It's true. Bernie hasn't always gotten along with all his colleagues in congress.

[DanTex]

Like the Iraq War. Everyone was all gung ho calling people "un-American" if they opposed it. All the "cool kids" were on board. But grumpy Bernie the buzzkill wasn't into that.

Or DOMA. Again, the "in crowd" was all over it. Defending marriage! Why wouldn't Bernie get with the program? And NAFTA, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill, etc. Plus, whenever the austerity winds were blowing and the cool kids were trying to cut Social Security, Bernie said no.

To a lot of voters, standing up for what's right and not for what's trendy is called being principled. Apparently the cool kids have decided to call those voters "Bernie Bros." And Bernie himself? Well, it's hard to attack his record, because he was right so often when the trend-followers were wrong.

So what do they attack him on? Not getting along with the very cool kids that made all those bad votes! LOL. Yeah, the Iraq War was a total disaster, but why couldn't Bernie just go along with everyone else and vote for it instead of being such a downer?

[brooklynite]

1. Being "right" is nice; so is being a " leader"

Sanders has promised an ambitious set of policies as President. What leadership skills has he shown to get them accomplished?

[DanTex]

3. LOLed at "being 'right' is nice".

That's as good a four word summary of this whole campaign as I've seen. Right down to putting the word "right" in quotes.

Maybe someone should use it as a campaign slogan.


Should we invade Iraq?
Of course not, it's a horrible idea.
Well, being "right" is nice and all, but whatever, let's have us a war!

[sheshe2]

56. Sierra Blanca

Toxic waste dump.

Did Bernie Sanders Support Dumping Nuclear Waste in a ‘Poor Latino Community’?
A conservative group's Facebook meme gets some basic facts right but leaves out important context.
DAN MACGUILL
PUBLISHED 15 JUNE 2018
UPDATED 16 JUNE 2018

Sen. Bernie Sanders once supported a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in the "poor Latino community" of Sierra Blanca, Texas.



What's True
Sanders did support a proposal in which Maine and Vermont could dispose of low-level nuclear waste a proposed site in Sierra Blanca, Texas, which is a predominantly Latino and relatively poor community.

What's Undetermined
It's not clear whether Sanders told activists he would "absolutely not" visit the proposed disposal site. This was corroborated by an activist who was present, but a spokesperson for Sanders did not address it in response to our queries.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-sierra-blanca-nuclear-waste/


………………….

Green New Deal?

[DanTex]

57. Not sure what "A conservative group's Facebook meme" has to do with this.

But you should probably be aware that Joe Biden voted for that same bill if you're planning to use it as an anti-Bernie attack.

[ehrnst]

102. Did Biden personally financially profit from it... all the way up to 2014?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return

[ehrnst]

111. Crickets....

[George II]

47. Bazinga!

[George II]

2. And the Magnitsky Act (92-4) and Russia Sanctions (98-2), and the FDA Bill (94-1)....

....and Amber Alert Bill (400-25), and Brady Bill (5 times!) and so many more.

Why would anyone who claims to vote with Democrats vote against these bills?

BTW, Sanders is the ONLY Senator to vote against the Magnitsky Act AND the Russia Sanctions AND the FDA Bill. That's quite a Venn Diagram!

[sheshe2]

45. No response?

I am shocked.

Not.

[George II]

48. ....

[Squinch]

4. Stir, stir, stir.

[TwilightZone]

6. Exactly.

It's becoming more obvious by the day. The best part is that he runs around berating others for not doing enough to unify the party.

[sheshe2]

49. For a moment...thought you meant BS. ;)

[DanTex]

7. "Stirring" by talking about Bernie's congressional voting record. Hmmm.

[ChubbyStar]

12. As a very accomplished cook, a decent amount of stirring is a very good thing

The other poster must not understand a kitchen or how to cook beyond the recipe.

[David__77]

20. I think it's great that you're posting - thank you.

...

[sheshe2]

50. His record. Hm. nt

[ehrnst]

113. Attacking another straw man. I guess they're on sale?

Certainly easier than actually debating a point, isn't it?

[R B Garr]

9. Yes, and complete opposite land. nt

[TexasTowelie]

31. Followed by:

[WA-03 Democrat]

103. Great tune!!

Thanks for posting!

[katmondoo]

5. I am unable to get on the Bernie bandwagon at this time.

[R B Garr]

8. Actually, the cool cat daddios are the ones raging against

“centrist” Democrats because...Establishment.

No offense, but it seems you’ve missed some news cycles since you posted in favor of Hillary/Establishment...? Your takes have some huge gaps of context in them. But lots of people take time off from politics between elections, so it’s understandable.

[DanTex]

10. What's popular in DC and what's popular among voters are different things.

In fact, that's kinda the whole point.

[R B Garr]

16. Again out of context. It's more like Twitter vs Real World.

Real World Democrats like the 2018 Blue Wave voted for more mainstream Democrats. They voted against Bernie’s revolution. Those actual voter results mean more than Twitter wars.

[DanTex]

18. Right, that Iraq War vote was totally taken out of context. Makes sense. Got it.

[R B Garr]

22. Obama/Biden won two elections in 2008 and

2012. John Kerry and Hillary each win primaries. “Iraq” didn’t stop real life voters from choosing those Democrats.

Actual voters weren’t manipulated about “Iraq” because it was George Bush’s war. Probably most voters know that Iraq would not have happened under Gore, and they know how the cool cat daddios thought Gore wasn’t pure enough, either.

[DanTex]

34. Obama didn't vote for the Iraq War. Kerry and Clinton did.

Obama became president. Kerry and Clinton did not. So there's that. Inspiring candidates with big crowds and without IWR votes versus safe establishment choices who voted for Iraq.

But beyond just electability, it says a lot about a person who was able to see through the IWR propaganda when so many other people didn't.

[R B Garr]

46. Obama/Biden. You are slamming Biden. Obama chose Biden,

even though it’s well known what Obama’s position on the war was.

The primaries are different from the general elections. It’s safe to say that Republicans supported George Bush, so your distraction about who won the GE is, again, not credible.

Actually, considering context again, Democrats knew Iraq was George Bush’s war, so the Iraq smear hasn’t work for a decade and a half now on anyone. Time to quit creating chaos and divisiveness about that, it would seem.

[DanTex]

51. I'm not slamming anyone.

Just pointing out that an IWR vote doesn't seem to be associated with winning general elections. Nor does being the safe establishment candidate.

And it's not really a "slam" to say that Biden voted for IWR, a lot of decent people did, because they bought into the conventional wisdom at the time. I'm saying that it's to Bernie's great credit that he saw through all that and stood on principle. Even though, at the time, he and everyone else who voted with him got a lot of grief for it.

[R B Garr]

52. No offense, but the time you've taken off since being

a Hillary supporter and now reveals some gaps in news cycles. Then again, maybe I missed the part where Republicans were against George Bush’s war in the GE...? Keeping in mind that there was no Iraq war during Gore’s run and he wasn’t pure enough either. So your pretend checkmate about Iraq goes out the window trying to explain Gore.

[DanTex]

53. Must have missed the "gap" where the Iraq War became a good idea.

[R B Garr]

54. You said Democrats lost the GE because of Iraq.

So I’m asking when did Republicans object to George Bush’s war?

You skipped over the Democratic primaries when reminded that, for the last almost two decades, “Iraq” didn’t stop a VP and two other candidates. Democrats know that was George Bush’s war.

[DanTex]

55. I didn't say "because".

It might have been a total coincidence that every time we ran a "safe" establishment candidate that voted for IWR we lost, and when we didn't, we won.

Yeah, in the primaries, IWR-voting candidates have won. But it didn't turn out will in the GE those times.

This time, we again can pick a "safe" establishment candidate that voted for the IWR. Or an inspiring candidate with huge crowds that didn't. We'll see what happens.

[R B Garr]

58. Your theory doesn't hold up since Gore wasn't pure enough

either and there was no Iraq. Seems like most Democrats know Iraq was George Bush’s war. So the fault of Iraq logically belongs to those who voted against Gore, and we know who they are.

So, in context, Iraq has nothing to do with the Democratic primary, and you corrected yourself to acknowledge that Republicans were not against George Bush’s Iraq war.

[DanTex]

60. President Gore disproves my theory? Is that what you're saying?

Well, I guess the IWR has nothing to do with the primary unless
A) We want to win the GE, or
B) We want a president with the judgement to avoid horrible military disasters.

[R B Garr]

61. Gore wasn't pure enough, either. Remember?

There would’ve been no Iraq war if Gore was elected.

[DanTex]

62. And your point is?

[R B Garr]

63. Your Iraq theories have no legitimate context

in the real world. You were a Hillary supporter, which makes that even more evident.

[DanTex]

64. I was a Hillary supporter, mostly because I believed the conventional wisdom that proved wrong.

It certainly wasn't because I thought the Iraq War had suddenly become a good idea. I thought Bernie was better on policy (mostly), but that he couldn't win. And I thought "Bernie or Bust" was the dumbest most annoying thing in the world, which I still think.

Also, as the campaign progressed, Hillary was being attacked in stupider and stupider ways, which was obviously counterproductive. In fact, the inane attacks on Bernie this year are quite reminiscent of the inane attacks on Hillary in 2016.

[R B Garr]

65. That's where it looks like your break from politics has

caused some very obvious gaps in your blame game. It’s obvious you don’t factor in much information that is common knowledge now regarding, for instance, Bernie’s staffers voting 3rd party. And he’s finally getting pushback for trying to run the same attack plays against Democrats, which is something that should have happened before.

Hillary beat both her primary and GE opponents by millions, and the Blue Wave voted against Bernie in favor of more mainstream Democrats. Those are real results that indicate his revolution was rejected. Your online threads don’t negate those real world results.

And you are mentioning Hillary/Iraq trying to distract about Bernie—another Iraq fail. Looks like Democrats know that was George Bush’s war.

[DanTex]

66. I didn't take a "break" and I'm aware of Bernie people voting Green last time.

I'm aware that Hillary won the primary and went on to lose the GE. Which, yes, means that Bernie was "rejected" by the primary electorate last time, and Hillary was "rejected" by the GE electorate.

Honestly, even if I had been in a black hole the last 3 years, I still would have known all that. I'm not sure what you think that all implies about 2020. To me, the most salient take-away is that the "safe" centrist/establishment with the Iraq vote on her record lost the GE, even though every single pundit in the world thought she would win, and even though polls during early primary season showed her as being the most electable.

And now we have Biden, who is basically Hillary 2.0, same Iraq vote, same centrist pundits saying all the same things. A big difference, though, is that this time Bernie has a legitimate chance, which he never had in 2016.

I'm not trying to "distract" from the latest inane attack against Bernie because no voter is going to care that some people think Bernie is grumpy.

As to whether Dem primary voters care about the Iraq War, or NAFTA and trade, or Social Security, obviously some do and some don't. And some voters may not care about the votes themselves, but will still care because of the way those votes could play in the GE. Just because you don't care about the IWR doesn't mean nobody does.

[R B Garr]

70. None of your Iraq theories have played out in the real world. They are simply newly adopted agita.

If you want to change your persona when you switched from Hillary to Bernie, no one is stopping you but, no offense, your new litany of concerns don't really play out based on what we know from many election cycles. Your theories don't reflect anything but Bernie bingo type talking points. Your segue into these new talking points doesn't match up with the history of events. That's all that is becoming more evident as you continue with your newly adopted war on centrists.

Just throwing out 10-year old articles on Democrats cutting social security doesn't match the fact that Obama/Biden won in 2012, well after the social security scares you've posted.

The Iraq war belongs to those who voted against Gore in another futile purity vote. You keep trying to comingle the Democratic primary with the GE and pretend that Kerry and Hillary lost the GE because of their Iraq vote, but Gore was subjected to the same purity tests prior to Iraq, so your conclusions are completely off. GOP voters didn't disapprove of Bush's Iraq war.

Even your analysis about Hillary in the GE is missing the crucial post-election information that has been gathered in the years since 2016. The Russian interference by helping Bernie, Trump and Stein. The Comey bungling. The attacks on Democrats. Hillary had 3 opposition campaigns running against her.

Bernie's numbers are not good in the South, which is another thing you refuse to acknowledge, so your analysis about his chances are quite a bit off, sorry.

[DanTex]

73. Huh? The theory that Dems who voted for IWR don't win GEs has been right every time.

The theory that pro-NAFTA Dems don't win GEs has been right every election since 2000. What are you talking about?

You're also wrong about Social Security. Obama in 2008 did not have the long record of proposing Social Security cuts that Biden does. And he didn't propose Chained CPI until 2013, after the 2012 election. Obama wasn't dumb, he wasn't going to propose SS cuts right before an election.

You might think Iraq and NAFTA don't matter to voters, but all you're saying is that they don't matter to you. They are both central issues today. In 2016, Hillary was hurt in the GE by both the positions she took, the same positions that Biden has.

[R B Garr]

74. Huh yourself. Since you were a Hillary supporter, obviously your war on

centrists doesn't support these new generalities that pro-NAFTA Dems don't win GE's when that is not a GOP issue. You keep trying to comingle GE's with Democratic primaries. BTW, Sanders couldn't win the Democratic primary and he was anti-trade. Once again, your takes don't match what even the most cursory reviews of past elections show us.

You are the one who was posting 10-year old articles trying to scare people about social security, yet Obama/Biden were re-elected after your scary articles. It's like you didn't even read the articles you posted.

Again you are comingling the Democratic primaries with the GE. Republicans didn't object to Bush's Iraq war. No matter how many times you try to confuse the primaries with the GE, Republicans didn't object to Bush's Iraq war.

Sanders lost the Democratic primary, and he was anti-NAFTA, so your theory about Democrats is again completely wrong. Actually, it looked like Sanders used NAFTA as a back-handed way to take a swipe at a very successful Bill Clinton through his candidate wife.

[DanTex]

75. It's a simple factual observation.

No pro-NAFTA, pro-IWR candidates have won GEs. My support for Hillary in 2016 has nothing to do with it. Except that, after Hillary's loss, now we have more data than we did before. And the data showed that people like me were wrong.

And about Social Security, again, the cuts that Obama proposed were in 2013, after 2012. I don't know what ten-year old articles you're talking about, but Obama's proposed social security cuts were 7 years ago, not 10.

I'm not confusing the primaries with the GE. I know that primary candidates, in 2004 and 2016, have won despite being pro-IWR and pro-NAFTA. Those candidates went on to lose the GE.

The point being, if we want to win the GE, it might be a good idea this time to pick a candidate who was neither pro-IWR or pro-NAFTA.

[R B Garr]

82. No, it is a self-serving non sequitur, one you didn't engage in as a Hillary supporter

because you wouldn't have supported her otherwise.

You keep trying to comingle the GE with the Democratic primaries. Your newly adopted Bernie talking points were not something the GOP cared about in the GE, so your observations about Democrats are completely incorrect. Republicans supported Bush's Iraq war and senior Bush's NAFTA. That is what is the simple factual observation indicates because it matches what voters actually did, not an opinion on the internet.

Democrats didn't elect Bernie in the primaries despite NAFTA. The chose Hillary by millions.

Democrats chose Kerry and Hillary despite "Iraq", so it's compete distortion and fabrication for you to say that was a deciding factor in the GE. It's completely contrary to actual results.

Your social security scares last week were about the Bernie talking point of "third way" and the articles were dated. It's really strange you don't remember that.

You seem to have huge gaps of news cycles since you don't realize what is common knowledge now: Russian interference that helped Bernie, Trump, and Stein were responsible for Hillary losing. That is proven fact now.

[DanTex]

85. If I'm wrong, then name the pro-IWR, pro-NAFTA Dem candidate that won the presidency.

You can't, because there aren't any. It's you who tries to confuse the primary and the general. This is simple.

1) No pro-IWR or pro-NAFTA Dem has ever become president.
2) Some pro-IWR and pro-NAFTA Dems have won the primary. But they went on to lose to the Republican.

So it's probably a good idea for Dems to not repeat the mistake of choosing a pro-IWR and pro-NAFTA candidate, and instead pick an anti-IWR and anti-NAFTA candidate, like we did in 2008.

[R B Garr]

87. You keep trying to conflate the GE with the Democratic primary.

GOP voters supported Bush's Iraq war.

GOP voters supported senior Bush's NAFTA

The issues in the Democratic primaries are not what GOP voters in the GE cared about. Obviously.

You should just admit that you are trying to force Bernie's talking points. If you believed what you are saying now, you never would have supported Hillary.

[DanTex]

89. That's right, you can't name one. Because when we nominate people like that, we lose.

Which is why we shouldn't nominate a pro-IWR and pro-NAFTA candidate this year. Because we need to beat Trump.

[R B Garr]

90. You keep trying to conflate the Democratic primaries with the GE.

You used to be a Hillary supporter, but have switched your talking points to Bernie and are trying to fit all his talking points into every election, and it isn't working.

Republican's supported Bush's Iraq war.

Republican's supported senior Bush's NAFTA.

Democrats chose Kerry and Clinton despite NAFTA.

Democrats chose Kerry and Clinton despite "Iraq".

You keep trying to comingle issues.

[DanTex]

91. Get back to me when you find that pro-IWR or pro-NAFTA Dem who became president.

[R B Garr]

92. You have cherry picked a "concern" and obviously think those Bernie talking points

can fit into your random criteria because Bernie said Iraq and NAFTA. You keep trying to conflate the Democratic primaries with the GE.

GOP voters support Bush's Iraq war, so Bernie's talking points in the GE didn't matter.

GOP voters support senior Bush's NAFTA.

Democratic voters rejected Bernie and chose Hillary by millions despite "Iraq" and NAFTA.

[DanTex]

93. Still no examples. Hmmm.

[R B Garr]

95. I've provided numerous "examples" of your conflating the Democratic primary with the GE,

and you've acknowledge you were a Hillary supporter and have switched to Bernie's talking points. You are just cherry picking your talking points as if they are relevant but, no offense, conflating GOP voters with Democratic primary voters isn't a relevant comparison.

[ehrnst]

100. "You keep trying to comingle issues."

Says the person who is trying to misrepresent Hillary talking about what people think about Sanders personal interaction style with what they think about his policies.

If that was the case, then Paul Wellstone would have been even more "irritating" to his colleagues, but he was universally loved and respected by his colleagues.

Can you explain that?

[emmaverybo]

59. Hm. Safe: proven leadership and record of accomplishment, tangible qualifications, trusted profile

here and abroad, building on plans that are working, credibility, tested; in fact, tested at the job.

Or

Gamble: untested ability to bring revolution (which only he and supporters have seen, and only in their dreams), sketchy track record, flip flops on political identity, not much relevant job history, many questions about proposals going unanswered...

Hm. Big decision.

World in turmoil, close to a nuclear break-out, chaotic past four years, divided America, untrustworthy administration...

No brainer the way you put it.

Safe bet vs. Speculation.

In a time of record high deficits and global uncertainty, I will make a safe bet vs. a big gamble.

Betting majority of Americans think like me.

[redstateblues]

67. How did the Democratic Socialist with the huge huge crowds do in 2016?

He lost by millions of votes

[DanTex]

69. In the primary, yes. Never had a chance, really, was way behind the whole time.

This time he does have a chance. In fact, as of right now the betting markets have him as the favorite.

[R B Garr]

71. He's way behind in the South. Again. Seriously, your theories don't match

what the demographic maps look like, which is where the real voters are. Not online Twitter and betting sites.

Now, we all know the mostly white caucus states will be easier for him as that is based on divisive interaction as opposed to private ballots.

[ehrnst]

80. "Betting markets" That's your source for political analysis?

It might be a valid point if one is talking about voters with a gambling addiction...

[ehrnst]

79. By "safe" you mean Democrats chose one the most qualified POTUS candidates in history?

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2020, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

And that this qualified candiate wasn't "inspiring?"

Most admired woman in the world for 20 years straight?



So if you didn't vote for her because she was immensely qualified and her candidacy didn't "inspire you" why did you support her so strongly in 2016?

[beastie boy]

11. I doubt that being disliked by his colleagues has anything to do with his legislative record.

In fact, I have heard of at least one ex Senator slash ex VP whose progressive record is rock solid, and he is still being liked by his colleagues, both left and right!

[JudyM]

29. What unpopular decisions did he make that would've been best followed? That's the point of the OP.

[ehrnst]

88. The OP is attacking a straw man. HRC didn't say that nobody "liked his votes."

She was talking about his personal interactions with his colleagues.

[JudyM]

94. No. The point of the OP is that if you don't go along with the crowd your popularity suffers.

[ehrnst]

96. No. The OP is positing that it's not his personal manner that HRC is talking about,

but his positions on the issues.

That's an old rationalization - that Bernie's colleagues feel "threatened" or "shameful" because he's so pure in his ethics, and that's why he irritates his allies.

Paul Wellstone was much loved in the Senate, and just as Left, if not further left than Sanders.

How do you explain that?

From 2007:

Few would describe Sanders’s personality as “winning” in the classic politician’s sense. He appears to burn a disproportionate number of calories smiling and making eye contact. “Bernie is not going to win a lot of ‘whom would you rather live on a desert island with’ contests,” says Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont. No matter. Sanders’s agitating style in Washington also constitutes a basic facet of anticharm, antipolitician appeal at home.

“I’m not afraid of being called a troublemaker,” Sanders says, something he’s been called many times, in many different ways, many of them unprintable. “But you have to be smart. And being smart means not creating needless enemies for yourself.”

In this regard, Sanders has not always been smart, especially when he was first elected to the House in 1990. He called Congress “impotent” and dismissed the two major parties as indistinguishable tools of the wealthy. He said it wouldn’t bother him if 80 percent of his colleagues lost re-election — not the best way to win friends in a new workplace.

“Bernie alienates his natural allies,” Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, said at the time. “His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness.” The late Joe Moakley, another Massachusetts Democrat, waxed almost poetic in his derision for Sanders. “He is out there wailing on his own,” Moakley said. “He screams and hollers, but he is all alone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Sanders.t.html

[highplainsdem]

13. You can try to spin this all you want, but you can't change Sanders' record and reputation.

Since Sanders admitted to his own press secretary in 1990 that he didn't know how to get along with people, and that he could be a nasty SOB,

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=463584

the problem obviously isn't that Sanders is principled and everyone else is trendy.

But it's certainly a creative spin.

[DanTex]

14. His reputation as an Iraq War buzzkill is rock solid. You're right, that won't change.

Yes, he annoyed a lot of people with that.

[highplainsdem]

17. Yeah, right, Sanders admitted he can be a nasty SOB because he's anti-war.

How could people possibly have missed that?

[DanTex]

19. And anti-DOMA, anti-NAFTA, anti-Social-Security cuts, etc. You know, he's for stuff people

want, not stuff lobbyists want.

[highplainsdem]

21. And anti-Brady bill, five times. Still, how is his anti-ness on those later votes responsible for

him having been a self-described nasty SOB by 1990?

[DanTex]

25. Yes, even back in the 90s his principledness annoyed some people.

And this is why he's surging in the polls. His attackers dig up old quotes and complain about grumpiness, while Bernie talks about issues, which he's been right about when others were wrong. Voters care less about how grumpily his IWR vote was cast, and more about the direction it was cast.

But I guess when his opponents have been wrong time and again on essential votes like IWR, then they have to go for the "grumpy buzzkill Bernie" angle.

Good like with that!

[ehrnst]

99. Straw man... HRC didn't talk about his position on the issues or his principles

She was talking about his personal interactions with people.

Why didn't people call Paul Wellstone "grumpy buzzkill?" He certainly was as far left, if not more so than Sanders.

https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/paul-wellstone

His principledness led him to call Sierra Blanca (which Bernie was still profiting financially from 2014....) "environmental racism."

Paul wasn't even a Texas rep, or a Minnesota rep, but he stood up for those people against Bernie's push to put a nuclear waste dump where POC found affordable housing.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm

"Dig up old quotes...."

You mean like this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287446704#post5

And remind me how long ago that MLK march was that he keeps bringing up as very relevant to his cred as a civil right activist?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

24. Saddam, Putin, Castro, Chavez/Maduro, Ortega, Qadhafi, Morales...

...need we go on?

[DanTex]

26. LOL. Are you arguing that the Iraq War was a good idea?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

27. No. I'm arguing that Sanders has a pretty poor record on standing against dictators.

[DanTex]

28. Like...not wanting to overthrow Saddam? You disagree with him on that?

Are you seriously reviving the old "if you don't support the war, you're on Saddam's side" line?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

33. Like having articles on his website touting Chavez-Maduro Venezuela and

Bolivia under Evo Morales as "models for the new American Dream."

Not voting for the Magnitsky Act, for cripes' sake.

Praising Cuba. Looking on while the Sandinistas shouted: “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die.”

Siding with the Socialist Workers Party in their support of the Iranian hostage takers against American captives.

Yeah, I say there is a problem.

[DanTex]

37. I still don't get why you listed Saddam there. You think Bernie was Saddam-friendly

because he didn't want to go to war?

As far as opposing CIA death squads in Latin America, I'm with Bernie there too. But, OK, maybe some voters are still pro-death-squad, I dunno. But attacking him for not wanting to overthrow Saddam....Jeez!

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

38. Which dictator has Bernie stood up against?

There are many that he's praised.

[DanTex]

39. So "standing against" Saddam means voting to go to war against Iraq?

Are you serious? You're trying to paint Bernie as "soft on Saddam" because he wanted to avoid the worst foreign policy catastrophe since Vietnam?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

40. You evaded the question.

When has Sanders not been "soft" on a dictator?

[DanTex]

41. Umm, you brought up Saddam. If you think voting against IWR was a mistake because it was

"soft" on Saddam, then as Biden says, you should probably vote for another candidate.

Bernie is definitely not going to be popular among voters who think the Iraq War was a good idea. You got me there.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

42. No, I brought up a pattern. A pattern you seem unwilling to address.

When has Standers made a strong stand against a dictator?

[DanTex]

43. LOL. A pattern that started with "Saddam." Good luck with that.

Yes, his "pattern" of avoiding disastrous wars is one of the things that makes people like him.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

44. No. A lifelong pattern.

[ehrnst]

86. "Pattern?" 1999: Aide to Rep. Bernie Sanders Resigns Over War

May 4, 1999

Congressman Bernie Sanders
2202 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC, 20515

Dear Bernie,

This letter explains the matters of conscience that have led me to resign from your staff.

I believe that every individual must have some limit to what acts of military violence they are willing to participate in or support, regardless of either personal welfare or claims that it will lead to a greater good. Any individual who does not possess such a limit is vulnerable to committing or condoning abhorrent acts without even stopping to think about it.

............................................................

The House Resolution (S Con Res 21) of 4/29/99 which "authorizes the president of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with the United States' NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" supports not only the current air war but also its unlimited escalation. It thereby authorizes the commission of war crimes, even of genocide. Indeed, the very day after that vote, the Pentagon announced that it would begin "area bombing," which the Washington Post (4/30/99) characterized as "dropping unguided weapons from B-52 bombers in an imprecise technique that resulted in large-scale civilian casualties in World War II and the Vietnam War."

It was your vote in support of this resolution that precipitated my decision that my conscience required me to resign from your staff. I have tried to ask myself questions that I believe each of us must ask ourselves:

Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take?

My answers led to my resignation.

Sincerely yours,

Jeremy Brecher

https://www.antiwar.com/sanders1.html

In August, 1990–after the Bush administration enticed Iraq into invading Kuwait–Sanders said he wasn’t “going to let some damn war cost him the election,” according to a staff member who was present at the time.

[ehrnst]

81. Well, he did vote for the AUMF, didn't he?

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2020, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Gave GWB a blank check in Iraq...

But I guess Bernie "didn't really mean it..."

[ehrnst]

98. So why weren't people "annoyed" with Paul Wellstone?

Paul was to the left of Bernie on many issues, including miltary intervention.

If what you say is true, Paul Wellstone should have been even more unpopular with his colleagues, wouldn't he?

[UniteFightBack]

15. Worst OP of the weekend. Very silly. nt

[redstateblues]

68. Typical of the OP

[David__77]

23. DOMA and Iraq war are totally valid issues to consider.

...

[TwilightZone]

32. How about the 2001 AUMF?

[David__77]

35. Sure - absolutely.

It should be repealed, in my opinion. I'm hopeful that candidates will support that, regardless of their position in supporting it initially, where applicable.

[Buzz cook]

30. There's plenty to attack Bernie on.

Its just those attacks can't be written on a postage stamp. And most of those are process problems.

So they fall back on too old or too radical and now to unlikable

[TwilightZone]

36. The ability or lack thereof to work with others to get things done should be a consideration.

The presidency doesn't come with a magic wand that allows one to get one's preferred legislation passed. Sanders has had a couple of decades to persuade his co-workers to press forward with his agenda and has largely failed, including within the party he caucuses with, so questioning how he would reverse that as president is a valid question.

[Buzz cook]

72. if that were an accurate assessment

But it isn't. Bernie was a founding member of the progressive caucus and chaired it for eight years. You can't do that without being able to work with others.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway/450597/

But rather than earning the frustration and ire of his peers in the vein of other Senate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has managed to be respected — even liked — by much of the chamber, according to members on both sides of the aisle. The Vermont independent actually has much more in common with Sen. Tom Coburn, the now-retired "Dr. No," whose hard-line opposition killed many bills in the Senate but also earned him the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Sanders also has been able to work well with his colleagues. He's passed bipartisan legislation and forged strong relationships with members of both parties in nearly 25 years on Capitol Hill. But most of all, members say, even when Sanders is ideologically an outlier, he lets others know where he stands. He's not the type to suddenly stab a colleague in the back. And that's earned him respect both on and off the Hill.

So liked and respected by his peers. Till now that is, when being hard to work with is a preferred narrative.

[Gothmog]

77. I agree with O'Malley

sanders has zero legislative accomplishments and can not work with his fellow members of congress. I do not understand how a magical voter revolution is suppose to work in the real world and I do not see how sanders can be deemed a serious candidate in the real world

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

78. Could someone explain how sanders' magical voter revolution works?

I have never taken sanders seriously due to a complete lack of legislative accomplishments of sanders and the fact that I do not understand sanders voter revolution The NYT also did not understand how sanders voter revolution works

Link to tweet

Like the NYT, I have questions about this voter revolution concept. I have asked sanders supporters to explain this concept to me and so far no one seems to know how this voter revolution will work in the real world https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=430371

Gothmog (78,308 posts)
64. Exactly how does sanders voter revolution work in the real world?

It is my understanding that even sanders has acknowledged that he cannot adopt his platform unless he holds rallies and this voter revolution occurs. Is this correct? How does this voter revolution work in the real world? Again as I understand this concept, so many new voters will rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Is this correct? How many new voters does it take to accomplish this goal and where are these voters? How will these new voters force the GOP to be reasonable when so many GOP officeholders are in gerrymandered districts? Will these new voters move to these districts in time to vote for sanders’ platform? If these new voters are real, then why are theses new voters not showing up in the polls? New voters in such large numbers so as to cause the GOP to be reasonable should show up in polling. Are these new voters waiting for something? If these new voters really exist in the real world, why has sanders not used these new voters to get some meaningful legislation passed?

I look forward to answers to these questions

sanders interview with the NYT may have gone better if he had explained how this revolution would work in the real world. I am still curious

[Gothmog]

83. Without a magic voter revolution, sanders will need support from other people to get platform adopte

How is sanders going to get anything done? sanders has zero major legislative accomplishments in the real world because he can not work with anyone. sanders is running on a platform of a magical voter revolution where sanders will somehow find new voters who will rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. I keep asking about how this magical voter revolution will work and no one seems to know.

I have never taken sanders seriously.

[ehrnst]

84. Attacking a straw man yet again...

Not getting along with the very cool kids that made all those bad votes! LOL. Yeah, the Iraq War was a total disaster, but why couldn't Bernie just go along with everyone else and vote for it instead of being such a downer?

No, she wasn't talking about his votes. She was talking about his interpersonal skills.

"Attack?" If it's true, then it's not an 'attack.'

If what she said was false, where are those colleagues rushing to decry what she said as a lie?

You haven't explained that yet.

Few would describe Sanders’s personality as “winning” in the classic politician’s sense. He appears to burn a disproportionate number of calories smiling and making eye contact. “Bernie is not going to win a lot of ‘whom would you rather live on a desert island with’ contests,” says Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont. No matter. Sanders’s agitating style in Washington also constitutes a basic facet of anticharm, antipolitician appeal at home.

“I’m not afraid of being called a troublemaker,” Sanders says, something he’s been called many times, in many different ways, many of them unprintable. “But you have to be smart. And being smart means not creating needless enemies for yourself.”

In this regard, Sanders has not always been smart, especially when he was first elected to the House in 1990. He called Congress “impotent” and dismissed the two major parties as indistinguishable tools of the wealthy. He said it wouldn’t bother him if 80 percent of his colleagues lost re-election — not the best way to win friends in a new workplace.

“Bernie alienates his natural allies,” Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, said at the time. “His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness.” The late Joe Moakley, another Massachusetts Democrat, waxed almost poetic in his derision for Sanders. “He is out there wailing on his own,” Moakley said. “He screams and hollers, but he is all alone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Sanders.t.html

[ehrnst]

97. So how how you think Paul Wellstone managed to be universally loved and be that far to the Left?

IF what you say is true, it makes no sense that his colleagues felt so differently about Paul than they do about Sanders.

Any thoughts?

[grossproffit]

101. You don't seem to be undecided.

[Gothmog]

104. A weak socialist candidate like sanders can not defeat trump

Link to tweet

?s=20

[emmaverybo]

105. He doesn't have to wish them Happy Birthday. Just get along enough to get things done. Obvious

that his personality dynamic has held him back from being able to build coalitions to get his agenda accomplished. History is prologue.

[empedocles]

106. He doesn't get along, and he doesn't get things done.

To know BS is to not like BS. That's what Dems need to teach voters, before trump teaches voters.

[emmaverybo]

107. Thumbs up. In a nutshell.

[empedocles]

108. Nutstshell needs to include 'Trotskyite Socialist' - 'cons would have a ball.

Then 'medicare for all'.

[emmaverybo]

109. Cons are set to go on the communist/socialist theme. They are salivating at the prospect. And

Bernie, as we see from the NY Daily Post interview, can not argue his own case well.

[Gothmog]

110. In the real world, socialism polls poorly

Link to tweet

?s=20

[LanternWaste]

112. I dig your melodramatic narrative

A couple words here, a couple words there... but to you, it's a turn of Biblical proportions requiring a juicy rationalization of a trivial non-issue.

But I get it... milk the trivial for all it's worth, and hopefully propel the Martyrdom of Bernie meme beyond the walls of the cloister.