Bernie Sanders Argues He's Not 'Harming' Democratic Party by Staying in the Race
Source: ABC News
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders argued today that he's "absolutely not" harming the Democratic Party by staying in the 2016 primary race, but rather "invigorating" the party.
"I don't think I'm harming the Democratic Party," Sanders said in an interview on ABC's "The View." "I think I'm invigorating American democracy and invigorating the Democratic Party. The establishment obviously doesn't like it. They would like us to go away and do things in the same old, same old."
The Vermont senator, who continues to battle Democratic rival Hillary Clinton despite her delegate lead, also asserted that he's brought in more voters and suggested that his candidacy has helped the Democratic Party achieve an "unprecedented increase in voter registration among young people, among Latinos."
Sanders also clarified remarks he made in a recent interview with The Associated Press in which he said that the convention would be "messy."
"People in America have the right to demonstrate," Sanders said on "The View." "It's kind of what the Constitution of the United States is."
"It goes without saying ... that I will condemn any and all forms of violence," Sanders said, adding, "I don't see anything wrong with a vigorous debate."
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-argues-harming-democratic-party-staying-race/story?id=39337863
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)I mean that as in, you're wrong about him not helping the Democratic Party, I only joined because of him, there are many more like me.
And two, you've got no guarantee about liberals and democrats just... coming together after this.
We liberal Bernie supporters have been shat on this entire primary, it's pretty offensive to me to hear that "oh, we'll all get back to normal after this."
No. I've been called a racist, a sexist. I've been told that I don't care about Black Lives. I've been told that I'm destroying the party and I'm not welcome here. I've been called a whole bunch of other things.
I may hold my own nose when it comes time in the general, but you cannot have faith that everyone else will.
After this year, there likely won't be a Kumbaya moment.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You can hold your nose and vote or not. it's up to you and no one is going to bed for your vote.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)The more HRC speak the more I dig in my heels.
I have never just obeyed. Principles over party. And I am tired of the Democrats having the idea to tell voters "we suck, but not as much as those other guys."
retrowire
(10,345 posts)AT LEAST WE'RE NOT REPUBLICANS!!!
Fuck that, let's just do the right thing and do it one hundred percent! Let's work to give people what they deserve, and work to give people what we CAN GIVE THEM.
Get all the corruption and money out of washington and actually fix this fucking thing! Incrementalism does not fucking work.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)merge with the Republicans and get it over with. Given that a GOP super pac has endorsed Debbie W. Shultz, I doubt that day is far off. disgraceful on both issues.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Way to work to bring the party together..."
Less or more divisive than "the only reason I became a Democrat was because of Sanders"? Less or more divisive than "he more HRC speak the more I dig in my heels"?
Seems you've taken the ethically convenient route of holding the opposition to a higher standard than you hold yourself to, and indicting them for what you yourself are guilty of doing.
Bias certainly blinds an undisciplined mind to anything which doesn't validate its biases... and you're accurately illustrating that (plenty of room below tough to rationalize the double-standard you advertise so vigorously)
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)If HRC wants my vote, she needs to tell the Clinton Bros to stop and control her Clinton Bros. Sound familiar?
Or does that only apply to Bernie Sanders?
Clinton people are making it harder and harder for me to vote on the presidential line. I may just do down ticket voting and ignore the president.
Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich isn't much of a choice.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Been slandered more by the H camp in the last year than I have been my whole life.
It is a shame Hillary hasn't even tried to constrain her supporters. Instead she's kinda been leading them on.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)I bet you don't even realize how ironic your post is.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And even more about herself.
But in the debates she sure told some truths and we all were shocked she could be so cruel. No wonder she's ducking debates. Quack, quack!!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Or are forgetting that the "berniebros" slur is justified by pointing to the time Bernie said to stop that stuff?
But HRC has always tried to play both sides, always am embarrassment when it gets caught.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)anymore than the actions of some supposed Bernie supporters are the fact of Bernie and it serves no good for anyone to be claiming its either candidates fault.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Several times Bernie has scolded his more raunch supporters.
I recall not once H doing likewise for her's.
I never used the word fault. That word is entirely your construct. I did imply she seems at time she has been egging them on, and Bernie never has, iirc.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)I dont buy that kind of logic and I still believe its not the fault of either candidate and instead the fault of the supposed supporters though I have to wonder if anyone of them are really just out cause trouble for the two Democratic candidates.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)The supporters (and that includes the media outlets and columnists) and all of the slandering of Bernie supporters just completely cemented the deal. There will be no coming together moment for a LOT of us. I know I don't speak for all of the Bernie supporters, but I'm sure I speak for plenty when I say that none of us would vote for the Clintons in a million years after the way we've been treated.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)Not that the lack of change is his fault because I don't think many people could imagine that the Republicans would be so spiteful as to throw the people of this country under the bus because their candidate lost to a black Democrat.
Edit: PS I really need to proofread before replying as this screen is way to tiny lol
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Been slandered more by the H camp in the last year than I have been my whole life...."
I'd allege that too if my bias depended on it. Oppression allows us a moral high-ground we so rarely stand on elsewhere in life.
DemMomma4Sanders
(274 posts)The name of the party...Democratic is great although its been anything but. We're a republic not a democracy. It seems that the older voters aren't even democratic rather hiding under the banner but in reality a Republican lite.
Two things can happen. The party can purge itself of the dinosaurs and start addressing modern problems with modern populist solutions like Direct democracy and Democratic socialism or the older democrats will merge with "Jenna Bush" style socially liberal fiscally conservative republicans and disruptive candidates will take over whats blue of the map today.
For a time, so long as the elites in the Democratic party deny that times have changed, this whole disruption is going to benefit the republican party.
It's a matter of how much damage are the FINANCIERS willing to do to the party before they acknowledge the populace may fear the word socialism, BUT SOCIALISM IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE WANTS.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)will stay involved in the Democrat party and help drag it back to what it should be.
There are many of us older Bernie supporters who've been active in the party a long time and we want you to stay. Please, start running for party offices as well a local offices (for a start). We're not getting any younger, someone has to be there to pick up the reins.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)But all these Hillary supporters that have literally told me that I don't belong do get a bit grating on the nerves.
You can try to be someones partner only so much ya know?
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)I've been active in the party since McGovern ran and the Hillbots have made me have second thoughts about staying involved - but then I feel like I should if only to be a thorn in some people's side.
I'm relatively lucky though in that most the people in my local party organization are Bernie supporters and most the Hillary supporters are reasonable people. It's the party organization at higher levels that has left me wondering.
But glad to hear you're going to stay around.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)For tanking our party in state houses and senates and the US Congress. He thanked her. WOW. People are done with DWS,
modestybl
(458 posts)... if he is the nominee, we will get POTUS Sanders.
if HRC is the nominee, we will get POTUS Trump.
The only way the latter isn't the case, is if HRC adopts most of Sanders' policies and attititudes. That is why Sanders is taking this to the convention. And he is already winning political battles in this regard, which was his priority.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)He lost any integrity that he had when he took hint message negative after saying he would run a positive campaign.
No better than those he criticizes.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)I think you made a wrong right turn somewhere...................
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)harm to the party by remaining in the race in spite of the lower number of delegates he has won.
modestybl
(458 posts)... who hasn't a clue about what people's lives are like now... and if HRC runs the way she wants to in the fall (i.e., as a Repub), then we will be getting POTUS Trump.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)their preferred candidate of either Bernie or Hillary doesnt win.
modestybl
(458 posts)...you've just strengthen my point about HRC...
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)modestybl
(458 posts)... my vote won't counteract the millions HRC supporters turn off by their arrogance and cluelessness..
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)More reasons HRC is light years away from earning my vote.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)His campaign slogan is "A future to believe in"--implying you can't believe Hillary.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Again. . .enjoy that HRC Kool Aid, pal!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Oh, and what happened to those 2015 tax returns Sanders promised to turn over weeks ago? Jane still filling them out?
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)the Clintons are worth. You are beating a dead horse.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)http://time.com/money/4235986/bernie-sanders-millionaire-finances/
And where are those 2015 tax returns Sanders promised to turn over?
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)According to the disclosure, Sanders and his wife Jane reported between $194,026-$741,030 in assets, a broad combination of investment funds.
The relatively modest disclosure is another indication that Sanders a populist and self-described democratic socialist who rails against the billionaire class and has called income inequality the great moral issue of our time is far less wealthy than many of his Senate colleagues
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)If he is an open book with so few assets, why not disclose his 2015 tax returns--or any prior year besides 2014?
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)As for his tax returns, lets make a deal:
Bernies tax returns for transcripts and videos of her banker speeches
Hillary sometimes made more on ONE of her speeches than Sanders is WORTH.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Saved me having to address him or her b4 hitting the ignore button.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)Firstly, is it verboten for a wealthy person to have a conscience and be in favor of a more fair system (ie. Warren Buffett). Do they have to give away all that they have to the poor first? That's a religious concept not a real-world one.
Secondly, even if you actually believed in the first point, $750,000? In the city I live, that cannot even buy you a house and property.
ridiculous
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)Vermont's personal income above U.S. average
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/industries/2015/04/08/vermont-personal-income-average/25474359/
You think in a mostly white, above average earning State, that $750,000 net worth is the 1%?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)From the little peek we got when Sanders finally revealed his full 2014 returns (the only year he has turned over), the amount of real estate taxes he listed on his deductions sheet indicated he holds property worth at least three times what the average real estate owner in VT seeks deductions for.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)Please take your own advice.
Bernie Sanders is one of the poorest members of the US Senate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-hes-one-poorer-members-united-/
And you still haven't answered why he is a "hypocrite" simply because he wants to help those who are not doing as well as even himself and his wife are.
I think it best you stop digging
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)For which she made more from those alone than Sanders makes in a year. I see where your priorities lie.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Despite protestations to the contrary, they've been socking away the Tubman's since Arkansas.
And it's always been about pleasing those 'big donors' with them.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)It's always been about them.
And yeah WJC supported NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Telecommunications Act, Welfare 'Reform', etc. which are really Democratic programs
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)DOMA?
NAFTA?
DADT?
Telecommunications Act?
Who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
And you think HRC-WJC, Inc, and their allies in Congress aren't going to continue to favor corporations over the interests of working people?
Cool - I've got a unicorn and some fairies in my garden that I'd like to sell you. Along with a big purple dinosaur who sings.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Hillary was not on the mind when the slogan was created.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)This is a joke.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)for something they said or did however many years ago.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No.
Implying that you can't believe IN Hillary.... which is so very true.
She's completely manufactured.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Not knowing he is hurting Democratic chances in the general election is delusional
Joining the party he attacks is hypocritical.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I must have missed it.
He is a truth teller. If that's what is considered negative, I feel sorry for Hillary supporters.
But Bernie has not been negative in this campaign.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)He called Hillary unqualified
He said she was the lesser of two evils
He promised that the convention would be negative
I could go on but you probably not reading by now.
Those are all in the last 3 days.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)what her wealthy friends tell her.
In contrast, Bernie was on the Banking Committee when he first served in the House and now serves on the Senate Budget committee. He is far better qualified than she.
She is at best and maybe not even at best the lesser of two evils.
How positive or negative the convention will be will depend on those who manage the convention as we saw in Nevada.
I have a long attention span. In fact, I am noted for it.
None of that is negative campaigning. Negative campaigning is Trump's calling out Bill Clinton's sex history and blaming Hillary for enabling him.
Bernie avoids negative ads and campaigning like the plague. Please read his book. He explains and describes his campaigns in there.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)If she is unqualified, then why after all the investigations and allegations has nothing substantial turned up?
You believe some right wing lies about her for convenience. She will be our next President.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)I think there is a good chance he will split the party to the point that Trump could win. Not that he seems to care. I liked him at first but I don't like the Bernie that I am seeing now.
And that would be a disaster of enormous proportions.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)By convention time, the party will be united. By November, most folks won't even remember about what happened in May or June.
There will be some Bernie supporters that won't vote for Hillary. That's expected, and that's fine. That's democracy.
But, for the most part, the party will be united in its attempt to put Hillary in the White House.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)But I will vote against Trump.
To clarify that subject line, it means I'll never vote "for" Hillary or anything that she is. I do not like her or trust her at all.
The only reason she'll get my vote is because I'm against trump.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)If I have to vote for her, I can only make peace with it by telling myself Im not voting for her, I'm voting AGAINST him.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Brother Joe Observes
(61 posts)until June 7th.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Worse is the fact he takes no responsibility..
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)....yet again.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Hint, its the pillar of what makes all the nations here in the Nordic (I have lived in Sweden for a decade) so wonderful to live in at almost all social levels.
As for destroying the country, I cant think of things that have done more to destroy it than NAFTA, the repeal of Glass Steagall and the odious Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, all of which were rammed down our throats by Bill Clinton, the Rethugs, and in the case of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Hillary's very own chief economic advisor Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs banker.
Hillary Blames Bernie for an Old Clintonite Hustle, and Thats a Rotten Shame
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/19/hillary-blames-bernie-old-clintonite-hustle-and-thats-rotten-shame
The Clintons have no shame, that much you can count on. That stupefying arrogance was on full display in the most recent presidential campaign debate when Hillary Clinton countered Bernie Sanders charge that she was compromised by her close ties to Goldman Sachs and other rapacious Wall Street interests with the retort: Sen. Sanders, youre the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial markets in 2000, ... to make the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main causes of the collapse in 08.
Hillary knows that the disastrous legislation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), had nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with then-President Bill Clinton, who devoted his presidency to sucking up to Wall Street. Clinton signed this bill into law as a lame-duck president, ensuring his wife would have massive Wall Street contributions for her Senate run.
Sanders, like the rest of Congress, was blackmailed into voting for the bill because it was tucked into omnibus legislation needed to keep the government operating. Only libertarian Ron Paul and three other House members had the guts to cast a nay vote. The measure freeing Wall Street firms from regulation was inserted at the last moment in a deal between President Clinton and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who had failed in an earlier attempt to get the measure enacted. Clinton signed it into law a month before leaving office.
Sanders soon figured out that he and almost all other Congress members had been tricked into providing a blank check for the marketing of bogus collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps made legal by the legislation, of which a key author was Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs partner recruited by Clinton to be undersecretary of the treasury.
Eight years later, when President Obama nominated Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, it was Sanders who put a temporary hold on the nomination, stating: Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and [former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman] Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history.
Today, Gensler is the top economic adviser to Hillary Clintons presidential campaign. And the CFMAkey legislation that was one of the main causes of the collapse in 08, enabling the great recessionis an enormous embarrassment that her husband on occasion reluctantly has conceded was drafted by his top aides and signed into law by him with great enthusiasm.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)other than that
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Mike__M
(1,052 posts)make all grumpy?
Cheer up
sounds like one of those Trump bloggers got through your filter
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)More importantly, how is the democratic party harming itself, by shoving Hillary down our throats, election fraud, etc? Bernie seems like a really conveinient person to blame.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The millions of people who voted for Hillary don't count simply because you support someone else. She won fair and square and that's eating you people up.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Contrary1
(12,629 posts)that she is failing all by herself. That won't stop them from blaming him, though.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Nasty, bitter, dogmatic an incapable of accepting defeat with any measure of grace and class.
By his constant accusations that the system was rigged against him and his insistence that he will take it to the convention and it will be "messy", he just proves what his opponents have been saying. He doesn't care about the damage that he's inflicting on the prospective nominee and the party.
Then again, why should he? He was never a Democrat to begin with, until he decided to use the party's resources to run for president.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)and asked them who they would describe as nasty and bitter, either Hillary or Bernie, Clinton's share as a percentage would dwarf her share of votes she has gotten so far in the actually primary.
If you think Bernie Sanders is nasty, god help Hillary when Trump REALLLLLY winds up his hardballs in the GE.
You have not even begun to see nasty.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Everyone knows that Trump is a vile man. Some expected more from Sanders. He seems to give two figs what happens to the party and the person who will be the nominee. Instead of pivoting to Trump, he keeps complaining about the nomination process and continues to attack Hillary. He's making it much more difficult for his supporters to reconcile with the other side and present a united front against the real enemy.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)systemic rigging, ALL in the favour of Clinton. Damn right he is going to stick up for himself.
Bernie INSPIRES ME, something I never thought possible in a mainstream USA POTUS candidate.
I will not have my joy of finally voting for a person who believes in most of what I do stilted by a bunch of corpartist sycophants and coronation pushers. Clinton's positions, ideology (or lack thereof) and backers (huge banks, huge private prisons, huge agro business, etc etc etc), plus her behaviour of self enrichment to the tune of over 100 MILLION dollars between her and Bill SICKENS ME.
This Democratic party is hijacked by neo liberal, neocon agenda loving, bankster-friendly oligarchic forces, and its losing its progressive soul. Sanders is a huge chance for us to rally back, and it's disheartening to see him treated so shabbily by the DNC on down.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Not quite:
These two one-percenters make such a great couple, don't they?
4now
(1,596 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)one candidate who took her campaign all the way to the convention in 2008 ?
ope, that's right.. Hillary Clinton. :p
Beacool
(30,247 posts)so that Obama could be nominated by acclamation. Sanders is promising a "messy" convention.
"Yuge" difference.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)hasn't happened yet..
maybe wait and see?
hes just trying to get leverage so that his supporters are given something from the party ..
just as Hillary did..
it got a lot of former Clinton people into positions under Obama and led to her becoming secretary of state...
again,
maybe wait and see? don't be such a gloomy gus :p
Beacool
(30,247 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)I hear it from Democrats and Republic0ns. Was Hillary harming the party when she stayed in until the middle of June 2008? pfftt!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)It is one thing to attack your opponent. Sanders is attacking the entire party. As always.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)she got them and Obama draped all over her to win this election. She will do and say anything.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)African Americans know the Clintons have been fighting for them for decades, all while Sanders was holed up in monochromatic Vermont.
And Latinos know Sanders voted against Kennedy's immigration reform bill while Hillary voted for it. And they remember the reason Sanders gave at the time to Lou Dobbs, making the ridiculous claim immigrants are taking good American jobs like "teachers" and "lifeguards."
The transcript is here: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/12/10981234/bernie-sanders-lou-dobbs
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Much much more: Huffington Post
Hillary Clinton appears to be playing cynical racial politics again, as she did in 2008. Its just got a different look and feel.
Today, Clinton is wrapping herself in the flag of Obama to appeal to Black voters, arguing that shes the candidate who will address the needs of Black people. Shes got her surrogates attacking her opponents civil rights bonafides, and shes built a large stable of Black establishment players to support her. Clinton is proclaiming that Black Lives Matter and offering bold promises to fight systemic racism and inequality.
But its hard to believe shes serious about fighting for racial justice unless you pretend her 2008 campaign against Obama never happened. If you remember that period, theres good reason to believe todays promises are nothing more than lip-service to a community she sees as key to winning the nomination.
Clinton is now attacking Bernie Sanders for having criticized Obama, trying to take advantage of Black folks desire to defend the president. But it was Clinton herself who waged an incredibly nasty campaign of attacks and smears against Obama, going far beyond mere policy disagreements. A quick trip down memory lane reveals that Clinton has a history of employing race in a divisive, cynical manner.
*snip*
In 2008, Secretary Clinton damaged Obamas candidacy by validating right-wing racist memes and smears, and she could have cost him victory against Republicans in the general election. She also helped hamstring the Presidents ability to battle racism by supporting and legitimizing the right-wing fear-mongering that Obama would have an agenda to work for Black people at the expense of everyone else.
I don't know why they would vote for Hillary Clinton but for one thing...she worked under Obama, the same way that Rahm Emanuel did and they elected him major in Chicago because he did. Now they are truly sorry. Bill Moyers
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)You are going to find some African Americans who do not support Clinton, like the Huffpo blogger you cite. You are also going to find some African Americans who do not support President Obama, like Cornel West. But they do not represent the vast majority of African Americans. African Americans know the Clintons have been fighting for them for decades, unlike Sanders who spent the same time pandering to his monochromatic Vermont base on every issue from immigration, to the F-35, to gun control.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)MLK, while Hillary Rodham lived in a suburb of Chicago...
As a young woman, Hillary was active in young Republican groups and campaigned for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in 1964.
While Bernie Sander attended the University of Chicago and got involved with Martin Luther King's march. Those same things that the, "monochromatic Vermont base" needs, we also in the African American community can use to help us.
1963: Economic justice has been the central focus of Sanders 40-plus-year political careeras a young activist at the University of Chicago, though, Sanders agitated more for racial equality. In 1963 he was arrested during a demonstration protesting the citys segregated schools. He also traveled to Washingtonhis first time in D.C.to hear Martin Luther King speak at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
I'm glad my mother was still alive to cut Bill Clinton's picture off the photo that she kept on her den wall, with Martin Luther King, Harold Washington and John F. Kennedy.
And as far as that F-35 gun control goes...haven't you heard, Sanders got a 'D' rating for his support of guns in his district.
BUT, don't worry..
I will vote BLUE in November!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" in high school, because she loved her father, who was a conservative Republican. But while in high school she met MLK and was deeply inspired by him. It was her strong civil rights beliefs that made her realize she was not a Republican. She has voted Democratic ever since she was old enough to vote.
Once she was an adult, in 1972, she worked for Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern and traveled to the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to register poor Latinos to vote, the start of a lifetime commitment to people of color:
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination, beat Obama 21 among Latino voters in the 2008 primary. It wasnt just name recognition, either. The Clintons have a robust network of Latino leaders and activists, and long history with outreach that dates back to 1970s in Texas.
. . .
In 1972, when a young Hillary and Bill Clinton were working the ill-fated George McGovern campaign, she worked closely with well-respected union leader, Franklin Garcia, who took her under his wing as she helped register Latino voters in south Texas and along the Rio Grande Valley.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not#.jdqM3ajE3
And what was Bernie doing in 1972? Holed up in Vermont, penning this screed:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-vermont
Stellar
(5,644 posts)jalan48
(13,856 posts)Enough Republican lite.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)I detest Truman for his war crimes of the atomic bomb drops.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)because they both have great potential imo.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)He became a democrat 15 minutes before he started to run.
jalan48
(13,856 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Hekate
(90,637 posts)At this point he is actively lying to his followers, every time he says they have a chance for him to be president. He's not trying to unify the Dem Party; he's actually trying to bring it down because it is not his vision (which begs the question, yet again, as to why he joined the party for this campaign).
At this point in the process, every time he bellows that the party is rigged, that Hillary is not to be trusted, that he and his cohorts are so special that they don't have to even read the rules of the 50 states, much less know the rules of the National Convention -- he is actively harming the rest of us and our chances to beat Trump.
Get over it Bernie. You're extorting a helluva lot from the DNC already -- don't be urging your acolytes to disrupt the proceedings as well.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)the more angry his supporters will be when he finally concedes. They may be so pissed off they will say fuck it and wont vote.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)He's going to help write the platform and that's going to be very compelling for Democrats and independents.
Squinch
(50,941 posts)riversedge
(70,186 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and it's good seeing them owning their rightward tilt as her supporters.
That's why we have had the endless succession of "chair throwing" like scandals -- to keep the focus off of comparing and contrasting their respective policy positions in the depth and breadth they should be.
Mike Nelson
(9,951 posts)...he is helping the Democratic Party, yes. He is also harming Hillary Clinton. I believe this is intentional. He sees Hillary as something more than an opponent with similar views... he sees her as the enemy. This was slow to take shape, but it's now obvious. While Bernie would not agree, he is hurting the Democratic Party by tarnishing Hillary. He would say this is good for the party, which I understand. I simply don't agree and will be voting for Hillary in November.
modestybl
(458 posts)... and we're helpless to prevent it?
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)If anything he's demonstrating how a Democracy should work. Shutting up and getting in line is not what the forefathers had envisioned. Otherwise we'd be kissing the royal ring.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It is all a big pile of BS
madokie
(51,076 posts)for Hill if I absolutely have too but I'll be damned if it will be with any gusto. I want no and I mean NO part of electing this woman to our highest office. I owe that to my Grand Daughter if nothing else. I owe that to the rest of the people in my age group. (68YO) as well. Hell everyone in America, Black, browns and all colors in between
modestybl
(458 posts)Sanders plays hard, but fair. She won't no how to take on Trump, particularly if he tacks to her left on cheap foreign labor and trade ...
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)I'm not beating my kids. I'm just correcting their behavior.