2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy do Bernie/his supporters get to decide what a Democrat stands for?
I support Clinton's promise not to raise taxes for middle class folks who earn less than $250k. So did Obama.
This seems to be mainstream Democratic Party platform.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and for his ability to draw sharp contrasts without slinging mud.
merrily
(45,251 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)For reasons which I've elaborated on many times before.
persuadable
(53 posts)saltpoint
(50,986 posts)music collections.
That's an easy one.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)The truth always stings...
mcar
(42,210 posts)is alive and well on DU.
merrily
(45,251 posts)mcar
(42,210 posts)those who don't support their candidate are not "real" Democrats?
merrily
(45,251 posts)posts saying flat out that Bernie was not a Democrat. In this post downthread, I linked to one from a currect http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1073049
And here's another post from today, strongly implying many Bernie supporters on this board are not really Democrats. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1072570
I happen to know how to find these because I was involved with them just today. I've seen many others in past months and find it odd that someone who is familiar with the board would need links to know that. In any event, I am pretty good at internet searches. However, I can't imagine what terms I could search DU for that would not yield thousands of irrelevant hits. Bernie supporter? Hillary supporter? real Democrat? Without a poster's name and an approximate date, I don't see finding what you're asking as a five minute task and I'm not willing to spend much more than that. But, you have one of each from today alone.
I suspect you'll do with them what everyone else does who asks for links.
Just went to latest threads and saw this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511073335
eta: We're right wingers, we're no different from right wingers, we're "left libertarians," we're racists; we're sexists; we're everything evil that is, or ever was, under the sun.
mcar
(42,210 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)If you don't think so, you'll have to be specific.
The posts to which I linked you were those of Hillary supporters saying Bernie was not a real Democrat or his supporters are not real Democrats. Those are the links that you requested.
BTW, I am familiar with the no true Scotsman fallacy, but knowing what it is does not help me know why you think the links that I provided were not what you requested.
This is an example of why I seldom provide links anymore when Hillary supporters ask for them.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Better take home pay and better health care for everyone.
H is against better health care for everyone, therefore is anti-democratic.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)What if somebody now has a Cadillac insurance plan and is now forced to go onto a "Medicare for all" plan which a doctor might not accept?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Bernie won't stop that. But with a reformed health care industry even the cadillac plan will cost less. And if a doctor refuses the single payer concept he will soon be out of practice.
I get you hate the idea of better health care for poor people, heck that's an H policy, but really, why shout it out here?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)I'm sure there are lots of doctors who would be happy to stay out of the single payer system and lots of (rich) patients who are willing to pay cash.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You mean like the Clintons?
That is a small pie. Besides I bet the Clintons have gotten lots of free government health care.
I just don't get why anyone would actively shoot down better health care for everyone, but there you are.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)there are two contradictory promises that Sanders make:
(1) The entire system saves money
(2) Everybody gets better coverage (same access to doctors, no co-pay, no deductibles, all drugs/procedures covered)
Hence he isn't being honest.
If you try to control costs by cutting payments to providers, there are probably some who will just decide to opt into a private insurance system. Call it "premium" network. There are actually lots of rich people who don't want to go to the same hospital as "other people".
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Not the "other people"
Meanwhile kids whose parents can't afford any health care - the "other people" - have no other recourse than hope like hell Bernie defeats your candidate.
You really are quite f'n wrong here. You should just stop.
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)a universal, one-risk-pool system will cover more people with better care for lower cost.
My health care is free (I'm a disabled vet, and I get the best care.) So why do I support paying into a tax-based system?
I'll let you see if you can answer that.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)There's a saying from middle school boy's restrooms: If you shake it more than twice, you're playing with yourself.
You have shaken it hundreds of times at this point.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)some rich folks send their kids to private schools?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Behind the countries that have single payer.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
So if you are happy with a ranking of 37, perhaps you are in the 1% and have no worries. But for the rest of us, this profit driven system is a mess.
merrily
(45,251 posts)does now under Medicare for All. And the cadillac plan tax, which I have always found outrageous, may not apply under Medicare for All.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)bernie is running on a very progressive plan, and many of us support that. some dems will run on another plan, and you free to support that instead.
and thus, the primary battle
but to your point, many of us feel that the party has been sliding right for some time on several issues. the progressive left would like to shift it back left. also, a deeper contrast with republicans may help win the ge.
no one is telling you how to think. we all argue our points, its what we do here
cheers
hill2016
(1,772 posts)Clinton a Republican?
She seems to represent mainstream Democratic Party platform
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)upper-upper-middle class?
That's it? Thats what the party stands for?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as some see it, has drifted so far to the center/center right, some policies approximate policies of centrist leaning or more "liberal" republicans.
one example that is important to me...the death penalty. i think it should be a basic plank of the dem platform that this just is not the way to handle criminals in a civilized society. unfortunately, the dem platform does not have that position. i know many dems support it, but i would like to see the party as a whole come out against it. individual dems can do what they want if they want to hold a different position. and we know that repubs are all for it.
many feel that centrist positions are better because most people are neither very left not very right. i think with the popularity of sanders and trump, we are seeing people drift more to the "pure" party philosophy on both sides. so clinton, who tends to inhabit the more center area of the party, might be seen as closer to some republican ideals than left leaning progressive dems.
personally, i am not a big fan of party labels anyway.what people stand for matters most.
just my two cents.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Her last statement on that 8 years ago was supporting it the way companies like Tata paid her to do so, NOT what her human American Democratic Party constituents wanted!!!
Heck, even candidates like Trump and Cruz get that people want this, even if they are also trying to conflate that with their xenophobic "product" too.
THAT is why Bloomberg is threatening to enter the race almost the same day he says he wants to get rid of H-1B visa limits, to let the corporate world know that he'd be the one that represents THEIR interests if Hillary can't be there to do so against Trump or Cruz. If it is Bernie against one of those two, those depending on those 1%er socialist benefits to themselves will lose out when H-1B gets pushed aside for better immigration and temporary work options to help the working class globally than their race to the bottom mantras.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)between Democrats and "New Democrats.
That "new Democrat" definition came from
Bill Clinton.
Perhaps the old kind of Democrats showed more
sense for helping most people.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)to push the right wing smear that Hillary is corrupt and untrustworthy. The polling shows that most of his supporters will NOT accept Hillary as the nominee. Why? Because they are militant and will demand their way or no way.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Or perhaps there just aren't as many of them as we're led to believe?
I just really don't get that complaint. And that 'smear' isn't being 'pushed' as much as it's simply, and unfortunately, the impression that many people have of her. She seems to change her stance according to polls, not according to convictions. People notice that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... like swarming the FaceBook pages of any Democrat who endorses HRC, and leaving vile comments about their mental state, their loyalty to their fellow Democrats, their willingness to "sell out" their country - all because they had the audacity to support someone other than Bernie.
As they say, "that's gonna leave a mark" - and it has. I won't forget what was said to progressive icons like John Lewis any time soon.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)The great thing about social media is that everybody gets to use it. All you need is an Internet connection, which just about everybody has these days. Want to get your opinion out there? Just for starters there's Facebook, Twitter, reddit, Youtube, and a zillion blogs. Using them is cheap (free, usually) and easy. Nobody can monopolize social media. Don't like it that Bernie's supporters have a huge presence on the Internet? What's stopping you and the other Hillary supporters from getting out there and talking her up, too? The Internet is where it's happening now, so maybe Hillary's folks need to get with the program. Don't blame Sanders' folks for using all available resources.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am a proud Democrat and if they doubt me I don't give a damn!
Number23
(24,544 posts)And never have.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)what democrats are suppose to stand for. I guess that got lost somewhere along the way.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Yay!!! Good DOES prevail!!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)How would that work?
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... and all sentences cut into 25% of their time with voting abilities restored.
Not a dime extra is spent
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... republicans.
Not that hard, that's the low hanging fruit,
Either way, revolution with an asterisk by it isn't revolution
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)Good luck with getting Clinton to go along with reparations, although you do make it sound easy.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... else by clinging to a set of left wing tenants and then being pragmatic on others like reparations?!
Revolution with an asterisk isn't revolution
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)Reparations has no funding mechanism and is a non-starter.
It's odd how you keep harping on reparations when none of our candidates are supporting them.
You seem to have an all-or-nothing approach but have settled on a candidate who says and promises nothing. Odd.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... has an all or nothing approach to and have chided others for compromising calling them rightward and weak before for compromising.
Its starting to look like Sanders throws stones and lives in a glass house now
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)At least Sanders supports free tuition (not room and board) for public colleges and universities. You'll get closer to what you want with Sanders, nothing from Clinton.
And how would the reparations you want be funded?
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)What's up with that?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)most recent posts, we hold under suspicion.
Soiry. Just do.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Is there a committee involved?
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I just get suspicious when someone uses the presumptuous "we" so freely.
Sorry, just do...
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I can accept reasonable people disagreeing on if they are necessary or how much is required, but the country already has a party dedicated to being cheap.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)"conservative" or "Republican".
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is the primary. This is when our party platform is defined. We are in a contest to define where we stand.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)like the mainstream platform, thank you very much?
You going to call all of them conservative?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is not complicated stuff.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)eom
merrily
(45,251 posts)Or your own OP? Raising taxes suddenly has a party now and, surprise, surprise, it's not the Democratic Party?
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)1 in every 3 registered Democrats. Bernie's not the problem. The problem is that fully 1/3 of the party ain't buying what the Beltway Establishment is selling.
We belong to a party in crisis -- one that can't win Congress, can't win state houses, can't win state legislatures. We have not found a way to connect with people, and it shows everywhere except the presidency. Blaming Bernie for illustrating this fact is just like blaming the kid in the fairy tale for finally pointing out that the emperor is buck naked.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Others have forgotten, and let others suffer as long as THEY are alright.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)Although he handled the Viet Nam war badly, he was a Democrat of the same ilk as FDR when it came to domestic policy. He promoted legislation upholding civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, the arts, urban and rural development, public services, and the "War on Poverty," which helped millions rise above the poverty line. Civil rights laws he signed banned racial discrimination in public facilities, interstate commerce, the workplace, and housing, and the Voting Rights Act banned procedures that disenfranchised African Americans. Of course, Johnson had a Democratic majority in Congress. But I don't see any big ideas like the Great Society or the War on Poverty coming out of Clinton's campaign - just those Church Lady reminders that we can't have those things any more. "You can't have a bicycle for Christmas but if you're good and eat your peas maybe you'll get some new underwear." Sanders is a visionary; Clinton is just an ordinary politician.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)when Richard Nixon committed treason to help his election chances:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)Nixon was an evil bastard, for sure. On the other hand, there was the very dodgy Gulf of Tonkin incident during Johnson's administration.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,573 posts)Sure, you can pull out charts saying here is this strata of income and there is that strata of income and the cost of living is so much more in this part of the country than in another, but seriously, if your annual income exceeds the Social Security cap but is still less than $250,000, you'll probably survive if your taxes went up. Someone can cry me a river if they're in that group; they've been riding the gravy train for quite a while now.
To put it another way, Wall Street-friendly Clinton supporters don't get to redefine what "middle class" is. Those of us who are still in it or who used to be in it know what it is. And it sure as hell isn't a $250,000-per-year income.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)So I can understand trying not to tick them off right now.
Efilroft Sul
(3,573 posts)I get where you're coming from, but to placate this minority of Democrats doesn't sit well with the rabble.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
DavidDvorkin
(19,406 posts)Armymedic88
(251 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Protecting Wall St Banks over Main St Workers seems to be off policy
RichVRichV
(885 posts)I don't get to decide what the party stands for.
The leaders of the party don't get to decide what the party stands for.
The politicians don't get to decide what the party stands for.
Only the Democratic voters as a whole get to decide what the party stands for. Here in a few months we'll know just what that is. If it's a continuation of where the party is headed or a change of direction, it's up to the voters and no one else. That's why the people we elect are called representatives.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)That's how long we have been offered Democratic candidates who support Reagan's ideas.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)Its just a phony superiority complex.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Then this is indeed a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. The good thing about it though is that both sides get to make their case and see how has the most support. If you want the party to be centrist then all you have to do is convince more voters that is the best future for them and their families.
Good luck.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)They just piously think they do. Ignore them. I still remember what happened to the last Democratic candidate that promised to raise taxes. He got slaughtered.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They can call me what they want. And they have. Lol
Vinca
(50,170 posts)Not raising taxes is a GOP mantra. Democrats have more common sense. If your insurance policy costs $10,000 a year but you can drop it if you pay $5,000 more in taxes for Medicare-For-All, isn't that a good deal?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)this Bernie supporter decides what a democrat stands for. Hope that helps.
democrank
(11,052 posts)"Middle class" includes those who make $249,000 a year? Even though the median income for 2015 was about $53,657? This is part of the "mainstream" Democratic Party platform? Just asking....
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Bernie is more of a Democrat than they will ever be.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)The platform is voted on by grassroots-elected local delegates, chosen democratically in a way completely free from corporate funding or media manipulation from among those who have done the grunt work at the local level for years. If you want to decide what the party stands for, do the damn work within it until you are elected as a delegate by your peers.