Bernie Sanders lambasts 'absolute failure' of Democratic party's strategy
Source: The Guardian
Bernie Sanders lambasts 'absolute failure' of Democratic party's strategy
Vermont senator hails the successes of the progressive agenda but says establishment Democrats are standing in the way of further gains
Adam Gabbatt in Chicago
Sunday 11 June 2017 04.14 BST Last modified on Sunday 11 June 2017 09.52 BST
Bernie Sanders has criticised the Democratic partys current direction as an absolute failure in a speech at the Peoples Summit in Chicago. Speaking to a crowd of 4,000 activists, Sanders hailed the enormous progress in advancing the progressive agenda, saying the increasing House and Senate support for a $15 minimum wage and the opposition to the Trans-Pacific partnership showed the success of the movement.
But the Vermont senator said that establishment Democrats were standing in the way of further progress. The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic party is an absolute failure, Sanders said. The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice. The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.
Sanderss speech was rapturously received at the Peoples Summit, a gathering of some of the most influential progressive activists and organizations in the country. There had been an urgency to the event on Friday and Saturday around building on the momentum of Sanderss presidential campaign, with a focus on encouraging people from different backgrounds to run for office around the country. Against that backdrop, Sanderss criticism of the Democratic party as out-of-touch and elitist appeared to ring true for activists at the summit, including those who are planning to run for office for the first time in the coming months.
(snip)
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy
We'll see if this progressive enthusiasm translates to votes in non-presidential years.
JI7
(89,180 posts)now China has all the power and the Trump trash is making private business deals with them.
Response to JI7 (Reply #1)
DFW This message was self-deleted by its author.
MBS
(9,688 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Or maybe Obama did exactly what he intended: say that the TPP would protect US workers and the environment, while negotiating an agreement that would do anything but that (just like all the other trade agreements negotiated before then under Obama: S. Korea, etc.). Either way, the duplicity about the TPP helped fuel Trump's fake populism, which is a shame.
Regardless, why did the US trade negotiator under Obama not push for enforceable worker and environmental standards? Why have private courts open to investors, but closed to workers, unions, and environmental advocates? Obama was not right about the TPP, and his failure on this front, plus the choices made in pursuit of the TPP contributed to the Republican now in the White House.
-app
JI7
(89,180 posts)And the trump trash making their private deals with them and people invesigating labor standards are disappeared in China.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I just happen to disagree that joining the corporate race to the bottom is anything close to a solution. Unions and environmental advocates deserve a place at the table and a powerful role at the outset of trade negotiations. Trying to shortcut or circumvent this (as Obama did) will just result in further Democratic losses at the ballot box.
-app
JI7
(89,180 posts)Cha
(295,916 posts)China is in charge now.
President Obama made Progress when he was in Office..
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Fast tracking the TTP, written in secret, and not allowing the people to know about it
proves it was bad for Americans.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)Trump is not a progressive, but he stands with Bernie against the TPP. The "establishment Democrats", like Gov. Cuomo of NY are actually fighting for a higher minimum wage.
Doodley
(8,976 posts)stevepal
(109 posts)that the Dems join Bernie. FAR MORE IMPORTANT!
The biggest problem right now for all progressives within and without the Dem Party is the voting machines and the voter suppression. People need to wake up. You can't have a democracy when you can't or don't verify the vote.
trueblue2007
(17,138 posts)NJCher
(35,428 posts)Suppressing conflict makes us small.
Kinda' like a certain "president" we now have.
Cher
Doodley
(8,976 posts)onetexan
(12,994 posts)if he has nothing good to say about the Dems he shouldn't be saying anything. He's demonstrating once again he's a sore & bitter loser.
Demit
(11,238 posts)If so, the story didn't mention it.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)GOP election fraud didn't start with Hillary Clinton, and won't end their. Our Party's semi-official policy has been to ignore it because acknowledging it might suppress voter turnout.
mhw
(678 posts)Along with ending Citizen's United.
And it wasn't just a stump speech. She had a complete policy plan ready to go. As well as a SCourt pick to help her do it.
Pity no one gave a shit then. But listen to the howling now.
Go figure.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I remember someone on here posting in a similar glowing style about Clinton's 50 State Strategy. I went to her website, and other then a page basically saying she had a 50 State Strategy (oddly enough it tests well out here in flyover country) there was no there there.
Nothing.
Go figure.
It seems more like the DNC didn't give a shit in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016. It seems like it only matters to some people now that it effects Hillary Clinton. Or maybe it's that it's Putin authorizing the election fraud instead of the GOP.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)stevepal said that, instead of Bernie joining the Dems, the Dems should join Bernie! Then he (stevepal) segued into what he thought was the most important issue today, vote suppression. To me, that implies that Bernie's position on vote suppression is one of the reasons the Democratic Party should join Bernie.
Maybe stevepal knows for a fact that vote suppression is a very important issue to Bernie. It seems odd, then, that Bernie wouldn't mention it in a speech directed at 4,000 progressive activists. Maybe he forgot.
Igel
(35,197 posts)And he should follow his leader.
His leader is (I), used the party as a tool for his own purposes in the election last year after working with it because it was a useful tool. He has no loyalty to it.
So the poster should follow his leader, whom he obviously thinks we should emulate. BSUnderground, perhaps?
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)You know that's true. People on here still whine about Nader even though it was GOP caging and election fraud that lost Florida for Gore, but we're not supposed to talk about that.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I pretend concern and analysis is simply whining as well... it allows us to frame both our narrative so much more effectively, and advertises our bias so much more accurately.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)If Sanders had run as an independent, the same people complaining about Jill Stein would be complaining about Sanders. He didn't run as an independent after his primary run, despite the invitation from the Green Party. He campaigned for the Democratic candidate.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Should they say nothing about a competitor?
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I live in Texas, the Democratic Party has been counting on the shift in demographics to flip Texas purple or (with a great campaigner like Obama) blue . The GOP knows this too. We use touch screen voting here.
How long will the GOP be able to stay in power in Texas with election fraud?
What has the Democratic Party done about election fraud?
When Gore won the 2000 election, despite voter purges and a ballot design deliberately to confuse anyone not voting for the Governor of Florida's brother, how did he end up losing the election?
When the Congressional Black Caucus tried to bring evidence of election fraud to the US Senate, what did the Democratic Party do? - This one I'll answer for you: they literally laughed in their faces.
Demit
(11,238 posts)That way you can talk about what you want to talk about.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)so that the party "leadership" can shut him up.
Other than Van Jones, why didn't the oh so progressive Democratic Party leadership send anyone to the People's Summit? Not a Presidential Election year would be my guess.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine asking what the Dems have done vis-a-vis voter suppression is a wonderfully creative way to avoid answering a direct question with a direct answer.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)All of sudden it's something to be concerned about instead of something to be ignored, why is that?
Cha
(295,916 posts)And here he is with Rachel Maddow back in 2012:
Sanders calls Trump a 'political coward' over voter suppression report
Sanders: Trump 'delusional' on voter fraud claims
This is pretty good, too:
Link to tweet
Cha
(295,916 posts)is on the Front Lines Fighting against the Fascistrumps.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)interest in electing more democrats.
I cant talk about it here, but people better start and soon.
I could say lots of critical stuff about Bernie and Thom and Cenk and Ed but I dont know if I would be banned, even though they are not democrats I think I would be.
So i cant.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)...anything substantial.
IDK what Bernie, Thom Cenk and Ed have to do with that, but unless you have excessive posts hidden, you won't be banned.
Mostly , but for what it's worth, I've had posts hidden, it's not that big a deal. Just keep in mind that Sanders supporters and people who feel the Democratic Party needs to change feel pretty much the same as you do.
Unfortunately.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)+1
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)If you have a problem with the money in our politics obligating our representatives to represent Donors instead of the people then you get Bernie's message.
It is not like Democrats cannot be swayed by money and power like Republicans are, they are people too. Wall Street not being even investigated for the massive fraud surrounding he 08 crash happened on OUR watch! It is harder to reform a Party from the inside than the outside. Our Party has a lot of problems caused by entrenched money interests and we need to pressure it to reform. Recruiting new candidates is the pressure we need!
Way 2 Go Bernie!
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)at all.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Along with not recognizing how race impacts everything, even his economic focus.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Sorry that facts interrupt your narrative...
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)it''s what's for dinner
Cha
(295,916 posts)Party" gatherings about Voter Suppression.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Cha
(295,916 posts)he never mentions Voter Suppression.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)And here:
And here:
And then there's this:
And here he is with Rachel Maddow back in 2012:
And here's something:
And there's a lot more over several years, but yeah, other than all that, he's never said a word about voter suppression.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)(and I happen to agree) -- voting machines and voting suppression.
How is "joining Bernie" going to solve that?
Me.
(35,454 posts)A Bernie Bot
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)I will watch the democratic party be divided though and NOT take back either the house or senate as a result.
If I could talk about it here, I would. But I cant.
Me.
(35,454 posts)I have seen a lot of hit and runs this last cycle
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)wont play well here when I also insist on reminding people what happened last year and that
IT
IS
HAPPENING
AGAIN
brer cat
(24,401 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)damage to the Democratic party and it will again be too late that it is recognized for what it is.
Doodley
(8,976 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He seems to be leading more in saying that Democrats "lost" the election because people refused to vote for them, not that they couldn't.
QC
(26,371 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Especially since he didn't even mention it in the speech in the OP.
http://thedemocraticstrategist.org/2017/05/feingold-how-to-fight-voter-suppression/
Feingold, who has formed a new organization, LegitAction, an organization focused on restoring legitimacy to our democracy, notes further:
There rightfully exists a high threshold for any law that subjects states to the oversight of Washington. Jim Crow met that threshold, the Supreme Court decided in the 1960s. The onslaught of voter suppression in the past four years should also be recognized as the emergency that it is especially as the state-level efforts have been coupled with an executive branch intent on doubling down on such suppression. This extraordinary set of circumstances meets the criteria justifying oversight. Protecting voting rights the vehicle through which the power of the people is exercised must take precedent over the convenience and sovereignty of the states.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/25/dnc-focuses-voting-rights-fight-trumps-voter-fraud-commission/102141244/
The Democratic National Committee is launching a new voting commission to combat a recently announced Trump administration effort to investigate voter fraud which Democrats fear will lead to voter suppression in poor and minority communities.
The commission will document and report on voter suppression tactics and make recommendations for strengthening access to the polls for all Americans, according to a statement provided to USA TODAY.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/318241-former-dem-senate-candidate-launches-voting-rights-group
Jason Kander, the Missouri Democrat who narrowly lost a Senate bid last year, is jumping back into national politics with a new organization aimed at protecting voting rights.
The former Missouri secretary of states new group, "Let America Vote," aims to win the public debate over voter suppression as Democrats continue to coalesce around voting rights in the wake of calls by President Trump for an investigation into his claim, presented without evidence, that millions of illegal votes were cast in 2016.
QC
(26,371 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)supression.
"He seems to be leading more in saying that Democrats "lost" the election because people refused to vote for them, not that they couldn't."
My response to your second reply was asking for more recent statements, which you gave.
But lets be honest here, those videos still didn't establish him as a "leader" in combatting voter suppression, because as I said - talking about it isn't "leading" an effort to do something about it. And yes, my statement above in quotes still stands.
Is that clearer?
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)ananda
(28,783 posts)I think that when Dems run on a liberal left platform
they will start winning.
It's when they go all centrist and corporate that they
have problems.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)The candidate who would have FOUGHT against the russians and the sessions and the trumps and so on, remember her?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I have a problem with Bernie attacking the Dem Party when he isn't a member. Our country is not Vermont. Nationally we have a two party system. That's how it goes Bernie. We see you attack the Dems & then down the road you want folks to vote Dem. Get my meaning?
LakeArenal
(28,729 posts)We just got past three weeks of Bernie YES Bernie NO......
Argue the points of his statement please.... Not the labels.
Either join the party, or start your own, Sen Sanders.
Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
KPN
(15,587 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)respond to hyperbole with hyperbole.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)there is a large effort to DIVIDE the democratic party.
I cant say more.
DownriverDem
(6,206 posts)Focus on trump and the repubs. I fear repub control.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)And tell Sanders to focus on Trump. He is the one throwing bombs at the Democrats.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Response to appal_jack (Reply #93)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(295,916 posts)And here he is with Rachel Maddow back in 2012:
Sanders calls Trump a 'political coward' over voter suppression report
Sanders: Trump 'delusional' on voter fraud claims
This is pretty good, too:
Link to tweet
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Whether Sanders has focused on voter suppression or not, it's an important issue that deserves a lot of focus.
-app
Cha
(295,916 posts)zephyr teachout, Russ Feingold, etc?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Cha
(295,916 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)...c'mon and join the Democrats permanently - we'd love to have you!
RandySF
(57,647 posts)DFW
(54,055 posts)It was despicable of them to declare their allegiance, and tie the Democratic Party's future to "Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies." Right.
I understand that the grumpy old man routine still plays to certain choirs, and that we should not lose sight of who our adversaries are. But in a time when we are in the opposition in all three branches of government, we need to close ranks rather than break up into smaller, weaker factions. We can better afford to do that when we run the place again (though we'll lose again if we do). Using the expression "absolute failure" in connection with the Democratic Party will bring a smile to more Republican faces than to ours.
*replacement for a post in the wrong place earlier in the thread
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Your post and a few others seem to say: the 2016 primary is long over (it is) and lets unite, in respectful silence behind the leadership that has been losing elections for 20+ years (with a pitifully few exceptions).
If I can be just as ageist as your "grumpy old man routine" statement, take a look at the ages of our young and vibrant Democratic Party leadership compared to Senator Sanders:
Bernie Sanders age 75 years
Hillary Clinton age 69 years
Chuck Schumer age 66 years
Nancy Pelosi age 77 years
I'm pointing this out because much of our party leadership is "of an age" to have seen "hippy culture" bring down the Democratic Party before. They operate out of fear of McGovern, and Democratic primary voters electing someone unable to win a general election. They fear Reagan stomping them into the dirt. They fear a renewed and reinvigorated Newt Gingrich-type Gopper making America even more divided. In short: they fear.
Charles Manson is in jail. Most voters today wouldn't know what the Altamont Free Concert was, and Reagan's dead. Newt Gingrich is divisively referred to as "fat Elvis". The only way that this country can get more divided is if the GOP is allowed to start using paramilitaries on the street - something that some Republicans want.
We need the Democratic Party to not be frightened of fighting the GOP, change or the voters of the Democratic Party.
DFW
(54,055 posts)"We need the Democratic Party to not be frightened of fighting the GOP, change or the voters of the Democratic Party."
Agreed.
"Your post and a few others seem to say: the 2016 primary is long over (it is) and lets unite, in respectful silence behind the leadership that has been losing elections for 20+ years (with a pitifully few exceptions)."
Ridiculous.
I didn't say unite exclusively behind candidates who are eligible for Social Security. A friend of mine who also happened to be the most successful DNC chair in recent history said in 2009 he thought and hoped that serious future candidates for president should be around age 50. He only threw his support behind Hillary because no one with his wish-credentials stepped up. His wish still stands, and I am with him on this, despite my own looming grumpy old man status. What Howard accomplished was far from pitiful, the way I see it, and his accomplishments were sweeping. He didn't lose much or often.
Nor did I say unite in "respectful (or any other)" silence. And just WHAT leadership did I specify to unite behind? Please remind me? I DID say that we need to unite, and Sanders is being divisive. To his credit, he makes no pretense of being anything else. But he does our cause no favors with this tack at this point. IN 2009, Howard said we need new blood, and I agree. But new or old, NOT Republican-style nose-in-the-air, my way or the highway tactics. They get away with it because they have a media arm that keeps 40% of the voters of the country in a political trance. We have no such thing--to OUR credit. But it means more work and demands more Fingerspitzengefühl than Bernie Sanders or his advocates seem willing to provide at this point.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)"I didn't say unite exclusively behind candidates who are eligible for Social Security."
My point about the age of the Democratic Leadership isn't their social security status. It was for two reasons: 1) They aren't that much younger - or only two years older in the case of Representative Pelosi than Senator Sanders; and 2) They are influenced by the times they lived in. To clarify what I mean by the second point, I'll use an excerpt from Alan Dershowitz threatening to leave the Democratic Party if Keith Ellison were elected Chairperson:
"
Jeremy Corbyn today could not get elected dog catcher in Great Britain. I do not want to see the Democratic Party relegated to permanent minority status as a hard-left fringe.
Remember what happened when the Democrats moved left by nominating George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all good men. The total combined electoral votes for these candidates would not have won a single election. There is no reason to think the country has moved so far to the left since those days that the Democrats can win by pushing even further in the direction of the hard left. The self-destructive election of Keith Ellison will be hard to undo for many years.
So, tomorrow, the Democrats must choose between electing Ellison or keeping centrist liberals...
Hindsight being 20/20 we have the benefit of seeing Labour under Corbin begin to reverse the massive electoral loses brought about by "New Labour" - the UK's adaptation of Third Way politics.
"And just WHAT leadership did I specify to unite behind? Please remind me?"
Ok: " Yes, shame on Hillary, Obama, Schumer and Pelosi
It was despicable of them to declare their allegiance, and tie the Democratic Party's future to "Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies." Right. "
If I completely misread your post title and first two sentences as sarcasm I apologize.
"But new or old, NOT Republican-style nose-in-the-air, my way or the highway tactics."
That's how a lot of the posts in this thread sound to me. It's also how much of the Democratic Party Leadership sounds to me. They say that the party platform doesn't matter, but fight tooth and nail to keep anti-fracking language out. They say who Chairs the DNC doesn't matter and then fought harder than I've seen them fight in a looong time to make sure Tom Perez became Chair. Since the 2016 election I've seen the Democratic Party Leadership fight the so-called "hard left" (a term some of them use) harder and more effectively than they've fought the GOP since I could vote. I wouldn't mind if they were winning so many elections that I was sick of winning - but it's been the opposite of that.
LSFL
(1,109 posts)His progressive agenda didn't win him the nomination. Increasing support for his ideas?
Sounds like a bunch of failure incrementalism.
We need to pull together and I like a lot of Bernie's ideas but his scorched earth delivery is often off putting for a moderate guy like me.
I wish he would join the party. It would be better if he worked from within.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)in MT's special election didn't help Rob at all. In fact, many GOPer ads were successful in tying Rob to "the Socialist" because of his support for Bernie in the Dem primaries and Bernie's arrival in MT on the last weekend only confirmed that. This was a factor in some voting for the Libertarian candidate instead.
I can't justify their actions in doing so - any more than I can justify anyone sane's voting FOR Gianforte. But the fact is that it happened.
I am ashamed of the outcome in my birth state, no matter how it happened.
LSFL
(1,109 posts)I live in KY. Most folks are reps. They have been terribly misguided. If you can strip away the propaganda, you can actually have a conversation with them.
It takes me about 2 years to break through.
/
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)I knew in my youth were decent people. I attribute much of that to the fact that they - or close members of their families - were either recent immigrants to the US, or had either experienced the Great Depression or fought in the horror that WWII was or both. I also attribute that to the fact that rail transportation still linked this country to an extent difficult to imagine today.
In my little rural town of 1000+ people, we had many cultures, albeit Western European for the most part, five religions (Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Mormon and Baptist) and even more bars. (!) Even there, we looked outward towards the bigger picture and we believed in a national identity even though we were also proud Montanans who were committed to our close-knit communities. That was true of the majority of members of both parties. I saw this begin to change inexorably in the 1970s, replaced with "me-ism" in the 1980s, only to become the full-blown GOPer madness we have today.
Since the end of WWII, we have had no profoundly similar shared national experiences to bring us ALL together, except briefly perhaps, for 9-11. With rail and bus transportation - little of it public - less available to the working class, people have tended to travel - when they do at all - in automobiles where they are alone or with close family members or friends and are subjected to a barrage of RW hate radio. They have tended to isolate themselves into parochial enclaves, dependent on religious teachings which have been in too many cases radical RW evangelical. This has all exacerbated racial, social and economic divisions so that some regions of the US truly resemble "developing nations" and let stereotypes instead of actual individuals guide their reactions to the world.
In so many ways, the US has gone backwards while the rest of the world - including many "developing nations" - has moved forward. I mourn this profoundly and I fear that what happened in November 2016 could be the beginning of the end of our great experiment. I cannot forgive ANYONE who actively voted for Trump or who enabled this situation.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this being the end. But I am not optimistic.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)sought, as big money is needed.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)The press wouldn't be publishing his every word now if he hadn't succeeded in raising and spending more than any candidate in history.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)dozens of $27 donations from the same person on the same day. http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-bernie-sanders-donors-who-are-giving-too-much/482418/
And of course the super pacs. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/
The Wall Street fundraisers were before he ran for president. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Sanders, for his part, has forcefully and repeatedly insisted that he does not haveor wanta super PAC. His campaign has been explicit as well. Earlier this month, after the Associated Press reported that an Oakland-based progressive super PAC plans to spend money in support of Sanders, the campaign emailed supporters with the message: we dont want this super PACs help. The campaign has also sent a cease and desist letter to another pro-Sanders super PAC, alleging a violation of federal law
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)as the Time article about the Alaska makes clear.
Making an issue of policy and legal reform about supposed personal virtue is problematic. Firstly, few of us are as virtuous as we claim. Secondly, the issue is about policy and law, not that one or two politicians pretend to be superior to the rest. Super Pacs can and do spend unlimited amounts of money. It is that spending that is far more revealing than statements by politicians. They spend regardless of what a politician might say, and the words don't lesson the impact of money on the political system.
I myself support legal reform, which is why I voted Democrat in the general election. Now that Trump is president and making appointments to SCOTUS, that has been set back at least a generation. Bernie, for his part, appears to have abandoned legal reform of the campaign finance system and instead talks about how all candidates should raise money like he did, which is of course impossible since few manage his level of celebrity or wall-to-wall media coverage. It also ignores the far greater influence of money in politics at the local, congressional, and legislative level, where candidates are not celebrities. We now see that among too many self-described progressive voters, the issue of systemic reform has been abandoned in favor of talking points against Democrats and the Democratic Party, with little attention to affecting a legal change of the system.
That is but one of the problems that arise from an approach to politics as about personalities rather than issues.
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He seems rather reluctant to release his tax returns.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Bringing in that sort of money while attacking big money interests is actually pretty impressive when I think about it .
George II
(67,782 posts)Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
brush
(53,474 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 11, 2017, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)
What is with him?
Keep splintering the Dems and we lose to the repugs next year again.
Didn't he learn anything from 2016?
The embarrassment that is trump is making a sham of the presidency and the repugs are putting up with it so they can take away health care and give the rich a trillion dollar tax cut and Sanders, to his credit, did blast trump and the repugs at the Peoples' Summit but why the continual bad mouthing of his allies instead of just the actual villians standing right in front of everyone's eyes?
Guess it plays in Peoria. Anything for a standing O at a progressive rally, right?
2018 is coming up and Sanders is still pulling this "blast the Democrats" crap.
WTF?
FWIW Peoria is blue and voted for Hillary
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)China will corner the Asian market while we build our fences. Sander's assumes that he is right about his positions. I happen to think he assumes too much.
watoos
(7,142 posts)Are you saying that Democrats should have supported the TPP? The majority of the TPP wasn't even about trade. Are you saying that corporations should decide disputes in tribunals instead of the courts?
Donald Trump came out strongly against the TPP and because he did he got a lot of union and working class votes.
Stop talking about Sanders v Hillary, talk about issues. The TPP was a big giveaway to corporate America, dam. If we are now talking about supporting it, I'm out of the Democratic party.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Obama was right to pivot to Asia and away from the Middle East. Trade was the main reason for that shift. The growing Asia consumer market will make our domestic consumer market pale in comparison. People like Sander's and Trump fight the fact that digitalization has shrunk the world. Our workers will pay a heavy cost for this flat earth approach to trade.
KPN
(15,587 posts)Globalization theory seems to be going the way of trickle-down for the majority of workers thus far. Show the reverse and maybe we'll all get on board, but thus far it looks to me like economic theory that hasn't exactly been successful to date.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)but that is about to change.
No one here gives a shit about globalization. If they did, we wouldn't see continually comments about how the fifties to seventies were so much better, when that was a period when the US dominated global trade enforced through military empire and regime change. The concern is not globalization or neoliberalism but the decline of American empire. That is made clear by its timing. The days we see hearkened back to were when prosperity for the white, male-dominated bourgeoisie was made possible by US empire--a period when the US government overthrew democratically elected governments (eg. Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and countless more) and sanctioned genocide in order to secure natural resources .
It's a nationalist ideology that focuses elusively on the benefits to one class, gender and race in American society while ignoring the global atrocities and domestic inequality that made their prosperity possible.
Phoenix61
(16,953 posts)but IMO one of the reasons the 50's were so much better for the American worker is because they got a much larger share of the profits their work produced. The wage gap has grown exponentially since then. I understand automation has taken jobs but many companies are making record profits and that increase in earnings has been shifted more and more to the top and to investors. I find it interesting that the very ones who have benefited the most from this shift are the same ones who are saying the problem is overseas competition. Makes you wonder, no?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)it. And China has been strengthened economically. The jobs were already in Asia. TPP opened markets for American exporters.
I fell for the rhetoric about TPP at the time, and I feel stupid as a result. I let myself get played by people who knew absolutely nothing about the terms of the agreement and were fighting a decades old battle against NAFTA.
Countries are now forming unilateral trade deals with China, without environmental and labor protections. The defeat of TPP is a massive boon for companies that don't want to pay decent wages or have any restrictions on child labor, etc... My sense is that will mark--along with Trump of course--a sharp decline in American trade and with it opportunity for the middle class.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)education alone would no longer be enough to compete. These changes are rooted in historical context. When the Industrial Age began, people moved to the cities in order to benefit. There was just as much opposition to that shift back then. Now, the Industrial Age has come to an end. Today's model requires less dependence on companies and more reliance on entrepreneurial skills. This will be a difficult change in mindset for a workforce that hasn't been entrepreneurial for decades but offers a world market as reward for such skills. A knowledge of American history makes the opposition to the digital world very predictable IMO.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Not that you're not saying this but just brought to my mind that his opposition to the TPP isn't because of any real concern for workers or human rights or the environment or even economic stability. tRump has already proven he does not care about any of those things by his actions since the day he stole the office. He's strictly anti-Obama, anti-Democratic... anything to rile up the angst of the typical repub.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)Open your eyes, Donald Trump and the Republican party just took a big chunk of our base away from us, working people, union people. Ignore that fact at our own peril.
When Tom Perez won over Keith Ellison I will never give another dime to the DNC. I will give directly to the candidates.
Everything that Bernie said I agree with 100%. My dad told me 55 years ago that the Democratic party was for the poor people and the Republican party was for the rich people. That simple statement was the backbone of the Democratic party. When a sports team is struggling they go back to the basics. I think we need to go back to the basics.
You don't have to be a Dem to see the gaping holes in our strategy any more than you have to be Republican to see they are a crowd of thugs.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and hopelessly corrupt. It's a wining strategy alright, but not for the Democrats or progressives.
watoos
(7,142 posts)Did you listen to him laying into Trump, flat out lambasting him?
It's not a winning strategy when Democrats go on TV saying, oh we're not there yet for impeachment, that sickens my stomach. Republicans scream lock her up and Democrats say, oh we're not there yet.
They should be saying, impeachment he//, lock him up. When they say, the president can't be convicted of a crime, bring up his conflicts of interest, his violations of the emoluments clause, his cabinet committing perjury, his cabinet lying on their security clearance forms.
The Republican party is full of Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Al Greens and Kristan Gillibrands, we need more of them.
Lock him up
I read the bumper sticker on a pickup in front of me a half hour ago, it said, Trump 2016, stop the bs. Trump is nothing but bs but the propaganda worked.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)that is what I am responding to. There have been dozens and dozens of articles like this because he gives the media lots of attacks on Democratic the party to talk about. No other politician outside the GOP provides these sort of headlines for the media. If he didn't want remarks like this covered, he would stop making them, but of course that's not the case. One doesn't generate dozens of headlines like this by accident.
Maxine Waters and Kristen Gilibrand are not Republicans. If you choose to call Bernie a Republican, that's your affair, but leave those women out of it.
JI7
(89,180 posts)But not bernie
mhw
(678 posts)He wants to weaken the best fighters for us we could ever have, like Maxine Waters,?
Yet not a peep about impeaching Trump for his many impeachable offenses.
Cha ching $$$.
Cash in while the opportunity is there. That's all I can get out of it.
I really don't know why anyone goes the direction he does other than $$.
Oh well. I could be wrong ..
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)because, he says, there might not be collusion after all.
As J17 noted, he is not like Maxine Waters in regard to Trump or the Kremlin interference.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Maxine Waters, Al Greens and Kristan Gillibrand
Voltaire2
(12,626 posts)and 33 of the 50 states. Anyone who thinks we arent doing something wrong is deluding themselves.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Not a single candidate he has endorsed or campaigned for has won office. The Democratic Party has problems to be sure, but Bernie has done far worse than the Democratic Party generally. Everyone he criticizes has done far better than himself and his chosen candidates.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)He has been a miserable failure overall for the Dems.
spooky3
(34,303 posts)And the fall election. One of the candidates featured Bernie in his ads (also Warren and Obama). Will he wait n the nomination?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)battle to fight as the reform candidate who isn't going to take major donations. That takes a huge movement, and these small isolated races are hopefully the start of something like that. Of course the money tends to win, that's why everybody gravitates towards it, regardless of party. But the point is bucking that trend and giving voters an alternative. Once that message gets louder, maybe at one point we can get to where Americans expect their candidates not to be beholden to big donors.
I understand disagreeing with Sanders and if you do, finding his criticisms of the DNC distasteful, but at least be fair about the challenges that these kind of campaigns can be expected to face. Sanders also didn't win, which was also no surprise, but he had unprecedented success as a candidate who employed a small donor model, and he put these issues back on the map. Now he has huge visibility to talk about money in politics and to promote people who are making that their #1 fight. And of course, it is not the DNC's #1 fight, and you may think that wise, and of course Sanders is a thorn in the side of the DNC, so there is potentially a kiss of death element to Sanders endorsing a candidate, given that there is no interest by the party in giving the Sanders brand any wins, to say nothing of putting its energy behind candidates with these priorities.
Again, none of that has anything to do with who is right and who is wrong. It is the political reality that candidates who want to change the system are going to be either ignored as much as possible, or when that fails, fought as hard as possible by the system. Nor is that conspiratorial to say that the DNC too, would help to scuttle these candidates if possible(usually in the primary phase), because they don't believe in the message, and they think it is damaging, as you do, to the party and its goals as a whole. So why would they put everything they had into helping these candidates succeed? THAT would defy reason. So yes, outsider candidates, even in this climate, are going to have a rough time of it. They don't have many friends with money, nor the full support of any party machinery.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)President Obama and his nominee had a seat stolen from them by the republican Senate, who refuse to give Merrick Garland a hearing. Never mind that the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED TO BE a non-political body, neither Democrat nor republican.
Voltaire2
(12,626 posts)Cha
(295,916 posts)"Its time to bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not working class."
emulatorloo https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029165140
Perpetuated by those with an agenda
betsuni
(25,128 posts)who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice." So Democrats are the non-working middle-aged who don't fight for social and economic justice? What ... oh never mind. Whatever.
"Sander's speech was rapturously received" ... *snicker*
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Yet nothing is his fault at all. Why should he be expected to accomplish anything for the citizens of America? His job is to point fingers a the people who do and talk about how worthless they are.
mhw
(678 posts)Easy answer..Republicans have always represented the money & big business side of society.
Democrats have ALWAYS represented "we the people".
That statement you quoted is a slap in the face to every Dem from the Ted Kennedys to the Maxine's & Cummings' and everyone in between.
Where's he been?
That is quite the insult.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)political life as a Democrat.
Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)spot on.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)No divisiveness - Sanders was fighting for the people, the 99%.
Constructive criticism of the Dem party is a good and needed thing.
brer cat
(24,401 posts)Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Didn't you? A number of people who previously supported him seem to have grown tired of his rhetoric.
Botany
(70,291 posts)A number of Bernie Bros do not begin to understand that Putin and company
used Bernie to help peal away votes from Hillary in the general election.
Bernie's act has gotten really old.
Dr. Dena Grayson nails it.
Its was Russia & the DNC & Hillary's valued voter data was the real prize.
Who else reached in & grabbed a big handful for himself?
Yup.
I'll get back to this later..back to the family cookout...
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Fake news...
Hekate
(90,195 posts)mhw
(678 posts)Here ya go:
Yup btw, Tad Devine has his own past ties to Russia & that business will also make its way to the headlines at some point. It's drawn the curiosity of some so we'll see where it all leads eventually.
As for the DNC hack,:
Voter data stolen from the DNC, for instance, was used to not only target those names with the Russian smear campaign against HRC, the lists were also then used to wipe those names from voter roles in key states.
To do real damage to HRC & diminish her strength, they needed her voter lists.
Russia, wikileaks & others we are now finding out knew the value of that data as key to the mission of fracturing the Dem Party.
That is why vote tallies confounded all other prior data in certain States. Like Michigan.
As for BSanders, haven't heard a peep as to the actual reason the Dems & HRC are not sitting in the WH.
Its not her & its not the Party.
Botany
(70,291 posts)n/t
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Statesmen follow the 'buck stops here' principle.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)This one was particularly divisive and destructive.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Again, 'the buck stops here' is the operative phrase.
Hekate
(90,195 posts)...hacks, the GOP, voter suppression, and gerrymandering. Berniebros played their little part. Sorry for their egos, but it was a little part -- littler than Putin's trolls and bots, littler than voter suppression.
Something like 66,000,000 people voted for Hillary Clinton, despite all that -- and the media and various pundits are still bellyaching about the losers who voted for Trump.
Seeing as how Trump is sitting in the Oval Office destroying our democracy, don't you think it is worthwhile analyzing just how and why that happened? Who better than Hillary -- a woman possessed of a strong mind, rational, calm, passionate, analytical?
Instead what we get are various permutations of STFU, of which "Statesmen say the buck stops here" is only the latest version.
Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #46)
Post removed
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Accusing Sanders (he's) of stealing voter data and 'holding on to it' is
impossible for a statesman like Sanders or his campaign executive staff.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Perty low accusation there...
mhw
(678 posts)Second post of mine you've attacked by assumption.
Off to the ignore list in that case.
Bye
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)In regards to snooping through (better know as hacking) Hillary's campaign model data. This has been out there for a while now.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)He did not need data as he had his own...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)He "apologized" and fired one of the staffers.
Let's not try to re-write history here, thanks.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Says it all...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Sorry that the truth doesn't fit your narrative.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,072 posts)The DNC recommended him. We know the DNC was working against Bernie from the email leak.
He also had a past Hillary connection. Nothing to see here. Move along.
And didn't Hillary just throw that same database under the bus?
Me.
(35,454 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Good times.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)In California for example he got a lot of support from first time motor-voters who didn't know much about politics, but had been automatically registered at the DMV -- thanks to recent legislation fought for by Democrats. It would be nice if he acknowledged that legislation instead of giving the impression it's his idea.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)25 years.
Did he sputter with outrage that the Vermont Democratic establishment turned its back on Ms. Sandoval, a very liberal candidate, someone who could have been the first black woman to represent Vermont in Congress? Did he wax angrily on about the corrupt, rigged system? Did he thunder righteously at the way outsiders were being oppressed?
He did not. He is fine with it if it benefits him.
Just one example of why I'm not buying his bullshit.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Thanks for filling in the picture.
theophilus
(3,750 posts)To the extent that Democrats cater to the wealthy elites, we lose. To the extent that Democrats loathe the working class due to their poor choices and right wing ideology, we lose. To the extent that we "can't see the forest for the trees" when it comes to our primary stated goals, we lose. We have been losing for eight years. This was a slow descent into madness.
It is time for the Democratic party to adopt more of Bernie's ideas. That is my opinion. I believe that what happens will prove him right. We can choose to be smart and love each other and our country or we can choose to be just as ignorant and misguided as the Republicans. What will you do?
athena
(4,187 posts)The Democratic Party does not move left when it loses an election; it moves right. If Bernie supporters really wanted to move the Democratic Party left, they should have worked their asses off to get HRC and the Democrats in Congress to win in a landslide in 2016. Allowing the Republicans to "win", as they did in 2000, is not the way to make the argument that the country wants to move left. I thought we learned that lesson in 2000, but clearly some people weren't paying attention.
At this point, attacking the Democratic Party will only succeed in weakening it. We absolutely need to win back the House and the Senate in 2018. Relentlessly criticizing the Democratic Party is not the way to accomplish that goal.
Me.
(35,454 posts)towards those who don't think BS and his ideas walk on water, it is a complete shut-off. BS is not the only one with ideas and intimating that people aren't smart or love their country if they don't bow down to Bernie will not get votes.
TheBlackAdder
(28,075 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)And the Third Way shit was in the 90s. Pretending it's current is false.
I get the bumper sticker slogans are easier than substantive analysis, but that doesn't make them informative or useful.
TheBlackAdder
(28,075 posts).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
(EXCERPT)
Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2] These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[10] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[11][12]
.
.
In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.[4][22] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[4] By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and the Zapatistas' reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation.[3] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[15] The impact of the global 20082009 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[23]
(END EXCERPT)
===
Funding, there's a bunch of articles out there):
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/12/third_way_senior_vice_president_admits_majority_of_think_tanks_funding_comes_from_wall_street/
===
Reagan, Greenspan, Buchanan, and F. A. Hayek are all concerning indicators that it is a Republican/Democrat hybrid.
.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)...while echoing RW talking points.
Bernie is starting sound more and more like a Jane Stein, Susan Sarandon neoprogressive.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)did "alt-left" not catch on or something??
wow..
QC
(26,371 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)makes one wonder..
brer cat
(24,401 posts)why do you post on a forum designed to support Democrats? Shouldn't you be spending your time focused on greens or independents or whoever it is that floats your boat?
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)the Auto-trash by Keyword is not working..
watoos
(7,142 posts)but if the Democratic party turns into a bunch of Joe Liebermans, I'm out, what's the point?
One of the biggest lies out there is that the country is center right. If we just talk one issue at a time lo and behold we find out that the country is really left. If my candidate loses an election, I don't change my principles, I look for another candidate who represents them.
athena
(4,187 posts)Last I checked, the Democratic Party was providing excellent opposition to the Republican Party despite controlling none of the three branches. Top Democrats have been speaking out in favor of left-wing policies and against the Republicans, even though traditionally they would have been expected to retreat after an electoral loss, as they did in 2000. Are you living in 2017, or in 2001? Because I don't see any Joe-Lieberman-wannabes out there. Even the real Joe Lieberman has been quiet lately.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)Thanks for absolutely nothing, Bernie. Is your ego and your followers' worship worth extending trump's time in office? We have a chance to regain lost ground on account of a lunatic in the White House, and you're fucking things up, big time. Unforgivable.
Response to Paladin (Reply #73)
Post removed
Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
mhw
(678 posts)Funny how that works isn't it.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)mhw
(678 posts)She'd have done better by going it alone without aligning herself to him.
BTW, did he get paid for this big speech?
Just wondering.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and the GOP can run ads about Nancy Pelosi, according to Crystal Ball. So their excuse for not winning seats is that Democrats who are able to win are in office, when they shouldn't be, and that we won't have a true test of that faction's winnability until they control all offices, even though they can't win any. It's pretty strange reasoning.
Then there is the fact that most of the anointed candidates are to the right of Pelosi, but we're supposed to pretend they are to the left because . . .
suffragette
(12,232 posts)I am very happy to have her represent my district.
https://www.thenation.com/article/pramila-jayapal-just-scored-one-of-the-biggest-progressive-victories-of-2016/
Pramila Jayapal Just Scored One of the Biggest Progressive Victories of 2016
She was one of the first congressional candidates this year to earn an endorsement from Bernie Sanders.
https://jayapal.house.gov/about
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... that would be helpful to the party?
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Also very devisive.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Dem leadership needs to change and be more outspoken and more responsive to the 99%.
Dems need to go back to our roots of being for 'the people'.
awesomerwb1
(4,256 posts)correct? Sounds like an alternative fact to me.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)The wife of Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders, is being investigated by the FBI, according to the Daily Caller.
Jane Sanders was the president of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011, and the FBI investigation is reportedly focused on allegations that she lied on loan documents while in that role.
The small Vermont liberal arts school went $10 million in debt when it purchased a new campus in 2010, and shut down in May 2016 when it went bankrupt and didn't meet accreditation standards.
Jane Sanders is accused of doctoring the loan documents in order to expand college grounds. Sanders herself claimed the college could count on $2.6 million in donations to pay for purchased land, according to a 2010 loan application. She ultimately raised only $676,000 in donations over the next four years.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)So, this is fake news or properly called propaganda...
QC
(26,371 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)And I am not too concerned about Jane Sanders being investigated by the FBI, assuming it is even true. The FBI has become a partisan organization that sets out to hurt Democrats.
radical noodle
(7,990 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)start your own party. Sanders is out of touch with the reality of Washington DC, Democrats are the minority party and if he keeps spewing his shit they will be come 2018.
Response to Historic NY (Reply #104)
Post removed
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)Oh...that party has NO leadership whatsoever and is immeasurably small?
Maybe you should work on your own party and STFU about the democratic party for a while.
Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Post removed
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)an endorsement from Sanders. He is 0 for all of them.
His haul of a million dollars last year puts him in the category of the elites. I'd love to know his investments to see his walk of the talk.
Response to WhiteTara (Reply #114)
Post removed
Julian Englis
(2,309 posts)Sanders could've work for reforming the DNC and the US political system for years if that was his goal. He chose to be ideologically pure rather than to help make meaningful change.
Me.
(35,454 posts)UNless it's everyone else's. After all, he and his wife are doing pretty well having reached millionaire status. Which btw I have no problem with but do mind his double standard for everyone else.
renegade000
(2,301 posts)I don't have any problem with personal wealth and success so long as you're working towards expanding opportunities and economic security for all in meaningful ways. My issue isn't "omg, sanders is a hypocrite and isn't pure" it's the double standard and ridiculously notion that Democrats ought to be uniformly a bunch of economic ascetics.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to come by when you are also a congressman or senator, as unseemly as all that may be. He stuck to his guns even through the years where they got no airtime and no traction. Sounds like an opportunist to me.
Can't blame people wanting to have oodles of the stuff and be financially secure but do mind when he dings others for their good fortune. He was constantly after HRC yet now he's at the Cambridge Union where they're charging the public 20 pounds per and he's selling books. Now I don't know if he gets a fee but there's a lot of it around. And to put things in perspective...here's what some other people get for their bon mots...
"Hilary Duff gets $500K for her appearances. Kevin Federline (Mr. Britney Spears) gets $300K"
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028996271
JCanete
(5,272 posts)yet stick to your accusation that he's an opportunist?
He's been the beneficiary of lots of taxpayer money since 1981 and then he jumps onto another party's organization, complains the entire time, and then when he doesn't win keeps bashing that party which allowed him to use their organization. And, I'd really like to see those tax returns that he never produced. Imagine if HRC tried to get away with that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)because the leadership is beholden to its members, enough of which welcomed Sanders into the party, WITH his message of change for the party. It didn't do it out of the kindness of its heart. Not doing so would have looked unseemly and done damage to us, not the other way around, but nobody then or now is surprised that Sanders has criticisms for the DNC. That kind of why some of us Democrats appreciate him. There are things we want to change. It would have been offensive to me had he become conciliatory and ass-kissing as soon as he started taking a dime.
When we have the tax returns, then maybe there will be something for you. Until then I guess you can keep hoping.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Who didn't want to join the party but still wanted to choose the Dem nominee. And if there were that many of his supporters in the party he would've won.
I get that there are people who appreciate his message but why can't he just deliver it without constantly criticizing the Dem party.
As for the tax returns, I bet he never does deliver.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Sanders represents the complete opposite of what Putin and the republicans want...
He is for the people and democracy and that's why they want to stop him.
still_one
(91,963 posts)your opinion doesn't count.
This is someone who goes out of his way to not identify with Democratic party, telling the Democratic party that he knows the way.
In 2016, candidates and issues he actively endorsed, did a dismal showing.
In fact, the candidates he actively campaigned for in elections in Nebraska and Wyoming in 2017 did not do well either.
I don't know what will happen in Georgia's 6th district, but the fact that Senator Sanders went out of his way to question Ossoff's "progressive" credentials, and hasn't actively campaigned for him as he did for candidates in Omaha and Wyoming, only give credence that perhaps Ossoff's positive poll numbers indicate that it is probably a good thing that Senator Sanders hasn't been there.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)mhw
(678 posts)Welcome to pile-on Sunday.
Happens every wedk.
Bait & Hide Bait & Hide.
We all see it.
This whole thread is one big "Refighting the Primary".
Maybe the whole thing should be deleted for the sake of peace on this Great Democratic Site.
I'd like to keep it that way for awhile.
Sides have been taken & that is an unfortunate thing.
However Dems have every right to defend their Party when statements are made against them.
Especially on a Dem Site.
Yet the censorship of voices continues.
We see it.
Hope Democratic Underground will survive to see many more elections, our great Dems like Maxine Waters & E Cummings, McCaskill, Franken& Casey etc..are the seasoned leaders we will always need.
They have been there long enough to know who the RW snakes are & how our Fed laws work.
We need more like them. Always standing for "we the people".
They don't deserve to be damned & discredited by any of their own.
You're either their friend or their foe.
Simple as that.
still_one
(91,963 posts)and the results of the issues and candidates endorsed in that GENERAL ELECTION. It also made similar observations with what is happening in the special elections in 2017.
The article in the OP is making the argument that "these establishment Democrats", really don't count.
Are you saying I am "re-fighting the primaries because I am responding to the
OP's article's accusation that these so-called "establishment Democrats" make up a large segment of the Democratic party?
This nonsense about redefining the word "establishment" with negative connotations, is the same garbage strategy the right wing used to characterize "liberal" with negative connotations. It is a false narrative and straw man argument
How about this, every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states in the GENERAL ELECTION, lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican
I guess establishment is in the eyes of the beholder, which is why it is a false flag
musette_sf
(10,184 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Why do people relish posting articles of presumed "democrats" criticizing the Democratic Party, and in this case falsely? If he's truly concerned about a "failure of the Democratic Party's strategy", why doesn't he join the Democratic Party and work with them to help instead of globetrotting on a Democratic Party bashing tour?
Hekate
(90,195 posts)...regarding OUR party.
The news article is just a news article. What's infuriating is to see who here is once again willing to join his bandwagon in attempting to rip apart the Democratic Party by denigrating all its achievements and efforts.
We're struggling to save democracy itself from Trump and Putin, and the DEMOCRATS are Bernie's target? With friends like these, who the hell needs enemies?
Guilded Lilly
(5,591 posts)Bernie Sanders.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He also should understand the party is a big tent party and there are different views.
One thing that does bother me is if he wants to lead this party why doesn't he identify as a Democrat? This annoys me.
But other than that this is all Politics.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)Bernie really needs to take a high school civics class if he thinks that Democrats are the ones driving the agenda today.
moda253
(615 posts)Bernie Sanders is the second most dangerous politician to our democracy. And I truly mean that. I like a lot of his ideas but his delivery is extremely dangerous. He has no intention of improving the party much less to join it. He just wants to bash it. And for what putpose? Ego?
He is not an ally. At all.
Thrill
(19,178 posts)AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)Sanders is creating some sort of a purity test at a time when democratic party needs to attract independents and moderates.
apcalc
(4,461 posts)Otherwise all he does is divide us and help the R's win.
lapucelle
(18,040 posts)is on the European leg of his book tour.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/02/bernie-sanders-blasts-trumps-absurd-climate-change-views-europe-book-tour/102424244/
http://www.caledonianrecord.com/news/sanders-to-miss-sja-graduation-for-european-book-tour-senator/article_08fb31aa-8cd8-508e-a15b-144ea3388637.html
http://www.thefader.com/2017/05/10/bernie-sanders-uk-appearance
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Then how come we've lost all three branches of government and most of the state governments? How's "more of the same" working out for Democrats? Or America?
A friend is someone who will tell you the truth even when you don't want to hear it.
moda253
(615 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 12, 2017, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)
It could be the rash of underhanded tricks and crimes that the republican party has been engaging in
I don't know it could be interstate cross check,
It could be the gutting of the voter rights act
It could be the gerrymandering
It could be the russian propaganda war that republicans seem to be ok with
It could be potential russian tampering with voting systems as has been recently reported
It could be the fishy scenario that thousands and thousands of black folks waited hours in line to vote and then just decided to not cast a vote for president.
It could be the closing of polling station in predominantly black neighborhoods.
It could be these and a lot of other things as well... Should the Democratic party always be working to better itself? Yes it should. But this guy is not helping anything. I used to think it was just his tone and his delivery that made him sound like that. I am beginning to think it is all because he got his ego boost and thinks he gets to dictate what a party has to do to appease him. A party that he refuses to join. I don't mind pressuring the democratic party to move their message left. But you don't get to hijack the party and start making demands. Not when you aren't willing to put your ass on the line for it.
Then there is the fact that we ALL need to be mindful of our politicians in our party and those that claim to be our friends. Looking at the Russian operation of how they keep their people in total disarray I'd keep a very keen eye trained on Mr. Sanders. In russian operations when people get riled up about their government they will at times fund part of the movement against them and control the message. I have been very suspicious of Jill Stein and I think we had better keep an eye on Sanders' tactics as well. It smells bad. And if it smells bad it's likely rotten.
I know this post is going to piss off a lot of folks but it's just my opinion. If I can be critical of Corey Booker and other dems I can be critical of the guy throwing mud at my party.
This is a great video to watch.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)However, none of that would have been possible had Democrats been winning elections.
The Russians are a major problem and I hope everyone complicit in 2016 goes to prison for treason, but loss on the current scale involves Democratic failure on every level -- local, state, and federal -- for the last decade.
I'm not saying theres no good reasons to be critical of Sanders, but it doesn't mean that he's also not right. Also, I think our perspective of him is largely filtered for us through corporate media. I've been to a speech in which Sanders talked about economic and social justice for a solid 45 minutes, and had one line about "the establishment." The headline in my local paper the next day? "Sanders Slams Dems."
You know how they spent 30 years slandering Clinton? They did/do the same thing to Sanders. Anything to keep us from uniting, anything to keep in place a power structure designed by and for the benefit of wealthy, white, straight, Christian males.
We're playing their game and feeding their narrative.
musette_sf
(10,184 posts)As a former admirer and supporter of Sen Sanders, I applaud this post. And as a former admirer and listener of Thom Hartmann, whose radio show was my introduction to Sen Sanders, I note that TH is featured on TV by RT. I now find this even more troubling, given the facts that just keep coming on Russia's interference (at the very least) with our 2016 electoral cycle - and I am getting weary of a avowed non-Democrat, who now appears to spend almost all of his airtime scolding the party he refuses to join, trying to muscle his way into an unearned and unwarranted leadership position in the party he refuses to join and does not belong to.
And it does smell bad. Here's a guy who has a wife who destroyed a college with her ineptness and is being investigated by the FBI and he blows that off as nothing and in the next breath kicks around the DEms.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)why in fuck's name is Bernie immune from criticism or responsibility? He's arguable the third most influential voice in the party right now; he needs to own this shit.
Cha
(295,916 posts)Voter Suppression, gerrymandering, the m$m normalizing trump and working overtime on the Democratic hate machine.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)It doesnt explain the losses at every other level. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are only possible where Republicans win. You say the mainstream media is normalizing Trump? They'd stop their ostensibly-centrist bullshit if we stopped watching.
We're not doing as good a job at explaining our positions or fielding candidates as we should be.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And a waste of time. I proudly voted for Hillary -- and phone banked for, and knocked on doors for, and gave money to -- because she and Bernie agreed on all the important issues and shared a 95% similar voting record.
But gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. wouldn't be possible if Republican politicians hadn't won the electoral positions making it possible.
It's too late to win in 2016, much less argue Sanders/Clinton, but perhaps the activist base can help correct some of the losses we've incurred over the last 15 years or so. If Sanders gets a whole lot of people involved in politics that otherwise wouldn't have been involved (which is his one strength), then I'm all for it. If his method of doing that is talking shit about the leadership of our party, well, they're big boys and girls and can handle the insult.
Because that's basically what it comes down to: we've all got hurt feelings and President Trump. The only way to stop Trump is by winning elections at every possible level. Taking the same approach that's lost us most elected positions across the US is not the way of doing that.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Democrats is useful...and I must wonder how many will vote for us anyway. There is a choice...Trump or the Democrats...that is it. If you want change, than join the party and work at it or if already a member than run for office, or become a delegate...go to meetings...change happens from the bottom up. Criticizing the party leaders doesn't help anyone...we all hang together or hang separately in 18...and trashing the party drive voters away...and the GOP uses your 'big boy and girl words against us...and it happened in 16 and we lost...so how about not trashing of the party. Your method give people a reason not to vote Democratic ...is that really the message you want to send? And it enables the GOP who say why even this liberal said this about this...they hate Dems too...and if you go on twitter, there are dozens of examples.
still_one
(91,963 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Cha
(295,916 posts)the Democratic Party has done for America.
nini
(16,670 posts)enid602
(8,524 posts)What gets me is the timing of Bernie's message. Show us your taxes, Bern.
Chevy
(1,063 posts)hiding or hanging with Manafort?
I can't see why bern would make this statement at this time except to give tRump some shade.
Cha
(295,916 posts)Fighting against the Fascistrumps and the takeover of America by Russia.
All BS does is insult the Democratic Party and try to divide us.