General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGiven a choice between Bernie Sanders and someone who acts like Bernie Sanders
...the people will vote for the real Bernie Sanders every time.
EOM
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,627 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)a republican, they will do that rather than settle for a dem acting like one.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,627 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I don't think anyone wants to emulate him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the gross wealth inequality in this nation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Jumpin Jack Flash
(242 posts)She is a part of the problem and has been for years. Ask her what middle class income should be
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No she isn't ... No she hasn't.
I don't have that kind of access. What do you suppose her answer would be? What is your answer to the middle class income question?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But I don't judge people by what they say, but what they do.
Strange I know, but that is just me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you think that if she was proud of it she would show us all.
And I dislike her voting record in the congress not her...I don't even know her.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I doubt you will find much difference between her congressional voting record and that of Bernie.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It was a flag burning amendment...that was a red flag for me.
But I don't have a record of all her votes, just the major ones...like the war vote and the Patriot act that led to the torture and war crimes...Sanders did not vote for that.
OK I paused enough to look up her record here...https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/?p=7
And frankly it did not look good at all...was surprised by how many times she did not vote especially on consumer protection...and even on bills she co sponsored...but always seem to vote yes for corporate aid...and for intelligence gathering...at least from what you can tell by the name of a bill.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2015, 01:10 AM - Edit history (2)
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/inside-the-supreme-courts-flag-burning-decision/The explanation at the time was that, by seeking passage of a statute, she was heading off a constitutional amendment. I bet that doesn't appear anywhere in her Senate speeches, though. Thing is, a statute is far, far easier to pass than a Constitutional amendment. Hell, we couldn't even adopt an amendment to give women equal rights. Nothing even mildly controversial has become a Constitutional amendment since the Eisenhower Administration. Lots of controversial statutes have passed since then, though, including, but not limited to, controversial war resolutions.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And thanks for that little history of the flag burning.
And yes I remember people here making that excuse for her support of the flag burning bill, but I did not buy it then and I don't now.
Funny how a constitutional amendment against flag burning only failed by one vote...but the ERA never stood a chance...what skewed priorities we have.
merrily
(45,251 posts)However, as the amendment continued to languish in the states, another Congress killed it, a move of highly questionable constitutionality.
The flag burning amendment almost passed only Congress. It never got to the states. So, it's kinda comparable, but not exactly.
The wording of my original post was not clear on that point. I've revised in hopes of making it more clear.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It's good that someone is up on things around here.
Thanks for informing me.
merrily
(45,251 posts)for what he sees. I always said, between us, we could recreate any party we attended perfectly.
that a couple of tokens gets us on the subway. We've never figured out a practical use for it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If there was such a careerer.
My problem is that I only remember some things and forget the details...perhaps my head is just too full of shit...the only gift I have like that is I can remember music...if I hear a song one time I can reproduce it in my mind no matter how old it is...there is no use for that either.
Thanks for the links below, good to refresh on the details.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)to finally abolish the poll tax in 1964.
And while reading up on the 24th Amendment, I found that some states still have not ratified it, including my home state! 
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)...not that some people won't try.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)they will just ignore/disbelieve what she says ... because they are already there.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I just focus on the issues. For me, Bernie represents a lot of my views.
Hillary has had some great ideas too...like the auto-voter-registration.
Like that a lot.
I just like what Bernie has to say a bit more.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Besides, it was not "merely" a war vote (as if there were such a thing). She ADVOCATED for that war. But, you knew that. Not exactly a resume plus for someone seeking to be the person who asks Congress for war votes and serves as CIC. This is a biggie not the "only one vote" her supporters seek to portray it as. It's the single most important kind of vote Congress takes.
Besides, you are, at most, saying she voted with her caucus most of the time. That's not surprising, impressive or a qualifier to lead the nation.
The issue isn't what's your beef, but what did she do that impressed the hell out of us. Well, her actions around Iraq and the Patriot Act were very impressive--just not in a good way.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)On the board of WalMart, the most one of the most notorious employers in the US at the time, she did nothing to support or benefit striking workers--and that came from her fellow directors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778412
She campaigned for her husband, one of whose campaign promises was to end welfare.
According to Obama, she said great things about NAFTA until she began to run for President.. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/
As Secretary of State Hillary, she was instrumental in negotiation TPP. As 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary, she seems newly unsure of where she stands on TPP.)
Her populism did not begin until she began formally running for President. (I believe her long term plan has LONG been becoming the first female President, so I use the word "began" with trepidation.)
I'm sure I've only skimmed the surface.
Urgency about the poor sure didn't seem to be a big DLC concern when she and Al From toured Europe, trying to sell it there, either. New Democrats in general have all but dropped the word "poor" from their rhetoric. It's all about da middle class now, doncha know? Good thing no one knows what "middle" class actually means, so most people think it means them.
Even running for President In 2008, she did not exaclty sound populist or worried about the poor. she defined her constituency as "hard-working white people." Not exactly copied out of the Emma Lazarus statement of what the Statue of Liberty stands for.
However, after Elizabeth Warren's rhetoric started making waves and getting buzz, Hillary sure started adopting it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's why I responded that way. 
merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of the Party. All D's are not the same. Some are very friendly with Goldman-Sachs and the billionaires.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess introducing legislation bound to fail counts as actions to reverse it. Right?
madokie
(51,076 posts)go ahead you're among adults we can handle it
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Not all Democrats support the 99%. The only qualification required to be a Democrat is to say, "I am a Democrat." Arlen Specter became a Democrat, not because he changed his ideology, but because he decided to change Parties. Some Democrats are beholden to corporations like Goldman-Sachs and billionaires. Those giving them hundreds of millions or a billion, expect something in return. The Democrats that are beholden to Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang will not fix the widening wealth gap.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that HRC will even try to fix the problem? Sen Sanders will have a hard uphill battle to fix the problem but at least he will fight for the 99%.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)or, even, a-ok,
Yes. I believe that HRC, and any Democratic candidate, will try to address/fix the problem of widening wealth inequality.
Yes. Senator Sanders will have a hard uphill battle to fix the problem ... as will any Democratic Nominee.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democratic poster, but I think you are being naive to think that HRC honestly gives a crap about the 99%. She has worked hard to become part of the top of the 1%. We have a candidate that has spent his career fight the 1%. The choice to me is obvious.
When the God of Wall Street, CEO of Goldman-Sachs said he would be ok with either HRC or Jeb Fracking Bush, didn't that give you pause? Just a little? He seems confident that HRC won't fight the wealth inequality. Do you think that she will bite the billionaires' hands that feed her?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No ... Because no one has been able to produce any thing but a (self-serving) recitation of what someone told them. (I know ... you'll be shocked to hear this; but, politicians make frequent use of the blind statement ... and they are just as frequently, lies ... er, unverifiable, self-serving statements.)
Bite the hand ... probably not; but, attempt to reign in ... Absolutely!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)mentioned it, I think his name is White.
You don't believe the statement? I could look up the Politco source if you don't want to. But Gov O'Malley was confident enough in the source to repeat the statement in public. And it makes perfect sense. Goldman-Sachs has a very close relationship with HRC. Neither has made much attempt to hide their close relationship.
"Attempt to reign in". I bet it's a weak "attempt". And we need way more than merely "reigning in." The wealth inequality gap is widening and we need to do more than reign it in, we need to reverse it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a DUer has been trying to track it down and all he(?)/she(?) could come up with is the O'Malley statement that he heard it ... color me unconvinced, as politicians are known to embellish (read: lie).
Do you really believe that Bernie will be more effective in reversing the wealth gap, as President than he has been as a Congressman ... when the majority of the wealth disparity occurred?
I, for one, would rather see a reining in, than a continued, but Presidentially opposed, expansion.
merrily
(45,251 posts)if you consider that, the entire time, he was bucking billionaires and those in both parties who depend on them.
He formed the Congressional Progressive Caucus years before the Congessional New Democrat Coalition existed. In the House, he got more floor amendments passed than anyone else. In the Senate, he has been such a huge asset to the Democratic Caucus that the DSCC does not support anyone who runs against him.
Of course, as President, he will depend on Congress, as has Obama, as would Hillary. But, he will seek to lead in a different direction than would Hillary.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Both Bernie and HRC are of the left (funny Bernie doesn't have a problem with this fact; but, his "supporters" refuse to) and would take the country further to the left, if they are able to accomplish anything at all.
By my estimation, Bernie would move the nation farther to the Left, if he was able to get his way (with congress); but, I doubt that would/will ever be the case. HRC would move the nation less farther to the Left - but she would have a easier time getting her agenda through Congress.
I, generally, prefer the safer bet ... though I have not settled on a Democratic primary candidate in this race (I'm just thinking out loud here).
merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)HRC's stated positions are, in many cases, to the left of President Obama, which would have the country moving farther in the same direction that Bernie would move us (i.e., farther to the left); but, her stated position are a matter of degree less to the left than Bernie's stated position.
HRC's stated positions would not move us farther to the right ... that would be moving in a different direction.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"HRC's stated positions" are exactly that, only her stated positions. They don't align with much of her past 40 years, give or take, except that she has been very strong on women's issues. (No surprise there.)
Bernie didn't need hundreds of advisors to tell him how to speak about WEALTH inequality without offending the rich. Offending the rich is not his concern.
Hillary moved the goalpost to INCOME inequality and then hired hundreds of advisors to help her figure out how to talk about that without offending the rich.
Moreover, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, etc are not merely a few degrees to Bernie's left. They are an entirely different philosophyl.
On the bill of rights, the ACLU rated her 60 and him 100. That is not indicative of a few degrees to Bernie's left, but of a whole different view of individual rights.
She was a founding member of the DLC; Sanders is trying to reverse the impact the DLC has had on US politics.
Sanders would never have traveled with Al From to try to get Europe to go Third Way.
Sanders would never have run a "racially tinged" campaign to advance his personal ambition or lied about being shot at.
I could go on, but they are two very different people with two very different approaches to politics and to life, much as Hillary supporters try to say only one "little vote" stands between them, as you said upthread
Disagree all you want and simply repeat your position all you want. It doesn't change anything.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will only address one part of your Bernie soliloquy ...
But to this point, based on his campaign to this point, race seems to be of unconcern. And make no mistake, and I know this will be hard to hear/accept, Bernie's run IS about "personal ambition."
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and that select group is it for the people because of course the count in the TeaPubliKlan party is either zero or statistical so close to as to make no practical difference while anybody else is rendered inconsequential in dictating policy.
Guess what the Republicans are not omnipotent we didn't get here exclusively by their fell deeds alone by a long shot, almost nothing they have done to scuttle our nation have they not been aided and abetted in and/or given a white washing and water mudding pass on with a lot effectively token resistance if any and/or a few voices in the wilderness mocked and marginalized.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)manage to accumulate the obscene amounts of OUR money they are now in possession of?
Can YOU explain it?
The data is indisputable so now we have to try to figure out how it happened.
Let's start with Glass Steagal. That law protected the people from having their money gambled away on Wall St by banks. Once it was rescinded the greedsters went on a gambling roll, often with the people's money, after which like all gambling binges tend to end the whole thing collapsed.
People lost their homes, their jobs, their pensions.
That gamblers however were bailed out with billions MORE of our tax dollars.
And how about Media Conglomeration.
If you're going to go on a binge with the people's money you need to go on TV and sell the idea. Why not OWN the whole damn media? But there was that regulation again, the Fairness Doctrine.
Get that out of the way and no one will tell the people what you are up to.
So they did, and they bought the media.
A Republican would never have been able to deregulate the Banks, I believe they tried, but a Dem got it done. Same thing with the Fairness Doctrine, Dems would have gone wild if a Repub had tried. So again, a Dem got it done.
Sanders opposed all these policies, voted against them.
So we know where he stands on all of this and how he voted.
I frankly don't know where Hillary stands on the very legislation signed into law by Bill Clinton that contributed so much to the inequality, the collapse of the economy etc. Do you?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)People like how Bernie Sanders has always been Bernie Sanders.
There is nothing focus-grouped or programmed about him. He is what he is and says the same things no matter who he is speaking to. Reminds me a lot of Paul Wellstone. 
Aerows
(39,961 posts)He doesn't morph into some caricature of himself to appease whoever he is answering - he says the same thing he has always said and then backs it up with his actions matching what he said.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)
freshwest This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
FrankUnderwood
(11 posts)getting what I deserve. I already sent a letter to Kerry's secretary to measure the windows so I can order curtains.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)well you know.
FrankUnderwood
(11 posts)curtains.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Gotta keep up with Meechum and Claire's good looks
Meechum fan myself.
FrankUnderwood
(11 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Donnette Thayer of Game Theory, a FB friend has launched a FB Bernie campaign.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If I look for Donnette Thayer on facebook, will I find her Sanders campaign? If so, I'll "like" it.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Is that you can't find your direction with a weathervane.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)
I appreciate the kind words.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Until the primary is over...
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
He has already done a lot of things when he was governor that Bernie is talking about.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, the one who acts most like him I mean really acts like him and isn't a Johnny come lately to the party, that is my second choice.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)unless emphasis on acting, as in the art of pretending, is very strong.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)1 'CHAMPION'
vigorously support or defend the cause of. someone who fights or speaks publicly in support of a person, belief, cause, etc.
"he championed the rights of the working class and the poor"
synonyms: advocate, promote, plead for, hold a torch for, defend, protect, uphold, support, back, espouse, ally oneself with, stand behind, stand up for, take someone's part, campaign for, lobby for, fight for, battle for, crusade for, take up the cudgels for; More
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)...the people will vote for the winning Democrat (Hillary Clinton) every time.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)both financially and with the ground grass root efforts and Bernie Sanders could win.
But for a Democrat to support a candidate just because they think that candidate is electable is a total lame excuse. They are in fact voting for a corporate state. If voters keep this attitude and accept the status quo then we as a nation are headed for a fascist state where wealth and the wealthiest will control everything.
So then Why not Bernie? Why do you think he is not electable?
Does anyone realize what Obama just accomplished for the Corporate World? He just handed them more control and much more power if the TPP passes.
Hillary Clinton will not be any different. She will feed Democrats enough crumbs to try to get their support or think she is really working for them and then when she thinks no one is looking she will turn to her corporate partners and reach for her check.
Hillary will be Obama II...
Its really shameful that it wasn't a Republican President that gave us trade deals that cost us jobs...With all the job killing trade deals passed we have had a Democrat in the White House.
No Democratic candidate can win without union support.
