for by Hillary's representatives.

His people wound up getting quite a bit written into the platform.

Thus, your claim, "It is the Democratic Platform he borrows from. Not his own ideas." is way off base.

Once the platform was agreed upon and voted for, he supported the platform, even though it was very much less Progressive than he would have liked to have seen written.

[lapucelle]

70. Here's the 2012 Democratic platform.

The party has core values that have been articulated in platform documents prior to 2016.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/101962.pdf

[sheshe2]

71. Please post all the changes they made to the platform she ran on.

Details please.

Here.

The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Please do not just read the headlines Click on EVERY link and READ IT.

I will start you on this one. It is near and dear to my heart.

An end to Alzheimer’s disease
Note: This page is a reproduction of the Hillary for America policy proposal on an end to Alzheimer’s disease.
Alzheimer’s disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. It’s the only cause of death in the top 10 that we can’t prevent, cure, or even delay.
As the population of our country ages, the number of people suffering from Alzheimer’s is expected to grow to nearly 15 million Americans—and could cost more than $1 trillion per year—by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:

Commit to preventing, effectively treating, and making a cure possible for Alzheimer’s disease by 2025.
Invest $2 billion per year in research for Alzheimer’s and related disorders, the level leading researchers have determined necessary to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer’s and make a cure possible by 2025.

Make sure that funding is reliable and consistent so researchers can work steadily toward effective treatment.
Put the best and brightest on the case. Hillary will appoint a top-flight team of research and health experts to oversee this ambitious initiative.
Alzheimer’s disease affects a growing number of Americans and their families. To support those families, Hillary will:
Make it easier for families and individuals with Alzheimer’s to get the care they need. Medicare should cover comprehensive Alzheimer’s care-planning sessions and the cost of properly documenting every diagnosis and care plan.

Help protect loved ones who wander. Hillary will work with Congress to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program to help find individuals who are reported missing.
Ensure our seniors are aware and can take advantage of their Medicare benefits.Hillary will direct the Social Security Administration to raise awareness about the wellness visits, cognitive screenings, and other preventive benefits covered by Medicare.

My father died of Alzheimers. Slowly.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

77. sheshe2,

Hillary ran on the Platform that the Party fought over and finally voted for.

There were a lot of fights in the Platform Committee between Hillary's delegates and Bernie's delegates.

If the fighting that took place is something you are ignorant of, look it up for yourself, or at least ask others who were paying attention to what was going on at the time.

This is a brief synopsis of what happened;

https://ballotpedia.org/The_Democratic_Party_Platform_and_DNC_Platform_Committees,_2016

And, a bit more;

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-advance-most-progressive-platform-party-history-n606646

[sheshe2]

80. I am well aware what went on.

I am also well aware that I can't post what needs to be said.

Then here you are calling me ignorant. Just an ignorant person that did not pay attention or was capable of reading the facts or following the debates. Hey S.E. you are here calling me stupid. You have been here less than a month and calling me out. Wow.


I also wish to thank you for your compassionate response to my dads passing due to Alzheimer that Hill was fighting for....oh wait you did not. Ya'll just called me ignorant.

If the fighting that took place is something you are ignorant of, look it up for yourself, or at least ask others who were paying attention to what was going on at the time.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

85. sheshe2,

If you knew what went on, why would you say, "It is the Democratic Platform he borrows from. Not his own ideas."

You are showing ignorance with that claim.

As for my time on DU, what does that have to do with what you or I know about what has been, or is, going on in American politics?

As for your fishing for my sympathy, that has nothing to do with the subject we have been discussing.

I do try to stick with the subject at hand.

[George II]

88. Why? Because it IS the Democratic Platform! It's not the "Bernie" Platform.

So, why do you say in the title of each of your three responses so far simply "sheshe2"? I've never seen that before.

[sheshe2]

100. Hmm.

He is doing it to EffieBlack as well. Interesting.

[ehrnst]

136. He has borrowed from the Democratic Platform for years

He has called the Democratic party "idealogically bankrupt" while trying to get on their committees.

All this after he relied on the Democratic Party leadership to help him win and then get re-elected in Vermont.

http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/13/party_shuns_vermont_democrats_in_race/?page=full

[ehrnst]

207. The DLC doesn't exist anymore.

Last edited Wed May 16, 2018, 06:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Google it if you don't believe me.

The DLC has pulled the Democrats away from supporting traditional Democratic principles,

So who is this zombie group "pulling away from supporting traditional Democratic principles?" John Lewis? Nancy Pelosi? Kamala Harris? Elizabeth Warren? Hillary Clinton?

I'm not seeing issues of that nature with our leadership.

I think the "ass with a Hillary stick up it," as you so eloquently put it, on this thread isn't mine, or anyone who actually supports the Democratic party, who Bernie owes his Senate seat to. They even prevented from having to run against a progressive black woman. He should be grateful for Schumer helping him dodge that bullet.

JPR is calling, hon. Pick up line 3.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

210. ehrnst,

So, are you believing that since the DLC does not technically exist, the Democratic Party has gone back to being the left-wing party of FDR?

It has not.

The DLC did not disappear. It just got morphed into the rest of the Democratic Party.

Get a candidate who is advocating for Medicare-for-all and the same people who were behind the DLC start crying that it can't be done.


Some of those same people were saying very recently that gay marriage was still decades away from being a reality in Amreica.

The people of America are more ready to see change come sooner than the centrists of the Democratic Party are.

Did you notice the issue of the TTP in the 2016 election? Bernie said it was a bad deal for American workers. He is correct. TraitorTrump ran with the issue and got support because of it. That is support Hillary should have had but she took the wrong position.

Bernie has a lot of good ideas that the leadership of the Democratic Party ought to be supporting.

[ehrnst]

227. Tenn...

The DLC no longer exists - and you know that.

It was your euphemism for "The Democratic Party."

I think it's time you stay over at JPR. You'll get the echo chamber you want there.

[NurseJackie]

232. Anyone still whining about "DLC" or "DWS" can be safely dismissed.

That's what the kooks at JPR are obsessed about.

[betsuni]

234. +1

[betsuni]

236. +1

[George II]

213. S.E. TN Liberal, "Much of what was in the 2016 Democratic Platform was written by Bernie's staff"...

What specifically is that? Have a few specific examples? Have you read it?

I don't know who you're referring to, but:

1. I DO know about how the 2016 Democratic Platform came into being, you?
2. I know of no one here on DU who has a "Hillary stick in his/her ass", I certainly don't.

That's an obnoxious and offensive way of speaking about Democrats, especially on a Democratic site.

Finally, you bring up the Democratic Leadership Council and claim that they've pulled Democrats away from supporting traditional Democratic principles. What do you know about the DLC? Do you realize that the DLC was DISBANDED more than seven years ago? So who are they "pulling"?

[S.E. TN Liberal]

216. George II,

I do know what went on to create the 2016 Democratic platform.

There are plenty of Democrats who still want to spew crap anytime anything regarding Bernie's name gets mentioned. Bernie has lots of ideas the rest of the Democratic Party should commit to supporting.
Such as the idea mentioned here;
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210622667

Watch that thread and see how long it takes till someone with a Hillary stick up their ass chimes in with some negative comment about Bernie.


The DLC has simply been morphed into the Democratic Party. Look at the people who were involved with the DLC and they are still in the Democratic Party.

[George II]

217. S.E. TN Liberal,

Many of Sanders' ideas has already been proposed in one form or another by Democrats before, sometimes years before. Like "medicare for all", are you familiar with the Dingle family? Look it up.

Are you going to tell us about which parts of the "Much of what was in the 2016 Democratic Platform was written by Bernie's staff" are?

I see you're still sticking with the insulting and offensive "Hillary stick up their ass".

[S.E. TN Liberal]

219. George II,

No, I am not going to tell you which parts were written by Bernie representatives.

There was a lot of debating issues, wording and positions. I doubt even the people who were there could accurately state who said what and how each statement came into being.

Maybe you are the one person on Earth who could tell us exactly who said what and how each word in the platform was chosen? Can you do that?

I am assuming you are referring to Michigan Congressman John Dingle who long pushed for single-payer health insurance?

It is an idea Bernie still supports. I do also. I think it is an idea the entire Democratic Party should stick with supporting. Polls show the majority of Americans also support it.

But, when it comes time for politicians to step up, they run away because the insurance industry and reich-wingers everywhere start in with attack ads. Bernie does not care about the negative ads. He has the courage to stay committed to the idea.

[George II]

220. S.E. TN Liberal,

I'm not surprised since very little was written by Bernie representatives.

Although you said "much of what was in the 2016 Democratic Platform was written by Bernie's staff" you're now saying "I doubt even the people who were there could accurately state who said what and how each statement came into being."

So S.E. TN Liberal, how do you know that "much of what was in the 2016 Democratic Platform was written by Bernie's staff" if even those involved in writing it can't accurately say? Were you on the platform committee?

[betsuni]

225. It is very confusing!

Also too that the DLC doesn't exist but still exists. Worlds collide.

[betsuni]

224. S.E. TN Liberal. Bernie supports the Democratic Party's plan to add a public option to the ACA.

He agreed that it was an easier path to universal coverage than trying to start all over again, good for him for committing to a good idea.

[ehrnst]

228. When Bernie is actually vetted

Last edited Thu May 17, 2018, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)

it will be interesting to see how committed he is to running for POTUS again.

[Eliot Rosewater]

241. Tax returns tax returns tax returns...

[ehrnst]

245. Old Town Media.

[ehrnst]

230. Single payer is one strategy towards universal health care, and is the most problematic

The vast majority of other developed governments use multiple payer mechanisms.

Of course the term "Medicare for All" is shrewd marketing, but the plan that Sanders' put forward in 2016 was quite different than Medicare. More expensive, and more like a platinum plan than Medicare actually is, and very different from Canada's system. Much like with the ACA, there is a gap in what people think Sanders' MFA plan is, and what it really is.

Even LBJ had to lie about what Medicare would cost in order to get it passed. That can't happen now with the CBO.

Ted Kennedy tried to get single payer passed in 1971 - 1974. He went on to get other more doable health care reforms done - he and Hillary worked to make CHIP a reality. I have to wonder why he wasn't with Bernie's MFA. Perhaps Bernie didn't like what Ted had to say about what he learned in 1974.

Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and would put all health care under the heavy hand of the federal government.

Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.

"Government has a great role to play, he said, "but we must always make sure that our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the federal government."

No one breathed a word at the time about Nixon's plan being unconstitutional. Instead, it faced opposition from Democrats who insisted on "single-payer."

Over time, Kennedy realized his own plan couldn't succeed. Opposition from the insurance companies was too great. So Kennedy dispatched his staffers to meet secretly with Nixon's people to broker a compromise. Kennedy came close to backing Nixon's plan, but turned away at the last minute, under pressure from the unions. Then Watergate hit and took Nixon down. Kennedy said later that walking away from that deal was one of the biggest mistakes of his life."That was the best deal we were going to get," Kennedy told me before he died. "Nothing since has ever come close."

Until Obama. When Obama ran for office, his aides contacted Altman, a key architect of the Nixon plan, and asked him to serve as an adviser. By this time, Altman was a battle-scarred veteran of four decades of health care wars. Indeed, policy wonks even coined a term "Altman's law" - to describe the stalemate that sets in when everyone wants reform, but only if they get their own way.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html

A 2009 interview with Altman about that battle is here:

https://khn.org/stuart-altman/

Where do you see the reverberations of that episode now?

A: Everywhere. I think it’s probably no more than 50-50 that we’re going to pass anything today, with the liberals saying they’re not going to support anything that doesn’t have a strong public plan. And the moderates and conservatives say ‘a public plan over my dead body.’ The progressives as much destroyed the [Nixon-era] health reform effort as anybody. This is nothing new. If you have the liberals and conservatives saying, “We’re not going to do this,” . . . we just don’t have enough moderates to pass anything. This is far from over. And you can wind up with nothing.

Where do you stand now?

A: I’m generally in favor of what the president is trying to do, although I think the public plan has become a gigantic distraction, and it’s unnecessary, and it could lead to the whole thing falling apart. In the original Obama plan, it was very limited plan, but it’s become the holy grail of the progressives. And, it’s also fed the extreme right to allow them to talk about a government takeover. They’re just totally blowing it out of proportion, but it’s just enough for them to say they’re right. I would drop the public plan in a heartbeat.

I find it interesting that Sanders refuses to talk about the problems that took down Green Mountain Care in Vermont. If anyone could get a study done on it, he could have. I think that shows he really doesn't understand what the issues were, or how things might have been done differently. And if he does understand, why wouldn't he use them as lessons learned in how to make it successful? He had a very negative reaction to the analysis done by the Urban Institute that found his plan would cost much more than he said, and would create more disruption in health care delivery in the four year implementation plan than stated.

I think that the public does want universal health care coverage, and it's been in the Democratic Platform for decades. The ACA is the closest that we have ever come.

[brer cat]

235. Thank you, ehrnst.

Very interesting read.

Indeed, policy wonks even coined a term "Altman's law" - to describe the stalemate that sets in when everyone wants reform, but only if they get their own way.

Altman's law is still alive and well, and holding back progress.

[ehrnst]

231. Ted Kennedy in 1971...

And I guess Ted had a "Hillary stick up his ass" when they both, working together, got CHIP passed.

That was actual legislation and an actual program that exists now.

Results speak louder than years of scolding, finger shaking yelling "my way or the highway!" ever will.

[betsuni]

223. S.E. TN Liberal. What is "someone with a Hillary stick up their ass"?

That doesn't seem like a very nice thing to say.

[Eliot Rosewater]

240. I wish these OUTRIGHT VICIOUS attacks of HILLARY CLINTON would FUCKING stop!

[Hortensis]

208. These are distractions from the reality that

the differences between Democratic Party goals and capital-P Progressive are almost entirely temporal (time) -- how SOON it would be possible to achieve our common goals? Democrats' reactions to Elizabeth Warren had revealed strong support for more liberal advances than clueless (deliberate?) polling had failed to reveal.

Strong support means POWER from the people. We all responded to this previously unrealized power by planning to accomplish more. Our party promised a very big progressive agenda, Sanders promised he would accomplish a narrower agenda of fully realized, particularly popular issues much sooner.

It's actually totally typical for candidates running behind those who are running with for same issues and goals to try to differentiate themselves to give people a reason for preferring them. So this is normal politicking, and knowledgeable observers know what going on and don't hold these strategic variations against anyone.

We're a mixed bag here, but sorta political junkies who hang at DU a fair amount should know more than those who are not. We all should support whoever and whatever platform we wish, but do it fairly informed and with our eyes open. To arrive in 2018 still believing in huge differences between our Democratic Party's ideals and goals and the capital-P Progressive faction's strikes me as...uneducated about both. Why? Two and three years on, how could that be? I've always thought most of the divisions were phony, existing mostly for the sake of division and creating separate identities. Unfortunately, these divisions took on their own life long ago, reality irrelevant.

I was just listening to a rather heartbreaking lament by someone from a small conservative community that's dying. Hillary/WE, the Democratic Party, had a large, fully developed plan to help communities in that area become viable again, so that their children could stay and raise their children there. Instead, they are continuing to move to find jobs far away, leaving their older relatives behind to remember when their communities were really good places to live.

It didn't have to be that way, but this person was ignorant of his choices. Yes, he contributed to his self delusion and made fatal, tragically unnecessary choices at the polls, but he doesn't deserve to spend the next 25 years alone in a decaying town where not all that long ago he had many relatives and a life that centered around family.

2018 gives us all a new chance to reaffirm both our goals and our commitments to achieving them.

[Eliot Rosewater]

242. That gif is an attack of Hillary Clinton, isnt it?

[mountain grammy]

61. That made me laugh..thanks.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. I'll be here all week...

[Autumn]

144. Where's the tip jar?

[demmiblue]

120. Lol!

[ehrnst]

125. Democrats are progressive.

He's to the right of us sometimes, but he generally gets it right.

[betsuni]

129. "They just didn't love you enough."

Is your sig line about Bernie? That isn't very nice!

[Me.]

149. Has To Be

he lost the Dem primary

[betsuni]

160. Right? That's so mean! Bernie can't help it if he wasn't popular enough.

I'm deeply offended.

[Me.]

166. Gosh Now I Feel As Much A Meanie

as NIna....

[disillusioned73]

155. lol...

oh, the horror..

[Uncle Joe]

214. Bernie has always sounded like an FDR Democrat to me.

The Second Bill of Rights is a list of rights that was proposed by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, January 11, 1944.[1] In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:

Employment (right to work), food, clothing and leisure with enough income to support them
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education

Roosevelt stated that having such rights would guarantee American security and that the United States' place in the world depended upon how far the rights had been carried into practice.

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

[SammyWinstonJack]

247. Ha!

[NastyRiffraff]

158. Thank you!

Bernie is unimportant and irrelevant. Electing Democrats for Congress IS. It goes without saying they must be Democrats.

[hughee99]

173. Actually, it sounds like the things that Dems say when running for office, but not necessarily

the things they support while in DC.

[OxQQme]

39. Oligarchy, the one issue....

Oligarchy has no nation or ethnic attributes.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command') is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people.

An oligarchy is an organization controlled by just a few businesses or individuals. They have enough power to turn the organization to benefit them to the exclusion of other members. They maintain their power through their relationships with each other. Oligarchy is from the Greek word oligarkhes. It means "few governing."

"A plutocracy is a subset of an oligarchy. A plutocracy is when the leaders are rich.

The leaders in a oligarchy don't have to be rich, even though they usually are. For example, a high school ruled by a popular clique is an oligarchy. A plutocracy is always an oligarchy, but there could be some oligarchies that aren't plutocracies.

An oligarchy can occur in any political system. In a democracy, oligarchs are not elected by the people. Instead, they use their relationships and money to influence the elected officials. In a monarchy or tyranny, they have enough power and money to influence the king or tyrant.

The iron law of oligarchy states that any organization or society will eventually become an oligarchy. That's because the people who learn how to succeed in the organization gain a competitive advantage. The larger and more complicated the organization becomes, the more advantages the elite gain.

Oligarchs only associate with others who share those same traits. They become an organized minority as opposed to the unorganized majority.

They groom protégés who share their values and goals. It becomes more difficult for the average person to break into the group of elites."

"Pros"
Oligarchies exist in any organization that delegates power to a small group of movers and shakers. Some power must be delegated to a group of expert insiders so that an organization can function.

In other words, it's not efficient for everyone to make all the decisions all the time.

An oligarchy allows most people to focus on their day-to-day lives. They can ignore the issues that concern society as a whole. They can spend their time doing other things, such as working on their chosen career, cultivating relationships with their families, or engaging in sports.

The oligarchy allows creative people to spend the time needed to innovate in new technologies. That's because the oligarchy manages the society. They can be successful as long as their inventions and success benefit the oligarchy's interests as well.

The decisions made by an oligarchy are conservative since the goal is to preserve the status quo. It’s therefore unlikely that any single strong leader can steer the society into ventures that are too risky.

"Cons"
Oligarchies increase income inequality. That's because the oligarchs siphon a nation's wealth into their pockets. That leaves less for everyone else.

As the insider group gains power, it seeks to keep it. As their knowledge and expertise grow, it becomes more difficult for anyone else to break in.

Oligarchies can become stale. They pick people like them who share the same values and worldview.

This can sow the seeds of decline since they can miss the profitable synergies of a diverse team.

If an oligarchy takes too much power, it can restrict a free market. They can agree informally to fix prices which violate the laws of supply and demand.

If people lose hope that they can one day join the oligarchy, they may become frustrated and violent. Consequently, they may overthrow the ruling class. This can disrupt the economy and cause pain and suffering for everyone in the society.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-oligarchy-pros-cons-examples-3305591

I believe Bernie hit the bulls eye by calling this to our attention.
This administration fits the description.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

72. BINGO!!!!

Nicely done, OxQQme. Excellent information.

[Beartracks]

76. Intriguing. Spot on. Scary.

[sheshe2]

40. Your sig line is very interesting.

Betty Davis.

Who could you possibly be attributing that image to. Oh wait.

[Honeycombe8]

42. I think it's the failure of so many to vote.

If all those who use Obamacare had voted in the last election, Trump would not be President. If all those who use Medicaid or get Social Security or use Medicare had voted, Trump would not be President.

I have seen this in my family. The Repubs are regular voters. But not the ones who benefit from Dem Party policies and programs. They are apolitical, don't like to talk politics, and as far as I know, the deceased one didn't vote, and the current one who just lost her job and needs Obamacare or Medicaid doesn't vote.

I don't know why they don't vote. I guess they just don't have an interest in it. They are involved in their own little world. Nothing more.

And then there is me. My brother is independent, but he doesn't vote. He doesn't want to be called for jury duty (he's retired, so he has the time). I'm going to work on him for the mid-terms, though, since I think he might vote Democratic....although he leans Repub for some things, a lot of thngs, but detests Trump. If he had voted in 2016, I don't know who he would have voted for, because he hated Clinton, too. But less than he hated Trump.

[Equinox Moon]

45. Yep, Bernie nails it at the core.

It is one of the reasons I appreciate Bernie so much, he really 'get's it' and teaches it.

Thanks for the post.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

140. Yes Equinox, like he always does... such a breath of fresh air. Bernie has indeed taught us the way

as you say. If he doesn't run in 2020, hopefully, other candidates will have learned a few things from his leadership.

[Equinox Moon]

176. Yes, true, steady, honest leadership--- Bernie

[leftstreet]

47. DURec

[YOHABLO]

48. So how are we going to implement solutions (Bernie) to the problems if we don't get a majority?

We have an electorate that refuses to go vote. Registered voters who just think they're vote won't count. How do we rid the country of apathy?

[MuseRider]

53. I got an email just today

about that from Bernie. He is talking about lots of things.

[R B Garr]

75. I got an email from Hillary Clinton about that.

She’s on it. She of all people knows how Democrats were sabotaged.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

143. So true, we gotta motivate our base...nothing like advocating for throwing the Traitor-in-Chief

out of office, while, at the same time, also giving them something to VOTE FOR that reflects our progressive values, to drive our peeps to the polls. Impeach 45!!

[appalachiablue]

49. Stop picking on the poor, maligned billionaire-oligarchs!...LOL

[certainot]

52. wtf. bernie does what every one does. how do they do that bernie?

bernie's saying democracy failed.

the real question is WHY did it fail. and even though bernie got his national cred on talk radio he like clinton does not recognize it's critical importance in creating constituencies to make billionaire interests look popular and getting people to vote against their own interests.

[mountain grammy]

66. K&R thanks for posting

[Hassin Bin Sober]

73. You are more than welcome!

[Bluepinky]

86. Yep, Bernie has it right, big money in politics is ground zero for our country's problems.

It comes down to a few oligarchs buying politicians and thereby controlling our democracy. Bernie’s rhetoric about disallowing corporate funding of elections in favor of limited individual donations and public funding makes sense. If only the wealthiest people control our government, progressive policies that benefit the majority will never see the light of day.

[George II]

93. Could be that "progressive policies" don't coincide with "Democratic policies"?

[mvd]

105. Exactly. We've become like a corporatocracy

Capitalism promotes greed in general, and our system with a few corporate winners is the worst form of capitalism.

[pnwmom]

109. Bernie's using the same "oligarchy" analysis Ralph Nader used in 2000 in his third party run.

Nader threw the election to George Bush by deliberately focusing his campaign on the swing states like Florida, and splitting the progressive vote. Nader said that Al Gore, the environmentalist and union-backer, and George Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

And Nader loved to talk about the oligarchs and the oligarchy.

[Jim Lane]

112. So what?

The most obvious point is that Bernie did what Nader should have done -- run in the Democratic primaries and, if unsuccessful, support the Democratic nominee in the general election.

Beyond that, the only way I can make sense of your post is if it means:
1. Nader's 2000 candidacy was one cause of the Bush presidency.
2. The Bush presidency was bad.
3. Therefore, any policy position articulated by Nader in 2000 was also bad.

I agree with the two premises but the conclusion doesn't follow.

If your reference to Nader was intended as something other than guilt by association, I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me.

[pnwmom]

114. Bernie has left the Democratic party and I haven't seen any indication he plans to return.

Have you?

[Jim Lane]

115. Sorry, I still don't understand the Nader stuff.

Also, if you mean that Bernie will run as a Green or independent in 2020 and thereby help the Republicans, my answer is that there is zero chance of that.

If Bernie had wanted to emulate Nader he could have done so in 2016. The Green Party, with ballot access in most states, would have given him its nomination at the drop of a hat. The result of such a candidacy would have been that Trump would have won the popular vote in reality, instead of just in his own fevered imagination, and probably would have picked up additional electoral votes.

I can understand differences on policy. Some people say that Medicare for All will never, ever happen, and that's their privilege. What I can't understand is why Bernie is so often equated with Nader when, on the key strategic question, the two chose precisely opposite paths.

[pnwmom]

117. There would be a great difference between a Bernie run in 2016 vs. 2020.

He doesn't need the Democrats anymore to establish a public platform. He is very well known now, with a large following.

So if he runs again I'll be surprised if he runs as a Democrat. Obviously you disagree. Neither of us will know unless and until Bernie makes an official decision to run.

[Jim Lane]

113. Thanks for pointing out that not ALL our problems are because of Trump.

If someone like McCain, Romney, or Kasich were President, we wouldn't have all these demented tweets, we wouldn't have the shocking level of ignorance, we wouldn't have the barrage of scandals. Trump is truly sui generis.

BUT if one of those more conventional Republicans were President, we would still have the problem of oligarchy. Of course, even if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were President, we'd have that problem, but at least there'd be some counterweight.

Trump is so terrible that he's using up a big percentage of our capacity for outrage. We have the difficult task of continuing to call him out when it's necessary, as it so often is, and yet not losing sight of the larger problems. I'm glad Bernie and others are keeping their eyes on the prize.

[VOX]

122. Absolutely true.

Well-worded, too. Thanks.

[demmiblue]

116. K&R

For the truth and for the garbanzo bean/chickpea joke (I missed that one!)

[ehrnst]

126. When he says this, I have to wonder why he chose to start a PAC that can accept dark money.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/

[Vinca]

128. It is just about impossible for an average person to win a national public office.

You can't compete with the gazillions of dollars the small fraction of the 1% pony up to keep their toadies in power. It's really sad for the country. You might have a brilliant educator or scientist or whatever wanting to serve the country, but instead we get numbnuts who will make sure business taxes are low and regulations are lax. Everything Bernie says is true, but the most important thing is getting everyone to the polls. It's astonishing the small number of people who vote in this country. Another problem is the right wing hate-for-money media enterprises, but that's for another discussion. People need to seek out the facts and stop showing up at pizza parlors with guns.

[dawg]

130. "Oligarchy" isn't an issue.

It's the result of thousands of different policy choices this country has made over the years.

And only a nuanced set of remedies can hope to push this thing back in the right direction. I sincerely believe Sanders' heart is in the right place, but he makes it sound like the solution to all of our problems is a simple binary choice, when, in fact, it will require years of mind-numbingly wonkish incremental reforms.

[aidbo]

150. And each of those incremental reforms will be fought against tooth and nail..

..by the entrenched oligarchy.

[dawg]

156. And one way they do that is to convince some liberals that incremental changes ...

are a waste of time and that big, transformative (and politically unachievable) changes are the only ones worthy of our support.

[OxQQme]

222. dawg, the wonkish reforms can't happen...

without the simple binary choice in the first place.

"Rule by the few" is exactly how our country is governed.
Binary = Democrats/ Republicans.
Currently a few people, relatively speaking, are calling all the shots.
Sometimes it feels like 'good cop/bad cop' kabuki theater happening up there in the halls of power.

We citizens outnumber the few.
We need a genuine third party in the political arena.
Or more.

How many times have you heard, "Just a buncha' crooks. ALL of them. Both sides. It doesn't matter who I vote for, so I don't."?

I'm 77 and have heard words like that more times than I have fingers and toes.

[dawg]

237. But you said it yourself ... it's a binary choice.

That means choosing between two viable options.

Third parties only succeed in diluting the vote, and they empower the party that is their ideological opposite.

Under a different form of government, multiple parties make sense. But we are forced to operate within the legacy system that's in place today.

(And that "doesn't matter who I vote for" crap, that you've been hearing all your life, just so happens to be bullshit.)

[Trumpocalypse]

138. My apologies. I confused you with another poster.

Sorry about that.

[pampango]

141. "ending voter suppression, "extreme gerrymandering" and overturning the Citizens United Supreme

Court decision, which helped pave the way for super PACs, but moving toward automatic voter registration. He called for Wall Street, billionaires and big corporations to start paying their “fair share” in taxes, and for “substantially” increasing the estate tax.”

Can’t argue with those liberal policy ideas.

[Demsrule86]

182. What why I have never heard this not ever !!!!

I have only advance those theories oh once every day or so...not the going after Wall Street as Sen. Sanders describes it, but using regulation...something that could actually work. But we can't get rid of United without winning...and the candidates picked by Our Revolution which espouse the Sanders beliefs have all lost in the primaries...but no worries, the ideas he discussed are already Democratic ideas.

[dawg]

239. I'm not necessarily anti-Bernie, but he doesn't own these issues.

While he's talking a good game about voter suppression and gerrymandering, Eric Holder is out there actually doing something about it.

Bernie can be (and, I believe is) a force for good. But he can also be harmful if people start believing that he's the only one who believes in these things. Most Democrats do.

[aidbo]

145. It really is sad how jealous some people are that Bernie is so widely loved and admired.

It’s also sad that so many try to tear him down because of that jealousy.

[MrsCoffee]

157. Yeah, that's it. It's jealousy.

Jealousy of all the winning from him and his revolution.

Super Jelly.

[ehrnst]

168. The dismissive smear of "politics of envy" gets deployed from the left....

Ain't it something...

[Squinch]

204. I know. Today he invented coffee and DVR's. "Some people" are going to bust with envy over that.

He's so awesome, his awesomeness can't be contained by mere Democrats.

[workinclasszero]

175. I agree with this statement from Bernie

I disagree with him on other things but not on this.

The solution, he said, is not only ending voter suppression, “extreme gerrymandering” and overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which helped pave the way for super PACs, but moving toward automatic voter registration. He called for Wall Street, billionaires and big corporations to start paying their “fair share” in taxes, and for “substantially” increasing the estate tax.

[CentralMass]

184. Great post as usual HBS

[Orsino]

186. Far from the only roadblock...

...but it is where most of the big piles of money are coming from.

Sanders is wrong to omit plain old racism, and to pretend that economic equality could be a panacaea.

[Squinch]

205. Yes, but a rising tide lifts all white boats, so we don't have to think about that... Right?

[democratisphere]

201. The wealthiest need to be removed from our politics.

Wealth and power corrupt absolutely.

[BobTheSubgenius]

215. I know this is very simplistic, but...

...if someone has so much money that you could take away 99% of it and their day-to-day, year-over-year life wouldn't change one iota....

I'd say they have enough money already.

[ucrdem]

226. 'He called for billionaires to start paying their "fair share" in taxes ...'

Funny he should bring up taxes. Has he released any full federal tax returns yet?

Apr 5, 2016 - Plainly put, Sanders has not released any full federal tax return -- and earns Four Pinocchios.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/05/bernie-sanderss-false-claim-that-he-has-released-his-full-federal-tax-returns/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2797cd56ed6d

[OxQQme]

233. An example of Oligarchy in today's 'toons

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

238. OK, but Trump is part of the oligarchy. He represents and protects it

so he and flunkies are still part of the problem. Trump admin isn't off the hook here.

[Garrett78]

246. To "successfully confront it," we must elect Democrats.

I don't think there's much in the OP that would be disputed by your average Democrat. It's this notion that there's a sequence that doesn't make much sense. First confront (whatever that means exactly) oligarchy, and then "achieve success on a host of progressive policies." The reason I say that notion of a sequence makes no sense is because it all goes hand in hand. Look no further than the given "solution" (ending voter suppression and gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United, automatic voter registration, more progressive taxation, etc.), which constitutes "a host of progressive policies." None of which can be achieved unless Democrats take power away from Republicans. In other words, the greatest roadblock is Republicans.

[Kentonio]

248. He's completely right

I’ve just been reading about the labor struggles of the early part of last century, and it’s basically exactly the same things he’s saying now. A tiny part of the population controlling most of the wealth, and using their power to manipulate the system in their own favor to the detriment of everyone else. Same as it ever was.

Nothing substantial can change until that is addressed, but most people have been propagandized into not wanting to change it, because they wrongly believe that those people in charge must have ‘earned’ their wealth and power and therefore must be wiser/smarter/harder working.