Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(57,936 posts)
106. What do you mean by "rackety"?
Sun Jan 17, 2016, 04:18 PM
Jan 2016

What is intolerant or too extreme about Bernie?

And what "leftward movement" over the past 9 years are you talking about?

Except in the area of gay marriage and detente with Cuba and Iran (maybe???), I don't think we have made much "leftward" progress at all in the last 9 years.

Economically, the disparity in wealth is greater than since 1929.

So is the tax unfairness if you include the sales and property taxes that all poor people and the middle class pay. We pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than do many very wealthy people I would wager.

African-Americans face police brutality, and we have all been made aware of it, but virtually nothing is being done to end it. In fact, when it comes to voting rights, African-Americans ARE WORSE OFF THAN THEY WERE TEN YEARS AGO.

Unions are weaker than in several generations.

We just missed the bullet on Social Security and it is constantly under attack.

Health care costs, especially the costs of pharmaceuticals, are on the steep rise.

Republicans are so cheap they will push poisoned water on school children in Flint, Michigan. They also want to increase the privatization and for-profitization of healthcare and thus make it inaccessible to the poor and many in the middle class.

Education policy, what with student loans and charter schools, is moving far to the right and higher education risks becoming the province of the intellectual and financial elites.

What in the world are you talking about when you speak of "leftward" progress in the last 9 years?

The fact that the House inevitably falls rightward to the point that pulling it even upright is pretty much viewed as impossible is nearly proof that "leftward" is not the direction in which our country has been moved by the acquiescence of the leadership of the Democratic Party, the failure of most Democrats to dare to speak up for the ideals that have traditionally been held high by Democrats.

Moving to the "middle" or "leftward" with Hillary and her corporate donors really means moving to the right, accommodating Republican craziness, and that is not what we need. Not at all.

If we want to win independents and others, we have to move left. We have to inspire them, give them hope. And left is where, as you admit, Bernie plans to take us.

Bernie presents the leftward option.

Hillary, on the other hand, presents the option of more acquiescence, more fear of the right, more corporate coziness, more disparity in wealth (unchecked), more lies about who is paying taxes, more disparity in educational opportunity, more land grabbing by the super-rich, more and more and more telling the middle class it should be just happy to survive while that tiny percentage on top take and take and take and thrive.

I do not see how Hillary can give voters any dream, any hope, any ideals, any goals, any values to vote for. Not with her current views.

Bernie will inspire lots of people who don't usually bother to vote to come out and take part.

Will Bernie be able to achieve all the goals he has set before us? Absolutely not by himself. And with our help?

Maybe. But most likely not. We are all realistic enough to know that being president does not give one person the ability to simply remake reality. That is not what we expect of Bernie.

What we expect of Bernie is that he show us the way, what can be done, pointing honestly to the hurdles in front of us, and inspiring US to jump them, to elect representatives and senators to Congress who will help us jump them.

At least with Bernie we are sharing a dream, and that is a good thing. With Hillary, there is just a boring recitation of very limited goals. Not much there at all.

Compare that to the great leaders of our past.

When Jefferson and Adams and Franklin and all of our Founding Fathers first shared their dreams, when Martin Luther King and Franklin D. Roosevelt shared theirs, the dreams seemed unattainable.

But their dreams, their unrealistic-at-the-time dreams, gave courage to others who began slowly to implement and work together to gradually realize those dreams.

Think how far we have come. Think how far we have to go, how much greater we can be if we dare as the great leaders of our history did.

In theory, we have universal suffrage (hard as the Republicans try to limit and deny it). In theory, we are allowed to have unions. We can work together to make universal suffrage and union rights reality.

We can work together to have universal healthcare as a human right (just as they do across Europe and in many other countries like Cuba).

We can work together to get big money out of our elections.

We can work together to save our environment, to reduce pollution and the poisoning of our water, air and the warming of our planet.

We can work together to better unite our country.

We can work together toward better income and tax fairness.

We can work together to reform our justice system from the local police to the Supreme Court.

We can work together to find a way to make state schools tuition-free.

We can work together to further expand the limits of our technologies.

We can do these things.

We can accomplish Bernie's dreams.

It's just a matter of will, and more and more people are willing.

Don't get mired in the negativity of the "we can't" of the Hillary campaign. This is precisely the mistake that Hillary made in 2008. And here we go again. Too limited. Schoolmarmish limited.

But that is Hillary's fate. If you accept the money from the folks who want to put the brakes on human progress, on those whose first priority is protecting what's "theirs" from the dreams of those who don't have quite so much, then you dare not dream beyond the present reality.

But always, it is those who dare to dream beyond the limited reality of the day who create progress, who move leftward, forward and into the future.

Hillary offers what she considers to be a "safe" alternative. In fact, it is regressive, a move into the illusion of a safer, slower past that never existed. Never, ever. Hillary's "safe" and "conservative" political philosophy will never succeed. Reality is moving quickly and leaving Hillary behind.

Bernie Sanders is the man of the moment, the man who, like Adams, like Jefferson and Madison, like Lincoln, like the Roosevelts (including Teddy who cleaned up the government of his time and Eleanor) were limited by their present reality, but who saw as he sees the future and knew as he knows the dreams and ideas that the future demands.

Feel the Bern!

I am realistic and I don't see Sanders as presidential. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #1
And if enough people buy into that what do we get? daleanime Jan 2016 #2
Then how does Sanders get the things he want? hrmjustin Jan 2016 #9
People power, nothing is easy. You have to try. JRLeft Jan 2016 #10
The gop won't bend to people power. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #11
Yes they will. They are very susceptible to public opinion. Its just doesn't get to them. FOX &CO. The Wielding Truth Jan 2016 #126
Both Cruz and Trump are already bending to populist Republican pressure on H-1B Visas... cascadiance Jan 2016 #156
You are completely misinterpreting our steady confidence Hortensis Jan 2016 #43
yes enid602 Jan 2016 #45
The image of Judge Judy sucking up to Hortensis Jan 2016 #46
Don't forget, his sister is a Federal judge and he's gone on record as saying she would be..... George II Jan 2016 #50
Trump's sister if a fairly liberal judge Gothmog Jan 2016 #100
".. rackety, intolerant, too-extreme candidate.." pangaia Jan 2016 #67
Rackety was the wrong word. He's made some Hortensis Jan 2016 #121
May I suggest you do some research into Bernie Sander's life. pangaia Jan 2016 #128
Look, the GOP is PRAYING Bernie takes Hillary out. Hortensis Jan 2016 #134
. Look, the GOP is PRAYING Bernie takes Hillary out. pangaia Jan 2016 #136
What do you mean by "rackety"? JDPriestly Jan 2016 #106
JDPriestly Aerows Jan 2016 #113
So, basically I gather you feel the nation's in the toilet Hortensis Jan 2016 #123
THANK YOU!! pangaia Jan 2016 #130
Really? 5,166 posts, including this one... :) Hortensis Jan 2016 #135
Really. pangaia Jan 2016 #137
:) Hortensis Jan 2016 #162
In my case it is probably mostly laziness. pangaia Jan 2016 #163
Since Democrats want a candidate who shares their ideology Kall Jan 2016 #112
We elect Bernie and put more Democrats in congress.... daleanime Jan 2016 #12
Then why did Sanders fail to raise money for the party? hrmjustin Jan 2016 #13
Money over voters? daleanime Jan 2016 #14
This is where you guys lose me. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #15
Post removed Post removed Jan 2016 #19
Follow your own advice. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #20
You didn't read or comprehend a thing I typed madokie Jan 2016 #22
Yes I did and responded. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #24
Let me fix that for you: 99Forever Jan 2016 #25
Don't get your hopes up. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Jan 2016 #29
"Don't get your hopes up" LiberalLovinLug Jan 2016 #88
We used to donate to the Party. We stopped because we are not happy with the way the JDPriestly Jan 2016 #111
Excuse me, where in anything that I've written... daleanime Jan 2016 #28
+1 stonecutter357 Jan 2016 #51
You have a habit of saying goodbye Cartoonist Jan 2016 #74
Good bye! hrmjustin Jan 2016 #75
Unfortunately often a sign.... daleanime Jan 2016 #116
We go back awhile Cartoonist Jan 2016 #120
The down ballot races are very important Gothmog Jan 2016 #101
Having more democratic voters turn out.... daleanime Jan 2016 #114
Sanders is very very vulnerable to negative ads Gothmog Jan 2016 #124
Who would never have voted for a Democrat anyways..... daleanime Jan 2016 #139
Wrong. Socialism is viewed highly negatively by independents as Gallups polls on the stevenleser Jan 2016 #149
Relax, if you're right.... daleanime Jan 2016 #153
No, that's not what that means. stevenleser Jan 2016 #157
You know we never see the republican party doing this.... daleanime Jan 2016 #161
Here is why we can not risk 2016 on a candidate who can not win in general Gothmog Jan 2016 #150
If she was as good of a candidate as you think she wouldn't be a candidate.... daleanime Jan 2016 #154
Sanders is no Barack Obama Gothmog Jan 2016 #158
Did I say he was? daleanime Jan 2016 #159
Sanders will not be the nominee unless he is able to broaden his appeal beyond a very narrow group Gothmog Jan 2016 #164
Let the party raise its own money. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #108
I'd like to hope so. It might work the opposite. Hortensis Jan 2016 #47
You think your views are mainstream? Mine are. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #56
A President who has had zero ties to the Democratic Party until a few months ago.... George II Jan 2016 #52
Who is helped.... daleanime Jan 2016 #55
Zero ties? SheilaT Jan 2016 #69
You should review some of his votes as a Representative and a Senator. And "ties" go deeper.... George II Jan 2016 #76
Have you reviewed some of Hillary's votes? SheilaT Jan 2016 #90
And if those candidates don't meet your exacting specifications? brooklynite Jan 2016 #53
Isn't the question.... daleanime Jan 2016 #60
Actually I'd be happy to elect Sanders...if I thought he could get elected. brooklynite Jan 2016 #84
And will refuse to... daleanime Jan 2016 #97
I'm right there with you. JRLeft Jan 2016 #99
"The games"... brooklynite Jan 2016 #110
Sorry, the only time I watch those games.... daleanime Jan 2016 #115
translation: Hillary will be more effective than Obama, because Rs will work with her WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2016 #31
How did FDR get it? He investigated what was going on on Wall Street and prosecuted and JDPriestly Jan 2016 #57
You had me at hello! Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #63
^ This. AzDar Jan 2016 #64
Brilliant! rynestonecowboy Jan 2016 #79
Sanders has already gotten a major thing he wants DFW Jan 2016 #119
By getting folks to help him by electing a Senate and House who can Jarqui Jan 2016 #127
Then why did Sanders fail to raise money for the party? hrmjustin Jan 2016 #131
I really don't think one has a lot to do with the other at this particular moment in time. Jarqui Jan 2016 #141
I do and he has no excuse for it. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #142
Why should Bernie give to an organization that is controlled by the Clinton campaign Jarqui Jan 2016 #144
This is why i don't trust him. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #145
In other words, you want Sanders to be dumb as a rock by raising money for a politically corrupt Jarqui Jan 2016 #146
And my point still stands. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #147
There's nothing left of your point Jarqui Jan 2016 #148
All you said is we can't so why try. JRLeft Jan 2016 #3
No, he said Sanders can't. Metric System Jan 2016 #4
Hillary is promising more of the same but some how things are supposed to improve? JRLeft Jan 2016 #6
Exaclty. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #8
If Sanders can't then we can't. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #68
"Presidential" earthside Jan 2016 #17
Conservative? No. It is someone who leads and gets things done. tinrobot Jan 2016 #72
gets things done questionseverything Jan 2016 #96
You nailed it there n/t Populist_Prole Jan 2016 #81
Why not? pangaia Jan 2016 #58
That i can see a person in the oval office. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #61
That's still the rap I hear on Pres. Obama ... earthside Jan 2016 #82
Well i never said that about him and I do say this about Sanders. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #83
I am realistic and I don't see Clinton as electable. JackRiddler Jan 2016 #71
Fortunately you are part of a growing minority. What those in power diid rather than being satisfied sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #98
I agree. Bernie is not presidential. But more importantly underthematrix Jan 2016 #129
It's a strange kind of defeatism to give up on the Democratic party... randome Jan 2016 #5
The only way to she's moves to the left is to stop taking corporate cash. JRLeft Jan 2016 #7
I'm with you JR madokie Jan 2016 #21
Thank you, I cannot see how one can take corporate cash without being corrupted. It just JRLeft Jan 2016 #62
.... handmade34 Jan 2016 #36
Very fearful, too imo. nt artislife Jan 2016 #16
Yup, fear of 3 more Scalia-types on the Supreme Court. oasis Jan 2016 #35
I don't think Bernie would suggest 3 Scalia types for the Supreme Court. Next. nt artislife Jan 2016 #38
You know what I'm talking about. oasis Jan 2016 #42
Moderate = Defeatist AgingAmerican Jan 2016 #18
"These are good people and I respect their opinion" PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #23
+1000000 SwampG8r Jan 2016 #39
Yes. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #59
It's not defeatism. It's just Sanders. Bleacher Creature Jan 2016 #26
We know it won't happen overnight, the status quo is regression not progress. JRLeft Jan 2016 #33
Wow - a thoughtful post about the process Empowerer Jan 2016 #48
Thanks for the dose of reality redstateblues Jan 2016 #133
Considering only 10% of people here as Clinton supporters going by DU polls... Blue_Adept Jan 2016 #30
And then... DUbeornot2be Jan 2016 #94
Rejecting a candidate who has notions of pie in the sky, is not "defeatism". oasis Jan 2016 #32
You support a candidate who bows down to Wall Street and other corporate powers. JRLeft Jan 2016 #34
True, Hill's no sworn enemy of Wall Street. That's a plus. oasis Jan 2016 #40
What did they do when she told them to azmom Jan 2016 #73
(1) Senator (2) President. Pick the one with the most influence. oasis Jan 2016 #87
I'm sure she will Kall Jan 2016 #78
I'm sure Bernie would have their ear. oasis Jan 2016 #89
He'll have them by the scruff of their necks. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #91
He doesn't want their ear Kall Jan 2016 #102
I'm sure they're breathing easier now. oasis Jan 2016 #105
They will be Kall Jan 2016 #109
The American people will "elect Hillary" oasis Jan 2016 #117
You're deflecting. Of course the country, not just you personally, might elect her Kall Jan 2016 #118
Deflect backward to post#87. If you please. oasis Jan 2016 #132
That's nice, dear. Squinch Jan 2016 #37
"I believe you have to fight, nothing is easy..." handmade34 Jan 2016 #41
People will vote for someone else or stay home if she's the nominee. JRLeft Jan 2016 #104
Or, I just think Hillary would make the better President nt firebrand80 Jan 2016 #44
She won't be corrupted by the corporate cash? JRLeft Jan 2016 #70
Things aren't so black and white nt firebrand80 Jan 2016 #86
She's bought and paid for, and that is as transparent as JRLeft Jan 2016 #140
Uh no. I think Hillary will make a better president. leftofcool Jan 2016 #49
If they were defeatist they would not support Clinton the way they do JI7 Jan 2016 #54
Nope, I just prefer Hillary, and think she will make an excellent president nt kjones Jan 2016 #65
What some think, and what some argue, might not be the same Babel_17 Jan 2016 #66
Some Bernie supporters seem to think they are mindreders. JoePhilly Jan 2016 #77
What? Is this some subtle McCarthyist crap? Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #92
Good post but I don't agree with the last paragraph Populist_Prole Jan 2016 #80
I think you are spot on. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #93
Nail on the head Android3.14 Jan 2016 #85
i think bernie has a good chance if his supporters would not certainot Jan 2016 #95
I like living in the real world Gothmog Jan 2016 #103
You're saying vote for the corporate candidate who's not as bad as the JRLeft Jan 2016 #107
I am not willing to let the GOP control the direction of the SCOTUS with a candidate who cannot win Gothmog Jan 2016 #125
Understanding how gerrymandered congress's works does not mean people are defeatist just factual uponit7771 Jan 2016 #122
They realize that in the ge between Bernie and a republican, the republican will be much closer in Doctor_J Jan 2016 #138
For once you won't have to choose between the better of 2 evils. JRLeft Jan 2016 #143
I support Bernie because I feel the same way you do. PatrickforO Jan 2016 #151
No no no no no no no no tazkcmo Jan 2016 #152
The alternative is to claim it's either her or Republicans win. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #155
I do not find Tea Party legislation to "audit the fed" to be a "good idea." Neither does Krugman. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #160
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»From what I've seen on th...»Reply #106