HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Bernie Sanders Explains H...

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:13 PM

 

Bernie Sanders Explains How He Would Deal With An Obstructionist Congress



TAPPER: So, that's a very ambitious agenda you just outlined there. You said this week that the biggest mistake President Obama made was thinking he could negotiate with Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

How can you get this very ambitious agenda through, which includes, you didn't mention, an estate tax on those who inherit more than $3.5 million, a trillion dollars spent on infrastructure - how are you going to do that without dealing with Congress?

SANDERS: And that infrastructure program, Jake, would create some 13 million jobs. I will tell you how. I have a lot of - a lot of respect for Barack Obama. He is a friend of mine. The biggest mistake I believe that he made - and I disagree with him on a number of policy issues, but his biggest political mistake is, after his brilliant 2008 political campaign, when he rallied millions of people to stand up and fight back, basically, what he said after he was elected: Well, I will take it from here. I will negotiate with Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Republicans.

Two points. First of all, these guys never had any intention of seriously negotiating. I think the president has caught onto that. But, second of all, the powers that be in Washington, Wall Street, the huge campaign donors, the Koch brothers, are so powerful, that the only way we bring about real change in this country which represents the needs of the middle class and working families is when millions of people stand up and say, enough is enough, they are organized.

And that is what I'm talking about when I speak about a political revolution. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it unless millions of people say, you know what? This country belongs to all of us. Our government must represent all of us, and not just a handful of billionaires. It can't be done within the Beltway itself. We need a mass movement, and that's what we are trying to create, and are succeeding in creating right now.


http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-explains-how-hed-deal

135 replies, 10233 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 135 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie Sanders Explains How He Would Deal With An Obstructionist Congress (Original post)
Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 OP
dsc Aug 2015 #1
Bjorn Against Aug 2015 #6
dsc Aug 2015 #8
Bjorn Against Aug 2015 #19
fasttense Aug 2015 #86
Stainless Aug 2015 #103
sabrina 1 Aug 2015 #115
Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2015 #43
Bjorn Against Aug 2015 #44
FloridaBlues Aug 2015 #70
Bjorn Against Aug 2015 #73
Scuba Aug 2015 #11
Armstead Aug 2015 #17
Martin Eden Aug 2015 #18
dsc Aug 2015 #33
Volaris Aug 2015 #62
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #26
LondonReign2 Aug 2015 #124
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #58
olegramps Aug 2015 #116
Fearless Aug 2015 #119
staggerleem Aug 2015 #121
dsc Aug 2015 #123
seabeyond Aug 2015 #2
Jim Lane Aug 2015 #10
seabeyond Aug 2015 #16
JackInGreen Aug 2015 #54
seabeyond Aug 2015 #56
JackInGreen Aug 2015 #59
seabeyond Aug 2015 #61
Jim Lane Aug 2015 #64
seabeyond Aug 2015 #66
hueymahl Aug 2015 #93
seabeyond Aug 2015 #95
hueymahl Aug 2015 #98
seabeyond Aug 2015 #100
hueymahl Aug 2015 #105
seabeyond Aug 2015 #106
hueymahl Aug 2015 #109
seabeyond Aug 2015 #110
seabeyond Aug 2015 #108
Live and Learn Aug 2015 #30
mountain grammy Aug 2015 #34
PADemD Aug 2015 #36
JDPriestly Aug 2015 #50
Armstead Aug 2015 #13
seabeyond Aug 2015 #15
Armstead Aug 2015 #21
seabeyond Aug 2015 #23
uponit7771 Sep 2015 #132
L0oniX Aug 2015 #46
rhett o rick Aug 2015 #77
seabeyond Aug 2015 #78
rhett o rick Aug 2015 #79
seabeyond Aug 2015 #81
rhett o rick Aug 2015 #82
Enthusiast Aug 2015 #85
FSogol Aug 2015 #91
seabeyond Aug 2015 #97
SammyWinstonJack Aug 2015 #99
ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #107
seabeyond Aug 2015 #113
BeyondGeography Aug 2015 #3
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #4
HappyPlace Aug 2015 #7
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #28
HappyPlace Aug 2015 #31
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #37
Marty McGraw Aug 2015 #120
Cry Aug 2015 #52
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #57
Hiraeth Aug 2015 #88
DhhD Aug 2015 #102
Bjorn Against Aug 2015 #9
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #72
JDPriestly Aug 2015 #45
L0oniX Aug 2015 #47
MrMickeysMom Aug 2015 #48
rhett o rick Aug 2015 #80
msongs Aug 2015 #5
frylock Aug 2015 #25
L0oniX Aug 2015 #49
zappaman Aug 2015 #12
LWolf Aug 2015 #14
sadoldgirl Aug 2015 #20
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #39
DirkGently Aug 2015 #22
seabeyond Aug 2015 #24
DirkGently Aug 2015 #32
seabeyond Aug 2015 #35
WillyT Aug 2015 #27
HassleCat Aug 2015 #29
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #38
red dog 1 Aug 2015 #40
JDPriestly Aug 2015 #41
Historic NY Aug 2015 #42
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #51
treestar Aug 2015 #53
GitRDun Aug 2015 #55
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #60
GitRDun Aug 2015 #63
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #65
GitRDun Aug 2015 #69
fasttense Aug 2015 #87
GitRDun Aug 2015 #111
LiberalLovinLug Aug 2015 #122
GitRDun Aug 2015 #126
LiberalLovinLug Aug 2015 #128
GitRDun Aug 2015 #129
LiberalLovinLug Sep 2015 #130
GitRDun Sep 2015 #131
mythology Aug 2015 #114
seabeyond Aug 2015 #68
Jim Lane Aug 2015 #74
GitRDun Aug 2015 #75
Jim Lane Aug 2015 #83
GitRDun Aug 2015 #104
LondonReign2 Aug 2015 #125
GitRDun Aug 2015 #127
Pauldg47 Aug 2015 #67
Cal33 Aug 2015 #71
riversedge Aug 2015 #76
Cal33 Aug 2015 #84
lonestarnot Aug 2015 #101
libodem Aug 2015 #89
Jemmons Aug 2015 #90
Gloria Aug 2015 #92
SoapBox Aug 2015 #94
marym625 Aug 2015 #96
WI_DEM Aug 2015 #112
Cal33 Aug 2015 #117
Bobbie Jo Aug 2015 #118
Hekate Sep 2015 #133
Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #135
BainsBane Sep 2015 #134

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:20 PM

1. good luck with that

and I am certainly not saying Hillary would have any better luck if the Congress stays in GOP hands, but just look at one issue, gun control after Newtown. Now 20 white, rich, first graders were mowed down by a deranged lunatic with a gun. 90% of people wanted some form of tightening of the back round check system. If there were ever a time when this proposal should have been a slam dunk, this was it. It went nowhere. Obama actually tried to make it happen, he used the bully pulpit, and it went no where. And the GOP gained seats in the following election.

In the House especially, and to some extent in the Senate, the GOP majority is divorced from electoral consequences from the general electorate. the one and only electoral consequence they fear is a primary which Bernie has zero ability to make happen. Unless, and until, we can change that calculus, by either taking back the House or at least putting some fear of the general electorate in enough House districts to make a difference, there is literally nothing whatsoever a President can do to make Congress do anything positive. They can, and should, veto negative things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:38 PM

6. The difference is that there was no mass movement on gun control

Yes, gun control has wide public support the problem is that the 10% who oppose gun control are far more organized than the 90% who support it. Bernie is calling for a mass movement and there was no mass movement for gun control, if there had been I think you would have seen some significant gun control laws passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:41 PM

8. actually there was and is such a movement

and to be fair to them they had a few successes after Newtown (Colorado and Connecticut). But no amount of movement is going to make the GOP members of the House do anything in a good direction unless and until the GOP members of the House think they have something to fear from the general electorate. I don't see that happening anytime soon, movement or no movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:52 PM

19. No, I wish there was a mass movement but there is really not one

There are groups like the Brady Campaign and Everytown, but they are not really a mass movement that is effective at mobilizing large numbers of people. Bloomberg is a money man he is not an organizer and there are not many effective gun control groups being organized in local communities. Gun Control does have wide public support but so far the NRA has been far more effective at organizing their members than any gun control group has. I wish that were not the case because I support gun control and oppose the NRA, but the truth is that despite the fact that public support is on the side of gun control the NRA has a much bigger movement than our side does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:49 AM

86. Well done Bjorn

 

You did a good job of explaining the difference between a mass movement and a handful of advocacy groups. Obama was elected by a mass movement. But he governed as if his opponents were honest brokers. The RepubliCONS are never honest, so Obama's method was doomed to failure. Obama may have been voted in by a mass movement but he was funded by Wall Street banksters and the uber rich. He had to dismantle the mass movement to get his funder's agenda through. The people who voted him in and the people who gave him money had 2 very different agendas which to his credit he tried to mesh togeather. But in the end he threw a few bones to his voters and did the bidding of those who paid him. He was much better than any RepubliCON would ever have been but we all expected, and the country needed, an FDR.

The Koch brothers have developed a mass movement and are able to mobilize them to some extent. The anti health care reformers whose panties got all twisted over imaginary death
panels and the possibility of somone with darker skin getting good health care turned into teabaggers, who get call out whenever some right wing agenda needs supporters or a show of force. But the left has never developed such a movement. When they tried with Occupy they were quickly rejected by Obama and Wall Street.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #86)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:17 AM

103. Well done yourself, fasttense

Your explanation of Obama's failure is spot-on. I've been a member of DU for almost fifteen years and I've never really felt comfortable with all the petty bickering that goes on. Every so often a thoughtful nugget such as yours inspires me enough to comment and offer encouragement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:59 AM

115. The mass movement that is needed is not about one issue. What this movement once mobilized, has to

do is to make sure those who ignore the majority of Americans in favor of their big donors, are OUSTED from Congress and replaced with candidates the PEOPLE choose, who do NOT take donations from the Kochs or anyone else and who make a HUGE issue of it when they are running, exposing the Donations taken by those they are opposing.

Since over 80% of Americans now want the money OUT of politics, and much of Bernie's support is BECAUSE of that, now is the time for EVERY candidate to RUN AGAINST IT and run AGAINST those who are taking it.

Up to now, no campaign has ever made this the issue it should be. NOW it is happening, finally and already there ARE a few Congressional candidates doing what Bernie is doing, running on small donations from the people.

This would SHAME the Republicans, force them to explain who they will be beholden to, show their voting records and how they coincide with the donations they have taken.

As Biden and Bernie among others have said clearly, until THIS ONE ISSUE is dealt with, 'nothing ELSE can be achieved'.

So, in 2016 every person taking Big Donations who is running for Congress is going to be challenged by candidates who will force the issue on them.

The Kochs et al won't have much power if they simply cannot buy candidates anymore. Republicans don't like it either btw, so Repub candidates will be forced to worry more about getting elected, than continuing to think all they have to do is get enough money to win.

Make money from big donors SHAMEFUL so they either have to try to hide it, which they can't, or simply not run OR run on NOT taking it.

Once Congress is cleared of bought and paid for Reps, THEN things will begin to change. Those issues where a majority of the people agree, labeling of GMOs eg, Gun issues, can finally get somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:01 PM

43. That's actually a good example of DC refusing to listen to the public over their own system.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:02 PM

44. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 06:19 PM

70. So let's say he gets the amount of millions of people to get him elected do you expect .

How do you keep this revolution to continue and get his policy's through Congress?
Do these millions have to sit on the capital steps 24/7 until congress goes along with his agenda?
It takes more than one election cycle to sustain this "mass revolution ".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FloridaBlues (Reply #70)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 07:46 PM

73. He is talking about building a long term movement

Yes, this is about a lot more than one election cycle. This is about taking our government back from the wealthy interests that have corrupted it, and yes that will require a long term movement that will need millions of people participating. It can be done, but it will not be done by Bernie alone we just need him to lead right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:43 PM

11. "... and are succeeding at creating right now."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:49 PM

17. Um, you're basically saying the same thing he is

 

Part of that millions of people saying "enough is enough" are voters who make it clear to the GOP they are not going to buy their bullshit any longer. As well as the non-partisan center saying, the same and expressing it tthrough the political system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:49 PM

18. It will take a political revolution

And if Bernie Sanders wins the White House, it will be the result of a political revolution in which record numbers of motivated voters go to the polls.

I believe those voters will also check the D box in House & Senate races.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:21 PM

33. Here's the thing

In 2014, the GOP won 52% of the House vote and got 57% of the House seats. In 2012, we actually got more House votes than they did, and still didn't win the House or even come close to doing so. The margin that their 218th vote won by was 14 points in 2014, meaning we would have to win 55% of the vote (48% we got in 2014 plus half of their 14% margin.) Obama didn't win 55% of the vote running in 2008 against the party that had caused a second great depression, involved us in 2 foreign wars that they proceeded to botch, ran up trillions in debt, and let a major US city flood with no aid for the better part of a week and who nominated a 72 year old man running with a dimwit as VP. Obama still didn't get 55% of the vote. That means that if Bernie could, by some miracle run as well as Obama did in 2008, get every single solitary person who voted for him to vote for a Democratic candidate for the House, he still wouldn't have a House majority. He would still be short of a House majority even if he did all of that, which he is, frankly speaking, not going to be able to do.

http://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-house-races/

article from which I got the percentages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:46 PM

62. He is indeed saying that, and it's easy(ier) to bring about in a Presidential election

Than an off-year one...what he's REALLY proposing is a sustsined, long term organizing movement whereby if the Congress isn't responsive to the will of the Majority, they get REPLACED in 2 years, no questions asked.
I have no doubts that a President Sanders will spend the first 2 years in office using the Bully Pulpit to get a Blue Congress elected (and sadly, not much else).
But I think that's The Plan. Once a Responsive Congress gets to work, it will be 20-30 years before Americans decide the GOP should have another chance to wreck the Peoples Government.
THINK of all we could do with a full-term Real Blue Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:10 PM

26. Yep. Ain't gonna happen unless WE change Congress and replace Republicans and DINOs

with true Liberals and Progressives.

But it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. Instead, we might get rid of a few Democrats we perceive as DINOs and the result will be another Democratic massacre, bringing in Tea Partiers instead of liberal Dems...as 2010 clearly showed us. Sure, we purged the ConservaDems but what did we get in return? TEA BAGGERS. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 03:28 PM

124. What 2010 showed us was what happens when you don't even try to do what

the people elected you to do.

In 2014 the DNC decided to double down on the strategy of appealing to Republicans, with predictable results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:41 PM

58. 100,000 people marching in Washington can change the status quo.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:01 PM

116. I firmly agree.

The first order of business is to get people to the polls who can be convinced that they can change the situation. Until the House and Senate are under Democrats control nothing of substance can be passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 01:35 PM

119. So don't try, because it's hard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 02:02 PM

121. If Bernie's voters actually LISTEN to Bernie ...

 

... then there is no way on God's pretty, little, green Earth that Congress CAN stay in GOP hands if Bernie wins the Presidency. If they've accepted the Senator's message, then he will have long & broad coattails, and we'll see a Democratic Majority in the House (EVERY house seat is up for grabs, EVERY 2 years!) and in the Senate (there are more traditionally blue seats up than traditionally red seats in the 2016 Senate Races.) IF Sanders wins the Preesidency (as Trump might say, a YUGE IF!) then I fully expect that he'll also get a blue Congress, and the obstruction won't be such an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to staggerleem (Reply #121)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 03:17 PM

123. Yes there is

sorry but the math is the math. It is perfectly possible, actually quite likely (as in a well over 80 percent chance) of us getting a Republican House even if we win the Presidency by a decent margin. Even if every, single, solitary, Obama voter had voted for a Democrat for the House in 2012, we still would have lost the Congress by a fairly decent margin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:22 PM

2. obama thought the same with his mandate and grassroot. didnt happen. sanders can believe he is

 

special and it will be different

i am not convinced.

but good to know how he is going to attempt to accomplish his agenda. obama had to become very creative to accomplish what he has. i do not like to dismiss his 6 yrs....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:42 PM

10. Sanders is outlining a strategy that differs from Obama's.

 

I've read the complaint that Obama, once elected, did not use the OfA resource. People on that huge mailing list were largely ignored except for pleas to donate to the Democratic Party or its candidates. Nor was Obama on TV, vigorously denouncing Republican obstructionism.

For example (I don't know if Sanders would agree with this example but it fits his general statement): When the Republicans used a partial shutdown as leverage for their policy objectives, Obama could have done a TV speech in which he held up a copy of a one- or two-page bill that would continue spending at established levels. He could have explained how simple this was and urged people to demand that their Congressmembers support the bill (including signing a discharge petition to get around Boehner's obstructionism). He could have particularly threatened the Republican Congressmen who represented districts he carried -- going to their districts, waving around a copy of the bill, painting them (accurately) as the villains, and promising to return to the district to campaign against them the next year.

Obama instead chose a more conciliatory course. We can argue about whether, in advance, he should have known that this wouldn't work very well. What's clear, with the benefit of hindsight, is that it didn't. Obama himself appears to have realized this.

I interpret Sanders's statement in the OP as meaning that, from Day One, he'll go on the offensive. Some Republican Congressmembers are hopeless because they care only about a Tea Party challenge. Others, however, do represent blue or purple districts. A President who wasn't as averse to confrontation as Obama was initially could bring a lot of pressure to bear on them, making them fear a Democrat in November more than a Tea Partier in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:48 PM

16. i get it. i dont buy it. but, if he wins it would be interesting to watch. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:33 PM

54. If he wins

Will you help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #54)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:39 PM

56. with rings on my fingers and bells on my toes, lots of excitement and fun to be had. stickers on

 

car and signs in the yard.

i can easily sell sanders to my republican white middle and upper middle class texas neighbors.

and if hillary wins. can we see that excitement from you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:42 PM

59. I font get that excited for anything but cake

But oh yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #59)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:44 PM

61. ha ha. that is cute. no, i am stuck in very red. any smart talking left leaning dem really turns

 

me on. more than even cake.

i truly love all three of our dems, just in a different order than most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:01 PM

64. My excitement level for Hillary would depend on what she pushes.

 

If she goes on TV and urges me to lobby my Congresscritter for some bad trade deal, she can pound sand.

If she decides to push single payer, or even adding a public option to the ACA, then yes, I'll be there with her. Probably without the bells on the toes, though, that ain't my style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #64)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:05 PM

66. sanders is my third choice. he is also dem. there are some really tough things about him that makes

 

him undesirable. i am also capable of seeing a plus in every candidate that i can get excited about.

that simple

i will simply focus on the parts i like.

ok. he clearly is not a dem, but represents dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:34 AM

93. You are right about one thing

ok. he clearly is not a dem, but represents dems.


Just one clarification - he is too liberal to be an establishment, modern DNC party dem. THAT there can be little to argue about. And I am hoping he can change what it means to be establishment, BTW. We need to get back to our roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #93)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:45 AM

95. he claims, declares, states, .... he is NOT a liberal. he does not want people to get confused. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #95)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:52 AM

98. Sort of Correct

And not to sound too Clintonian, it depends on what your definition of "liberal" is.

In my opinion, the closest historic politician to Bernie from a policy standpoint is FDR. I would think that the vast majority of democrats and the world in general would classify FDR as a liberal. FDR's detractors like to smear him with the word "socialist". I like that Bernie is reclaiming that word in an attempt to take its power away from those against liberal and socialist ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #98)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:54 AM

100. lmao... you are telling sanders he is sorta correct when HE defines himself? priceless

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #100)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:28 AM

105. I am sorry I am not being more clear

Sanders defines himself as socialist democrat. In less precise modern terminology, that means liberal. I don't know why this is LMOA worthy, unless you are merely trying to insult instead of discuss politely a point terminology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #105)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:30 AM

106. however you define liberal, which is one of the very issues on du. whose defined liberal. sanders

 

has clearly stated. he is not a liberal. you would have to research why he feels he needs to make the statement. i would tell you if i read, or remembered. i do not

but.... for whatever reason he states, vocally, and precisely, .... he is not a liberal.

that is all i was saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #106)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:34 AM

109. Fair enough, and I do not know exactly why he says it this way

Perhaps someone else on the board can educate us both. My GUESS is that liberal is not a well defined term. It means many things depending on context, who is saying it, what country is saying it. Democratic Socialist has less ambiguity about it.

Or he may have completely other reason for doing this. Don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #109)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:39 AM

110. thanks. that is all i am saying. i might check it out. it was interesting sittin around reading

 

the backstory on sanders for decades. a very very interesting man. i like to bring people closest to the reality they are. one of the ways, is to actually listen to what they are saying. so.... i found a very interesting life choices that create a wonderful story.

i like and respect the man, but in listening to his words, i see him differently than a lot of his supporters.

i see a different role for him than president. that i think he would like and kick ass. i simply do not see him as pres.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #105)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:33 AM

108. i guess this is why i laugh. if i am a supporter, and i hear sanders has clearly stated he is not a

 

liberal. emphatic. i would say.... wow, that is interesting. i wonder why. i gotta know what he is saying here. thinking it might give me some information, to better understand the man, so i can better access info to a decision i am making.

and i would go out and do research to find out why

i would not suggest sanders is wrong. that he is a liberal. regardless of what sanders said.

i do not do stuff like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:17 PM

30. Yep, take it to the people and ask them to demand it.

It will work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:23 PM

34. I agree. I remember how JFK courted the press..

and how I wish Obama had done the same thing.
I know the press isn't what it was 50 years ago, but I do think the president could have used it more to his advantage.

Obama is personable, likable and intelligent. Now that he's getting out more and more, his approval ratings have risen. He should have dragged the mean, nasty GOP out of it's hole a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:27 PM

36. Absolutely

One of the ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:07 PM

50. Again. Sanders is a realist. He is not going to have to pander to donors who have two feet

in the Republican Party and a big toe just for show in the Democratic Party.

Sanders won't owe these clowns anything when he gets into office, not even a silly anti-flag-burning bill such as the one Hillary sponsored in Congress.

Remember that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Much as I love the flag, that bill was a waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:44 PM

13. Sanders gives credit where credit is due

 

He doesn't say Obama was a failure or a raging success. He calls 'em as he sees them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:46 PM

15. it is from his perspective. just cause he calls it does not mean he is always correct.

 

some may even disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:01 PM

21. You are correct that some may diagree ......Wotta country.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:01 PM

23. lol. ah ha.... ;). yup. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 2, 2015, 01:11 AM

132. ummmmm....nooooooooo... primary him (Obama) doesnt sound pro Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:05 PM

46. Let's hope Bernie doesn't waste his first two years bending over for the republifucks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:38 PM

77. Baloney. Obama got everything he wanted. He is a conservative thru and thru. He didn't want

 

single payer. He didn't want to control Wall Street, that's why he appointed Holder. He was smart enough not to think he could negotiate with the Republicons. He never wanted to roll back the Patriot Act or close Gitmo. He got everything he wanted with maybe the exception of the TPP. The TPP is Conservative all the way. Corporations love it and unions hate it. Which side are you on? Unions or Corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #77)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:41 PM

78. baloney

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #78)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:43 PM

79. Which side of the TPP debate are you on? The unions side or the big corporations side?

 

I doubt you will answer so I will guess. You will choose whatever Obama says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #79)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:49 PM

81. neither. i dont have enough information to make an informed decision and i do not trust either side

 

i have heard both stretch truth or manipulate conversation so i have to do the research first before buying into a side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #81)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:35 AM

82. So you think the unions might be lying and the corporations might be telling the truth?

 

Sooner or later you are going to have to choose a side. Corporate run America or Free America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #82)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:26 AM

85. +1 an entire shit load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #82)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:22 AM

91. The Unions are for the Keystone XL pipeline. Are they wrong in this instance?



side-choosing. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #82)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:46 AM

97. i think everyone has an agenda and i have a responsibility to be as informed as possible.

 

i have to read the words. facts. reality. then process. listen to sides on the issue. process some more and then... i can articulate my position.

and for clarity, and for those that like to assign shit to conversations. agenda is not a bad word. it can be. or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #77)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:53 AM

99. Couldn't agree more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:32 AM

107. because he shut down every part of it just as he was sworn in.

The lists, the contacts, the communications - all shut down.

Yes, I understand why, as he wanted to govern as president of all of the USA. But, had he been a little less naive early on, and avoided trying to buy a compromise from the GOP at all cost, his would have been a far more successful presidency. As it is, he did learn that lesson, and has done a reasonable job of late.

But even he expressed regret about staying in the Rose Garden, while Big Pharma and Tea Baggers hijacked town meetings and concocted rumors like "death squads."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #107)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:43 AM

113. i agree. i did not like that either. i wonder if it is his personality and the way he walks life

 

if it had something to do with the first black president

or if it was a combination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:28 PM

3. Yeah, ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:28 PM

4. Huummm, I wonder why Bernie has not negotiated with Congress since he is a member and knows

how people have needed jobs so badly. It does not have to be the president working with Congress, they should be able to do this within Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:38 PM

7. But he has....

 

His record speaks for him, I'm not going to try to educate DUers.

If they want to believe a thing about a person, they'll believe it no matter what evidence is provide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyPlace (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:16 PM

28. And he's failed. That lackluster legislative history of his will follow him into the White House,

and he'll nothing done unless he compromises in a BIG way.

Unless his supporters can get House and Senate candidates who are more in line with Bernie Sanders and his agenda; unless they can fund those candidates and get them the attention they need and then get them elected...Sanders' ambitious agenda is headed nowhere, and if he compromises, he'll lose credibility. If he remains staunch on his principles, he'll become a lame-duck president the moment he tries.

What most of his supporters fail to realize is, it's Congress that holds the cards when it comes to the changes in policy Bernie Sanders is running on, and although most Americans agree with Sanders on the issues, they're loathed to lose their State reps and senators. Americans loathe Congress, but they love their candidates. That's a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:18 PM

31. Inference from your reply: we must give in to whomever is in Congress, GOP, Tea Party, etc.

 

I disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyPlace (Reply #31)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:30 PM

37. No. What I'm saying is, change Congress. I'm saying this out of frustration

that I've tried but no one I've contacted back in 2012 wanted to deviate from voting for Dianne Feinstein. We had a chance to get a real Liberal to beat her in her primaries. In 2012, I donated to his campaign and went door-to-door (most doors slammed in my face!) for Mike Strimling to get the support he needed in order to beat DiFi. I was really driven because I dislike her so.

People refused to listen. They chose to vote for the candidate the California Democratic Party was pushing.

In the end, he got less votes than Orly Taitz. Bummed me out big time. I'm still not really over it.

So this is why I keep saying here and on other boards, if we want a president like Bernie Sanders, we need to give him a Congress that will work with him. The Congress we have now, even when Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, will not work with him. They're already showing that by not endorsing him. To date, he's received zero endorsements from Dems in House, Senate, and States. Not even the Democratic governor of Vermont, Sanders' home State, wanted to endorse him. Peter Shumlin endorsed Hillary Clinton back in May.

That's the writing on the wall, and it's not a good sign for Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #37)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 01:48 PM

120. Thank you for your Hard Effort BCD


I have disliked DF well over a decade and a half since I started to pay more attention. I really wonder if her rival ever legitimately received a fraction of the votes credited his way. I really don't know of anybody that likes DF as Senator. Really makes me wonder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:13 PM

52. He co-sponsored over 5,000 bills

 

230+ became law.

Use resources, instead of pulling fake facts out of your derriere.

Use congress.gov (when it comes back up later tonight) - it'll tell you the real story.

Clinton co-sponsored 74 bills, all which became law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cry (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:41 PM

57. How many of his 300 sponsored bills saw the light of day and became law?

Three, successfully, of which two were the renaming of Post Offices. Know the difference between co-sponsoring and sponsoring. Here, let me help you:

A sponsor in the United States Congress is the first member of the House or Senate to be listed among the potentially numerous lawmakers who introduce a bill for consideration.[1] Committees are occasionally identified as sponsors of legislation as well. A sponsor is also sometimes called a "primary sponsor."[2]

It should not be assumed that a bill's sponsor actually drafted it. The bill may have been drafted by a staff member, by an interest group, or by others.[3] In the Senate, multiple sponsorship of a bill is permitted.[2]

In contrast to a sponsor, a "cosponsor" is a senator or representative who adds his or her name as a supporter to the sponsor's bill. An "initial cosponsor" or "original cosponsor" is a senator or representative who was listed as a cosponsor at the time of a bill's introduction, rather than added as a cosponsor later on.[2] A cosponsor added later is known as an "additional cosponsor".[2] Some bills have hundreds of cosponsors.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_%28legislative%29


Clinton co-sponsored 74 bills, all which became law.

Keep things in perspective. How long has she served in Congress as opposed to Bernie Sanders? You're comparing apples to oranges.

Again, he has a lackluster record on legislative accomplishments for a man who's been in Congress 24+ years and believes he can get Congress to pass his ambitious agenda should he become president. I'm not wowed by his skills.

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE his fiery rhetoric and passion. We need more of that amongst Democrats in the House and Senate. But at the end of the day, I'm looking at what gets done for the country, and Bernie Sanders hasn't shown he's up to the task.

Also, keep your ad hominems to yourself. Here is some sage advice from Proverbs 29:11: "Fools give full vent to their rage, but the wise bring calm in the end."

Food for thought, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:01 AM

88. Can you name someone who has done more than Sanders and is seeking nomination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:08 AM

102. Goes to show how Congress has drifted away from the needs of the working middle class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:42 PM

9. Because most of Congress is corrupt and does not care about the working class

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but Republicans in Congress have not been willing to negotiate with anyone who is not in lock step with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 06:42 PM

72. In fact I do keep up with what happens in congress, ergo, Congress does not fall in step very easily

If Bernie did not get their cooperation while he is a member I dont see it happening while he is president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:04 PM

45. He got community health care centers included in the ACA.

He negotiated, and the negotiations were tough, for the reforms at the VA.

He is a tough negotiator but he gets the work done.

What has Hillary Clinton achieved in Congress?

She cast some good votes. She supported some good measures.

But she voted for the War in Iraq, was absent when it was time to vote against the revisions to the Bankruptcy Act for individuals.

I don't think that Hillary can really boast about her own work in Congress.

She was there. There was something about flag-burning as I recall.

Here it is:

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Bennett. The law would have outlawed flag burning, and called for a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000.[1][2]

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the act was summarized as such:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[3]

Since the law was not passed nor considered by the U

nited States Congress, its constitutionality was not challenged by the Supreme Court. However, the bill's language was designed so as to prohibit the desecration of a flag when the intent was found to be a threat to public safety, the intention being that it would therefore not violate the First Amendment and not be declared unconstitutional.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

I love the flag, but . . . . . . . . ?????

If this is an example of Hillary's idea of working with Republicans in Congress, I really hate to think . . . . . . .. . . . ..

What a waste of congressional time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:06 PM

47. ...and then there all those jobs that China lost over all the trade deals.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:06 PM

48. I recon it's because there are 3 branches of government...

… and there are more avenues of negotiation between the Executive Branch and Legislative than within the slow down process of the US Senate.

The "inside negotiations" are something I've never seen reported on because they are back room in the Congress all the live-long days we've HAD a Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:47 PM

80. Thanks for bringing this up. Sen Sanders has been more active in helping the 99% than many

 

Democratic Senators. But I am guessing that you aren't a big fan of the 99%. You probably think that the wealthy should lead us because they are soooo successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:37 PM

5. vague generalities run riot - any of us could have given that answer

when one hijacks a party nomination of a party one has disparaged for many years one might need more specifics, like how will he get any of those dems to go along with him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:07 PM

25. You think it would be a good idea for the Dems to obstruct President Sanders?

That would certainly help to underscore the differences between the two parties, amirite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #25)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:07 PM

49. We'll vote them out in 2018. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:43 PM

12. Well, that's settled!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:45 PM

14. He's said this repeatedly.

No president can do it by himself. That's the whole point of the political revolution. He's talking about the mass movement that we are seeing, that we are growing, to bring about real change...from outside the beltway, currently controlled by big money.

He keeps saying it. It's not about him, but about the movement. I'm not sure what people have AGAINST a movement that breaks corruption, gridlock, and corporate control of government. It's not just about the '16 election of the next president. It's about organizing and being active at ALL levels of government.

The bigger we can grow the movement, the bigger Sanders coattails will be in the GE, the more change we can affect.

Or we can continue down the road we've been on, business as usual, which is not working well for the 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 02:52 PM

20. What Bernie means is that he wants

a lot of the progressives to take over the party.

The example for that is the tea party. It starts at
the local level and works its way up. And, no, it
does not take that long, as the tea baggers have
shown us.
However, it is up to the progressive movement
to see this as a long time effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:36 PM

39. BINGO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:01 PM

22. Real change always comes from outside pressure.


As a veteran civil rights protester, Sanders knows this. No one -- not Barack Obama, Not Hilary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders -- can waltz into Washington with a sackful of good ideas and just make them happen.

Compromise is possible, but the Republicans planted their feet in 2008 in a new way. They obstructed everything. Before Obama was even sworn in, they promised to do this. And they didn't pay for it much politically. They still have fans of shutting down the government out there, rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of a government literally able to do nothing.

But big stuff -- like wresting policy away from Wall Street and defense contractors and the pharmaceutical industry? That's going to take continued public outcry, and a showing that no amount of PAC money can force corporatist politicians into office.

If Sanders -- or Clinton, or anyone is going to really shift the balance of power at all back toward the common good, it's going to take continued public engagement and pressure.

It's good that he recognizes that, and we all should do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #22)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:07 PM

24. REAL change starts local. this is why i see the fail on this one. not interested in

 

establishing real change if he is not having conversation and efforts starting local. and that takes about a decade. repugs did it in 2000. they were successful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:19 PM

32. You want Sanders to run for local school board? 8)


Not sure what you're getting at. There is plenty of support for the kinds of changes Sanders is talking about at the local level. If there wasn't, he wouldn't be drawing the crowds and the numbers he is.

I take your point that Republicans have done better than Dems at times taking over the local soil and water commissions and so forth, but national conversations happen at all levels, and support for shifting away from corporate interests dictating how everything is done has never been lacking.

The fact that Sanders has gone from what many presumed would be a fringe novelty campaign to a significant national discussion is evidence the support on the ground exists already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:23 PM

35. right. that is what i said.... done with silly statements.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:15 PM

27. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:17 PM

29. He's kinda like Obama

 

Obama thought the bully pulpit of the presidency would enable him to call on the people. Well, the people responded, but the Republican ass hats simply ignored the people. If Sanders is president, he will have to govern by executive order. I mean, the chair of the DNC can't even support President Obama, so Sanders would get weak help from there. Clinton cites this as a big advantage, but is it really? I mean, when the chair of the president's party refuses to support the president, how meaningful is the party association?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:35 PM

38. The Party Establishment Democrats were against Obama from the get-go. He received NO support

from them and they've joined with Republicans to obstruct his agenda almost from the start. But Obama is a master community organizer and incredibly savvy. He was still able to get most of his campaign promises even with Congress obstructing him every which way. He was able to beat them (for the most part) because of his skill.

I don't see that talent and skill in Bernie Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:41 PM

40. K&R...Thanks for posting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:55 PM

41. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:57 PM

42. Unless Sanders plans to become a dictator he isn't going to shovel anything past

the Congress w/o negotiating. For a guy who says he is an outsider leading a revolution, then being a benevolent despot might be his way of saying he'll get things done. Bernie Sanders isn't no outside he's been there since 1992, pretending doesn't count. Now he blames President Obama for not doing enough when he had the chance. In a very short time after assuming the Presidency he did negotiate and get a 750 billion dollar recovery plan later 831 billion, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A stimilus a plan for shovel ready infrastructure projects. Was it enough Sanders doesn't now think so, really he voted for it. I recall things were fairly unsteady back then.

Everything he proposes requires an accommodation or negotiation with both houses of Congress. The POTUS proposes and Congress desposes. Good luck Bernie, people have twisted, shouted, protested and still very little gets done.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:08 PM

51. Bernie would need to compromise to get anything done.

And when he does, he'll be called a sellout.

Anyone who thinks electing Bernie leads to a magical shift is clueless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:24 PM

53. They'd have to vote in the right representatives

no point in claiming they want something they did not vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:37 PM

55. In this instance, BS is full of it...

Obama continually asked for the nations help, he didn't get it...especially in 2010 and 2012.

Here is just one example:

The only way it's been done in America for 221 years, block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand what began 21 months ago, in the dead of winter cannot end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change, and that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.....where each of us resolves to pitch in...




President Obama did tour after tour to try and get his agenda pushed through, over many years.

I like Bernie, but these kind of campaign mis-steps where he tries to rewrite history in order to advance his campaign at the expense of the President, just pisses me off. President Obama did ask for our help, we failed him. He didn't fail us.

Bernie needs to have a plan that does not involve alienating many in the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #55)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:43 PM

60. Which agenda? He could have had a million people march in Wash for Medicare for All.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #60)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:52 PM

63. Really?

That's your answer? Medicare for all? 10 million in a March would not have gotten 60 Senate votes.

The President went out relentlessly after every State of the Union speech to push his proposals. He went out a ton to get his jobs passage thru.

The simple truth is we let him down by not showing up in 2010 and 2014.

These campaign tactics that Bernie can somehow defeat the math with a better attitude is a joke...and I like Bernie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #63)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:02 PM

65. Which particular proposals? I mean nobodies going to march for the TTP, or a war on Libya....

 

And I have to disagree, A million in Washington would have got us at least one Senator for a public option, I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #65)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:33 PM

69. Come on...

You want me to research ten proposals for you or it's not true to you? You know the President was out there for his jobs bills, Dream Act, after every SOU address.,, and who says anyone would march for TPP or Libya? Certainly not me.

Lastly, lol the D's would have needed a lot more than one more vote to get single payer approved.

There was no courage in the House to even vote on it:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66721-pelosi-no-house-vote-on-single-payer-plan

And in the Senate? So much for your march, Bernie Sanders withdrew the single payer amendment. You choose to blame the President for not organizing a march: WHAT ABOUT BERNIE?

Sanders acknowledged the proposal lacked the votes to pass, and he chose to withdraw it after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., exercised his prerogative and required Senate clerks to begin reading the 767-page proposal aloud to a nearly empty chamber. After three hours, they were 139 pages into it.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_reform/t/single-payer-health-care-plan-dies-senate/

As I said in my first post..I like Bernie...but this campaign tactic of trying to rewrite history is a friggin' lie and does him no service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #69)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 09:28 AM

87. I'm sorry but you are wrong

 

You do not rally a mass movement by talking to the corporate media and saying call congress. Do you think that's how the teabaggers call out to their people? NO, they have phone trees, dates and times, locations and transportation set up. You get one person to call in a certain location and they organize people to come out, like the unions do. In fact he could have had Acorn, the unions and Occupy organizing for him. He could have led occupy instead breaking it up.

Obama dismantled the mass of people who voted for him, he dismantled Acorn, he passed free tade agreements and the GM bailout alienating the Unions, he crushed Occupy. Every time the left developed a mass movement or organization to support liberal ideals, he's crushed it by force, legislation, or passing trade deals.

It started when he didn't invite the single payer advocates to the table, then he said he wanted to trash Social Security and Medicare with chain CPI, and continued through giving the rich tax cuts and passing free trade agreements and fast track. He made sure there is no viable organizational capacity in the liberal movement except for the DNC which is really all about Wall Street.

To claim the movement abandoned Obama is to be blind to what has happened these past 7 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #87)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:41 AM

111. Lol OK

We're not even on the same planet.

I did not suggest a strategy for BS. I suggested he not be dishonest about what happened in the past. If I were going to suggest a strategy for BS that is not dishonest about the past it would be that he propose the Senate change the rules so you don't need 60 votes to do anything. Phone trees, dates, times, places won't get you 60 Senate votes fasttense.

If you want to blame anyone for the past, blame Harry Reid...

Your second & third paragraphs are outlandish on their face to anyone who reads it so a reply is not necessary.

Bernie Sanders pulled the single payer amendment, not Barack Obama, get your facts straight. It's convenient to blame the President, but if there was some secret strategy back then to get to 60 votes, surely Bernie would have tried it.

I like Bernie too, but the campaign tactic of dissing the President is dishonest and ill advised....you'll need his supporters too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #111)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 02:52 PM

122. Some of us are on planet Earth

If you cannot see the potential that was wasted from the mass support that Obama had mostly built with his progressive stances during the primaries, then you must be on Pluto. And his firey speeches demanding things like a Public Option, and closing Gitmo, and ending the Bush Tax Cuts etc..and then immediately after sworn in, he took his cards and folded them to the delight of the snickering McConnell and Boehner, with the "hope" that by rolling over and showing submission, the other side might just give him a bone.

And I call bullshit on Sanders pulled the single payer amendment. If you are referring to his home State's efforts. He has always championed it. It wasn't he that pulled it.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/232848-sanders-puts-brave-face-on-single-payer-troubles

Sanders, a self-described socialist, has been a champion of nationwide government-provided health insurance for everyone, known as single-payer healthcare.

But a plan to enact just such a system in Sanders’s home state of Vermont suffered a major setback in December when Gov. Peter Shumlin (D), who had been a champion of the effort, dropped the proposal, concluding it was not financially feasible.


He was never in a position to "pull" it on a national level. Get YOUR facts straight.



Barrack Obama decided, at some point, that from what he saw, if he wanted to be a two-term President, he was going to be the ultimate Third Way President. To his credit, he believed his words in his 2004 speech about that there is no Red States, no Blue States, but the United States. Nice sentiments, but the political climate at the end of the Bush regime was so poisonous with Republicans, because like all right wingers, they do not capitulate, they only get more defensive and radical. Obama decided that he would not use the bully pulpit more, rally the crowds to stand with him in his fight for at the very least, a public option.

He could have done that by simply refusing to fold his cards so early. Have Republicans screaming on Fox News how Obama was the devil and wouldn't negotiate etc... He could have shown backbone and stood his ground. Fox News etc..was never going to cut him slack anyways. THAT would have kept those crowds behind him. The way it went down, he lost that base of support. Frankly it was embarrassing watching that display. He killed the enthusiasm for that potential. It got to the point that by the time 2010 rolled around, traditional Democrats had already lost faith and ambition to even vote. Yes they voted him back in in 2012, look who he was running against. What he and any Democratic President needs is to sustain that call to action through the midterm elections. He decided that he did not want to risk being only a one term President, and be painted as too left wing. And saw the rewards for his family going forward if he just played ball with the Status Quo in Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #122)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 04:47 PM

126. Bullshit?

Maybe you didn't read two posts up, I provided a link that showed Sanders pulled single payer.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34446325/ns/politics-health_care_reform/t/single-payer-health-care-plan-dies-senate/

It's not me that has a problem with facts.

I appreciate the time you put into your narrative, but there is nothing in there that alters the reality that somehow, without 60 votes, Obama could not get much done.

I think all of this anger is displaced. It should be directed at Harry Reid and others who did not get rid of the fillibuster rules when they had a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #126)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:10 PM

128. Bullshit by any other name

No I did not see your link.

Your post is still a load of cow manure in that YOU know that Bernie Sanders has long fought for a Single Payer system. So I researched more about that "pulled single payer", and found out this:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/december/sen-bernie-sanders-on-his-amendment-for-single-payer

Instead, his amendment to create a single-payer health care system was used as a tool by Senate Republicans to create gridlock in the chamber as they sought to derail the health care reform plans of Democrats and President Barack Obama.

"That is an outrage," said the Vermont independent on the floor of the Senate Wednesday afternoon. "People can have honest disagreements, but in this moment of crisis it is wrong to bring the United States government to a halt."

Sanders' proposal wasn't going to garner many votes on the Senate floor, but it would have been the first time that a single-payer health care system was debated and voted on by Congress. Single-payer supporters saw that as a positive step forward.

But when Sanders introduced his amendment, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, asked that it be read in its entirety before a vote, an unusual move given that the readings of most proposals are waived as a courtesy and for the sake of time.

Sanders' amendment is 767 pages long. After 20 minutes, a Senate clerk got through reading the table of contents. Three hours later, a reluctant Sanders withdrew his amendment.

.....

Sanders said a request from Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, convinced him to pull the amendment from consideration. Reading the whole bill would have taken 10-15 hours, Sanders said, and a pressing vote on the new defense budget was scheduled for later that evening.

"I've been told that if there are more amendments to be considered, mine is at the top of the list," Sanders said, adding that his single-payer plan still exists as a separate bill introduced earlier this year.

Forcing the reading of the single-payer amendment was just the latest attempt by Republicans "to suppress any debate on health care reform," said Dr. Quentin Young, the national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program, a Chicago-based organization representing 17,000 medical professionals.

"This was a cynical and obvious move," said Young, who described the country's health care system as deteriorating.

Young didn't hold Democrats free of criticism either, however. He said the bill considered by the Senate – which has been stripped of the public health insurance option and the Medicare expansion – is "a giant step backwards." He said Sanders should vote against the bill.

"The President's role in this has been shameful," said Young, who was Obama's friend and neighbor during the President's early days as a politician in Chicago. "He's backed off all of his campaign promises while caving into the insurance industry."

Sanders said Wednesday that he has not decided yet how to vote on the bill, which now lacks many of the proposals he saw as vital to reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #128)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:59 PM

129. My "post is a load of cow manure"

I want to thank you for yet another ill-mannered BS supporter post. Your use of insult / bad language does nothing to convince me your position is the correct one. Maybe it just makes you feel good. I guess that's fine.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into your response. I do agree there were many that conspired to defeat single payer nationally. I also agree Bernie is a staunch supporter of single payer, always has been.

The whole point I've been trying to politely make is that back then Bernie was confronted with the same forces that Barack Obama was, e.g., he didn't have 60 votes for single payer so Bernie got screwed by the same people who our President has struggled with for now over 6 years.

He is on TV this past weekend purporting to have some strategy that will succeed in 2017 where Barack Obama failed, except he forgets to mention that...Bernie failed too!The reality is they didn't have 60 votes then and Bernie will not have 60 votes in 2017 if he wins.

IMO, that makes it a bad campaign tactic to try and raise his own stature by trampling on the President for the very same failure Bernie himself experienced. It would have been a much better tactic for him to propose changing Senate rules and leave the President be. If it doesn't work to trash Hillary, why would it be a good strategy to trash the President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #129)

Tue Sep 1, 2015, 02:39 PM

130. I apologize if I offended with my language

Bullshit, cow manure. But what else could I call it. What you did was try and assimilate a defeat of a single payer inclusion into a bill compounded with Republican shenanagins, as "Bernie pulled his support for Singe Payer". Implying that he is fickle about he issue, and was not serious about supporting it. When he has been fighting for this his whole political life.

Yes, Barack Obama failed. Why he failed is our disagreement. IMO Obama gave up in those early days, in hopes of gaining some traction with the GOP no-machine. Bernie, like Obama, has a great speaking voice. Both are capable of explaining progressive ideas that actually save money. The difference is Obama was convinced by elements in the right wing of the Dem party to give it up. Bernie will not. And perhaps unlike Obama, he is able to transcend party politics and appeal to southern Republican voters as well.

You predict failure. Obviously single payer will not happen anytime soon. But its also about explaining and enlightening the public about how it works, is more cost effective etc..So that eventually it will become a reality. Perhaps during a Bernie presidency or after. But sooner than having a candidate win that will put all that on the back burner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #130)

Tue Sep 1, 2015, 03:33 PM

131. I think you misunderstand

I was not implying Bernie Sanders was fickle. I was saying he pulled the single payer amendment because he couldn't get 60 votes to get it past the fillibuster....and yes it was the Republicans fault he could not get to 60.

I can agree Obama gave up, failed...but then Bernie did too! They didn't have the numbers, and neither tried to organize the masses to overcome the "Republican shenanigans" as you say. No one is fickle. No one is a bad guy. They just could not get to 60.

Given that reality, I think it would be more appropriate to blame Harry Reid for not changing the Senate rules than the President. I also think it's bad strategy, even if he thinks the President is at fault to say so. If it's bad strategy to trash Hillary, it should also be bad strategy to attack the President for a failure both Bernie and the President suffered from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #60)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:52 AM

114. What do you use to support that contention?

 

Nobody organized that march on their own. You would think if there were really a million people ready and willing and able to march for that, somebody would have put together at least a good half a million people march.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #55)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:13 PM

68. yes. how soon people forget. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #55)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 08:46 PM

74. No, Bernie is highlighting a legitimate difference in tactics.

 

Obama, as in the quotation you present, chose an initial approach to to the Republicans based on sweet reason, we all have to pitch in, post-partisanship, etc.

With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that he should have done a nationwide TV address in which he used some of the words that are commonplace on DU, such as denouncing the Republicans as obstructionists who are doing the bidding of big business.

IIRC, polling shows that a substantial majority of Americans agree that "big business" has too much influence over government. Did Obama ever make a major play to tap into that sentiment? Did he ever use the phrase "one percent" in a speech and tie the Republicans to protecting the rich and the "banksters" who triggered the recession? I don't think so.

The stimulus is a good example. His initial proposal was a major attempt to win over the Republicans by being nice. The stimulus package was much less than what liberal economists like Krugman said was necessary. Even as to what he did propose, about a third of it was in tax cuts, which liberal economists (well, just about all the honest economists) say have less of a stimulative effect, dollar-for-dollar, than targeted spending increases. He did these things to accommodate Republicans' preferences and show his willingness to work with them.

It didn't work. The Republicans gratefully accepted his concessions and then almost universally voted against the plan anyway.

If Sanders had somehow been elected in 2008, maybe he would have done the same thing. But if Sanders now had a time machine and could advise the newly inaugurated Obama, I think his point is that, based on what he's seen since 2009, his advice would be to be more confrontational. He would rely less on accommodating the Republicans and more on mobilizing popular opinion against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #74)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:20 PM

75. I hear your points, but, respectfully

it is a distinction without a difference.

No attitude, political approach will trump the mathematics of how many Representatives and Senators each party has..

Bernie's assertion that a different approach would have trumped math is complete nonsense. If he really believed that, he would have forced a different approach instead of pulling back single payer as he in fact did.

I don't have a problem with him saying he will try something new, but it is dishonest (by his own actions at the time) to construct a narrative for his campaign that President Obama did anything wrong....neither the President nor Bernie could then nor will they be in 2016 able to beat the math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #75)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 03:20 AM

83. Your math is too simplistic

 

I assume you mean the math that the Republicans will almost certainly have a majority in the House in the next Congress. That, alas, is true. What's too simplistic, though, is to assume that all Republicans are identical.

There are Tea Party true believers. Then there are those who aren't true believers but pretend to be, because they're nervously looking over their right shoulders at a possible Tea Party challenger. Both those groups are probably hopeless.

BUT there are also Republicans who are more vulnerable on the left than the right. Notably, some of them represent districts that Obama carried. The strategy I'm suggesting is to bring pressure to bear on them to peel them away from the Republican majority on some key votes.

That Senator Sanders withdrew his single-payer bill doesn't say much about what President Obama could have done. By virtue of his office, Obama can get national TV time. By virtue of his popularity, he could intimidate Republicans in swing districts. Sanders couldn't have done those things.

I'm not saying this is a slam dunk. It's quite possible that, if Obama had tried this strategy from the beginning, he wouldn't have done any better with Congress. It's hard to see, though, how he could have done any worse.

With regard to Obama's term, this is hindsight. He chose to apply the tactic of "You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar" and it might have worked out. Sanders, however, has learned from Obama's experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #83)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:25 AM

104. OK we agree to disagree

If there was a workable strategy to get to 60 votes, Bernie would have tried it back then...it wasn't President Obama who withdrew single payer it was Bernie Sanders himself....so painting President Obama with a failed strategy when Bernie had none either is simply a dishonest characterization of the past.

I understand what your saying about Bernie "learning", but unless and until the Senate changes the rules so you don't need 60 votes to pass things in the Senate, the math will fail whatever strategy Bernie has to offer. It is a very hard thing to get 60 votes..

So I politely disagree. You can have the last word if you wish..,.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #55)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 03:34 PM

125. You mean when Rahm called liberals "fucking retarded" what he really meant was

"President Obama would like your help"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #125)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 04:50 PM

127. Impressive retort

Does not get the D's to 60 votes though.

I'm getting lots of waling and gnashing of teeth here, but nothing substantive on how BS will get 60 votes when BO could not.

That's what makes his narrative dishonest...and your post off the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:12 PM

67. There's a huge movement on the threshold. The revolution is already in motion beginning with...

....The young and the people who are catching onto Bernie......stop scratching your heads folks.....it's moving slow and it's building. The RepubliCONS and many Democrats are eating their own !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pauldg47 (Reply #67)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 06:36 PM

71. And we still have 14 months till Nov. 2016. Tht's a lot of time -- especially for someone

 

as dynamic as Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 09:36 PM

76. Minues the months after the primary till NOV. You

assume he will will the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #76)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:19 AM

84. Yes. I'm assuuming he will win the nomination. He is winning over even quite a few

 

Republicans. To beat him the Republicans will have to use all their dirty tricks during
the General Election and put their Diebold voting machines rigger on 'HIGH."







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #84)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:02 AM

101. I can't wait for the debates!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:07 AM

89. And there you go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:19 AM

90. The tool suggest that Bernies program is ambitious. Truth is that all other programs are unambitious

to a degree that it becomes a pointless exercise for most people to vote. Some vote anyway, while holding their noses, but a lot just dont vote and dont see why they should. That is why so many people feel the Bern!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:25 AM

92. yawn

people disengage, I. E. , Midterms.

A recipe for...zilch.

Economically, there is no money for most of what he espouses.
Als o, read a report..your taxes will go up...hard enough now!

Sounds like the flip side of the Trump coin...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:38 AM

94. And all the anti-Bernie crowds continues with can't, can't, can't, can't, can't....

It's laughable.

Their big way to be against him is to say he's too ambitious and that his ideas can't be done.

Apparently they want to continue the slide way to the right...support the billionaires and Banksters...have their Rights stripped away...and it goes on and one.

Well I say, fuck that crap!

It is, to borrow a line...Time for CHANGE...and, YES WE CAN!

Only this time it's going to be real change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:45 AM

96. Thank you, Cheese!

K&R!

#FeelTheBern



(per jwirr, you have to have 4 for the 4 corners of the earth)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:43 AM

112. I love Bernie but that doesn't explain how he will get his agenda thru Congress

Especially the House and maybe even the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #112)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:04 PM

117. I think he did say that the way to get to Congress is to get the American people interested

 

and excited enough so that large numbers of them will contact their senators and
representatives. And this is what he has been doing since he started his campaign.

I think he is right. There is no better way. And wherever he has been to, Bernie
has been getting the people very excited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:16 PM

118. I opened this thread

hoping to find a set of concrete solutions.

Instead, I get the same tired platitudes with no real teeth.

I suppose it serves the purpose... Rah! Rah!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Sep 2, 2015, 03:10 AM

133. First: checking that this isn't the BS Group. Second: how has he handled it up to now? .....

He's been inside that same Congress for decades. How's he doing on turning that whole thing around?

Obama's motto was Yes WE Can. He never dismissed his followers after his election by saying, "I'll take it from here." It was always supposed to be WE. Yet everybody went home and waited for him to wave his magic wand and bitched like mad and then stayed home during the midterm elections.

Sure, he mistakenly thought he could work with the GOP. But in addition to that, WE abandoned him.

Beware of your followers, Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #133)

Wed Sep 2, 2015, 05:04 AM

135. I feel like it was true

 

I was very into Obama in 2008 but then it seemed like after he got elected the campaign vanished and I never heard from them again. They never called.

I guess the OFA organization was still there, but there was just no engagement. It was just there to support the president's agenda.

Like for example when CREDO and 350 started asking at OFA meetings about rallying support to stop a pipeline, and OFA kicked us out. They said Keystone is the President's decision, and they are not about to try to push one way or another on it.

example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/ofa-keystone-talking-points_n_3294037.html

OFA also swung into action to push for the TPP.

It seems like the only times I've heard from Obama's grass roots movement is when they were trying to hurt me, trying to marginalize me and silence me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Sep 2, 2015, 03:32 AM

134. President Obama did NOT saY "I'll take it from here"

He has spoken repeatedly about the fact that change depends on citizen engagement. That statement is simply false.

Millions of people "standing up" in Portland and San Francisco mean far little to House Republicans than primary voters in their own districts. They aren't accountable to voters in the progressive areas from which Sanders draws his support.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread