Bernie Sanders in Phoenix: Senator encourages supporters to fight for change, riles opponents

[Donkees]

Bree Burkitt, The Republic | azcentral.com Published 6:58 p.m. MT March 11, 2018

Excerpts:

The 76-year-old independent senator from Vermont rallied supporters — and riled opponents — alongside Democratic Arizona Congressmen Ruben Gallego and Raúl Grijalva at the Orpheum Theatre in Phoenix ... He drew a young and diverse crowd Sunday, filling the 1,200-capacity theater.

Sanders paused to praise U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in July ... He was harder on other Arizona leaders, expressing frustration with the long wait times many voters faced when attempting to cast their ballot in the 2016 presidential primary.

"To the Arizona officials, whether they did this intentionally or not… (It) was a disgrace to democracy," he said. "People should not have to wait seven hours in order to vote."

Protesters made themselves known throughout the rally, chanting "Build the wall!" when immigration was mentioned and booing negative comments made about President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Police escorted out at least 10 protesters clad in red "Make America Great Again" hats as they clutched signs depicting Trump.

Sanders wasn't fazed by the hecklers. He stayed focused on firing up support for progressive priorities, including increasing the minimum wage to a "livable" wage of $15 per hour, securing equal pay for women and shifting the national political agenda from benefiting billionaires to working families.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/03/11/senator-bernie-sanders-phoenix-encourages-supporters-fight-change-riles-opponents/414576002/

[R B Garr]

1. More sour grapes about the primary.

How sad and divisive. Disappointing.

[Cha]

2. That's too bad..

He needs to let that go.

[R B Garr]

3. It is very oppressive. I have also noticed people questioing his

never -ending divisiveness.

[CentralMass]

5. So you are all with the Trump lovers that were heckling him ?

It's a good thing that you weren't there you probably would have been arrested.

"Protesters made themselves known throughout the rally, chanting "Build the wall!" when immigration was mentioned and booing negative comments made about President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Police escorted out at least 10 protesters clad in red "Make America Great Again" hats as they clutched signs depicting Trump".

You also apparently think it is ok for people to have to wait in line for 7 hours to vote.?
"
He was harder on other Arizona leaders, expressing frustration with the long wait times many voters faced when attempting to cast their ballot in the 2016 presidential primary.

"To the Arizona officials, whether they did this intentionally or not… (It) was a disgrace to democracy," he said. "People should not have to wait seven hours in order to vote."


Why do you want teachers to have to work for low wages ?

"Sanders encouraged Arizona educators — some of the lowest-paid in the nation — to follow the lead of the 20,000 West Virginia teachers who went on strike for nine days, demanding a raise. Last Wednesday, Arizona teachers wore red to school to protest the low pay they say has exacerbated the state's critical shortage of
qualified teachers."

Why are you against support for DACA ?
"I want to say to (DACA recipients) here in Arizona: If you think you're alone, you're not alone," he said. "Poll after poll shows 80 percent or more want to provide legal status to DACA and a path to citizenship."

You think supporting the $15 minimum wage or equ Al pay for women is wrong ?
"Sanders wasn't fazed by the hecklers. He stayed focused on firing up support for progressive priorities, including increasing the minimum wage to a "livable" wage of $15 per hour, securing equal pay for women and shifting the national political agenda from benefiting billionaires to working families. "

You would have been right at home with those Trump loving hecklers that the Police hauled away.

[Cha]

17. That's ridiculous.. Just because BS gets called out..

you immediately go to aligning them with trump, and the hecklers? And, accusing them of possibly getting arrested.

[CentralMass]

33. What you are selling is out of touch with the reality.

Sanders was there in Arizona at this event appearing with Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego and Senator Raúl Grijalva.

Talking up progressive issues in a very red state to an enthusiastic crowd. Except for the red hat wearingg Trump supporters that were heckling him. That is the reality.

There was a poster the other day that was insinuating that unmentioned people weren't patriots. Sounds like something that would come out if Sean Hannity's mouth.

I've been a Dem my entire life and I'll be damned if I can't be critical of the party.

Sanders was there with the welcome of a Democratic Rep and Senator in a very Red State seelling progressive issues.

What are you selling?

[Cha]

35. Just stop the personal attacks.

[CentralMass]

41. There was no personal attack.

[TexasTowelie]

38. The point is that Bernie has not been a Democrat his entire life

so the people that have been Democrats most of their lives take issue with a) Bernie being critical of the Democratic Party and/or b) Bernie speaking for them or the Democratic Party. Bernie is facing the same scrutiny with his speeches as any party outsider whether it is a friend like Angus King or a foe like Jill Stein.

If Bernie wants to get people to vote it starts by registering voters and I have not heard any mention that this was done at any of the rallies. What I've seen with the events in San Antonio, Lubbock and Phoenix this weekend is that he is raising money for Our Revolution instead of the Democratic Party. The direction where the money is flowing leaves doubts about Bernie among many Democrats.

[betsuni]

40. +1

[ehrnst]

98. Rallies serve other purposes than "outreach"

especially if a politician is planning a future run for POTUS.

[R B Garr]

135. Exactly. He is just going to Texas to take credit for

all the blue wave changes. He wants his face associated with it when it is the hard work of others. Opportunistic.

[ehrnst]

49. There is a difference between criticism and bashing. (nt)

[David__77]

82. The diffeeence between manure and crap?

That might be a good analogy.

[ehrnst]

97. I think that it's more like the difference between working manure into the soil

and slinging one's feces.

[R B Garr]

60. Speaking of selling, endless corruption insinuations

about the primary are what is being sold. This is not his first comment about it.

[marble falls]

62. Bravo.

[pangaia]

79. +++

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. I dont like you being accused of being like a trump supporter, that really pisses me off

[Cha]

78. I know, Eliot.. however.. that's

their go to.. but " There was no personal attack."

Uh huh.

Mahalo, I appreciate it so much.

[Demsrule86]

124. If you think about it...who else is holding rallies at this particular moment?

[lunamagica]

56. GMAB. Sanders did a lot of damage to the DREAMERS aand other immigrants when he

voted against immigration reform

[R B Garr]

59. Oh, please. Who hasnt heard his stump speech a million

times.

Bringing up the primary is just a way to rouse his base to imply corruption. So predictable,

[Cha]

67. lol.. Looks like it worked..

Fortunately.. I'm one who hasn't heard his stump speech.. and I never will.

BS lost me when he thought it was a good idea to Primary President Obama in 2012.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Remarkable. Amazing. And will it work? Will it dampen voting from the left?

[babylonsister]

9. Who is being divisive?

[MrsCoffee]

44. Bernie Sanders.

What do I win?

[R B Garr]

58. Bringing up the primary and implying corruption and

wrongdoing is a huge part of his stump speech. It gets really old.

[questionseverything]

81. so you want peops waiting 7 hours to vote?

since bernie is against it...you are for suppressing votes?

how would that look on a bumper sticker?

democrats want it to take 7 freaking hours to vote>?

[R B Garr]

92. The victimization and corruption insinuations are tiresome. nt

[3sam3]

6. Soooooo...

I read Donkees' post above, scroll down to the comments, and read how divisive Bernie is? I go back and click on the AZcentral.com article and read it to see what I might have missed. Donkee pretty much covered the original article's points. I see NOTHING divisive there at all unless you really are against $15 minimum wage, health care for all, and wage equality. The only divisiveness I see is HERE! WTF people???? Bernie isn't the one that needs to "Let it go". I saw NOTHING he said that a REAL Dem shouldn't agree with.

[Dennis Donovan]

8. Welcome to DU!

[femmedem]

10. I agree, and thank you for posting.

Increasing access to voting by ensuring people don't have to stand for so many hours that they are skipping meals and losing a whole day of work or having to pay a day's wages for child care doesn't sound divisive to me. I also didn't read anything about him blaming his primary loss on the long lines. Those long lines were just as unfair to Clinton's supporters as they were to his.

Welcome to Democratic Underground. Keep calling us out when we deserve it--and I hope you also find plenty here that is useful.

[ehrnst]

51. Since when have Democrat not been behind those things?

Saying that they haven't, and all of the sudden someone else is the first, is what is divisive.

[babylonsister]

11. Same as it ever was, and

welcome to DU!!

[demmiblue]

16. Strange, isn't it?!

The good thing is that DU does not reflect what I see in real life... most people I know have gotten past the primary crap (a long time ago) and are uniting for a massive blue wave. They are acting like adults, not little whiny babies.

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Thank you!

[LongTomH]

46. Welcome to DU.

You will find some Bernie Sanders supporters still here (Most have been driven off!!!); but, we can use some backup.

[Arazi]

48. Yup. +1 nt

[ehrnst]

50. Bernie didn't invent those things

Higher minimum wage, health care for all, and wage equality are not revolutionary attacks on Capitalism, but boilerplate issues familiar to Democrats for decades.

It was Obama who signed the Lily Ledbetter equal pay act. It was Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy working to get CHIP into existence - actual affordable health care legislation - like the ACA, which is the closest we've come yet to universal health care coverage. Democrats haven't been lax or ineffective on any of those things.

And Bernie was certainly willing to work toward a $10 federal minimum wage with Trump without saying anything less than $15 was unacceptable.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article115360103.html

[G_j]

57. +1000

[leftstreet]

68. +1

Welcome to DU

[KPN]

83. ++++1111

[Owl]

7. Excellent!

[RandiFan1290]

12. Bernie attacks republicons!

Trolls attack Bernie!

[Cha]

13. No, BS attacked the Democratic

Party when he was in Lubbock, Texas .. so all you have are insults and personal attacks.

[CentralMass]

14. No he didn't.

[Cha]

15. And, it's not the first time..

“I have believed for a long time that the Democratic Party has not stood up as strong as it should for the working people of this country — we’re trying to change that,” Sanders said.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10341279

[babylonsister]

18. Did you ever consider he might be right? nt

[Cha]

20. I don't have to consider it.. because

I know he's not right.. BS sets himself up as this picture of.. he's the only one looking out for the poor, and the middle class, and it's just not so.

We have so many wonderful Democratic leaders, who are out there on the front lines, fighting everyday for our people, country, and Planet.

[betsuni]

25. I'm so tired of the false claim that Democrats ignore the poor/middle class.

I've never seen any evidence of this, just "Saying it makes it so." And questioning it attracts personal attacks.

[Cha]

29. Oh wow.. a friendly face!

Exactly, betsuni.. saying it doesn't make it so.. and the vitriol if one dares to question it? omg.

[betsuni]

31. You are one of the most dedicated Democratic supporters I've ever seen.

Why this is a bad thing on DU, well ... .

[Cha]

34. lol Well...

it's 'cause I like Dems! I like those Dems.. I know they work hard for us

[KPN]

86. Who makes that claim? What I hear is people

asking where are the results and saying we can do much better.

[betsuni]

93. Low-income voters chose the Democratic candidate in the last election over the Republican.

Nobody is saying we can't do better. I wonder why Bernie needs to insinuate that Democrats think we can't do better?

[KPN]

138. Did he insinuate that? I don't see that at all. Seems a stretch.

[KPN]

85. No he didn't.

Though for some reason some folks see him that way -- as you said, sets himself up as the only one looking out for the poor. It escapes me why.

[ehrnst]

47. Are you saying it is or isn't an attack?

Calling the Democratic party either weak or lazy (not being as strong as they should) is not bashing?

White straight cis men tend to be the ones who don't appreciate the very real success of the Democratic party in terms of progressive action.

Accomplishments speak much louder than the words of white straight men who don't view progress on issues that don't directly affect white straight men as relevant or universal.

[aikoaiko]

88. That's definitely not bashing. I'm a Democrat and I agree with Bernie.

[ehrnst]

95. So you are saying that you agree with Sanders that

the Democratic party is either weak or lazy (not being as strong as they should)

"

[aikoaiko]

100. Not as strong as we should be - yes

We are not perfect.

[ehrnst]

102. What do you mean "Should be"?

[aikoaiko]

103. Really? Are those words unknown to you?

[ehrnst]

104. Nice try. I'm asking you to specify what you mean by that.

What is it that they "should be" but are not? Clearly you have an idea of what they are not if they are not what "they should be."

You do understand the concept of passive phrasing, don't you?

But I'll understand completely if you are afraid to answer.

[aikoaiko]

105. Currently we are helping Republicans deregulate the banks

Theres that.

[ehrnst]

106. I guess if you want to see it that way....BS talked about the past as well.

And other areas where the Dems have been "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should) in the past?

And what was the reason for their being "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should)?

"weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should) being what BS said that you agree with

[aikoaiko]

107. The Iraq War Resolution and providing extra bankruptcy protections to to credit card companies

Are two that resonate with me.

[ehrnst]

109. That's it? Two times where Dems were "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be)?

Do you think BS was talking about any other instances?

Such as supporting the Republican position on these:

Voting for:

Removing the santions on Russia

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Protecting 'The Minuteman Project'

gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices

1.5 trillion dollars worth of military spending on F-35 fighter jets, because it benefits their home state

military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq twice along with voting repeatedly for budgets that included funding for the 2003 war, Somalia, and Libya

Voting against:

The Brady Bill

The Victims of Rape Health Protection Act

increased education funding

increased funding for poor students

legislation increasing financial aid

legislation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies

legislation banning imports from forced child labor

funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices

funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS

[aikoaiko]

112. i dont know. You should send him an email.

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I gave you a few examples.

You can like them or not.

[ehrnst]

113. But do the positions I listed "resonate" with you like when Dems "supported GOP positions" 2 times?

There were way more than two in that list.

Are the numerous votes on that list supporting GOP legislation as off-putting to you as specific Democrats support on the two issues you mentioned: the Iraq War resolution and current legislation revising Dodd/Frank?

If not, why?

[aikoaiko]

116. No, but I see youre trying to change the subject

I get it. You don’t like Bernie, you don’t like his criticisms of Democrats, and you don’t like some of his votes.

Perhaps someone can hold a rally and talk about why they think independents have not been strong.

You asked about a comment about Democrats and I answered your questions.

And I do think that protecting credit card companies at the expenses of the poor and middle class and the IWR which is a 15+ year war were two of the worst things that we enabled in the 21st century. IF we deregulate banks and another massice Recession occurs, millions will suffer again. A lot of people still haven’t recovered from the last one.

YMMV.

[ehrnst]

117. Actually, you avoided answering the question.

And it's perfectly understandable why you would.

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

You don't hold BS to the same standards as you do "Democrats supporting two GOP policies" obviously, and change the topic when shown BS' record on supporting GOP legislation and policies.

[aikoaiko]

127. That's funny that you should cite cognitive dissonance.

You asked:What is it that they "should be" but are not? Clearly you have an idea of what they are not if they are not what "they should be."

I answered: Currently we are helping Republicans deregulate the banks

Then you asked:
And other areas where the Dems have been "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should) in the past? And what was the reason for their being "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should)?

I answered: The Iraq War Resolution and providing extra bankruptcy protections to to credit card companies.

Then you asked: Do you think BS was talking about any other instances?

Such as supporting the Republican position on these:
Voting for: Removing the santions on Russia, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Protecting 'The Minuteman Project', gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices, 1.5 trillion dollars worth of military spending on F-35 fighter jets, because it benefits their home state, military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq twice along with voting repeatedly for budgets that included funding for the 2003 war, Somalia, and Libya
Voting against: The Brady Bill, The Victims of Rape Health Protection Act, increased education funding, increased funding for poor students, legislation increasing financial aid, legislation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies, legislation banning imports from forced child labor, funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices, funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS

I answered: I don't know.

You then asked:But do the postitions I listed "resonate" with you like when Dems "supported GOP positions" 2 times?
There were way more than two in that list.
Are the numerous votes on that list supporting GOP legislation as off-putting to you as specific Democrats support on the two issues you mentioned: the Iraq War resolution and current legislation revising Dodd/Frank?
If not, why?

I answered: No. I said that protecting credit card companies at the expenses of the poor and middle class and the IWR which is a 15+ year war were two of the worst things that we enabled in the 21st century. If we deregulate banks and another massive Recession occurs, millions will suffer again. A lot of people still haven’t recovered from the last one.

Then you said I was avoiding the question and I'm not sure which question you mean. Maybe you meant the one question I didn't answer which was why I thought Democrats were motivated to help credit card companies and Bush go to war in Iraq. I think the Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy protections for credit cards were motivated by big donors. I think we failed on the IWR because too many of us wanted blood revenge and were willing to rage against Iraq when they had nothing to do with the 911 attack. Now I've answered every single question even though I suspect you don't like the answers.

And then you write, inexplicably, You don't hold BS to the same standards as you do "Democrats supporting two GOP policies" obviously, and change the topic when shown BS' record on supporting GOP legislation and policies.

I never wrote the words "Democrats supporting two GOP policies" and my gripe is not based on whether they were GOP policies or not. I've answered almost every question and didn't change the subject. You changed the subject to Bernie's votes.

The things is, Bernie isn't criticizing individual Democrats with his criticisms. He's being more general and it captures the way a lot of Democrats and lefties feel about the party. Not you and the dozen or so people on DU who are still angry at Bernie, but others like me.

You shouldn't cite cognitive dissonance unless you should its not affecting you.

[ehrnst]

129. Let's unpack this:

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 10:10 AM - Edit history (4)

You listed two (2) instances of where Democrats "supported GOP policies" "resonated" with you in response to my question of where Democrats were "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be) - which is what you agree with BS about. So yes, you listed two (2).

And correct, you did not answer why you thought Democrats "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be). Now you finally have partially answered the question:

"I think the Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy protections for credit cards were motivated by big donors." Can you tell me which "big donors" are "motivating" - whatever that means (motivating with what? instructions. encourament, threats?). Because that is a very specific accusation, and you should have specific evidence of who you are referring to. And what about the Iraq War resolution? Why do you think that Dems were "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be) in the support of that support of a GOP policy? Donors?

I gave you a long list of instances where BS "supported GOP policies," and asked you those "resonated with you" as much as the two instances where Dems voted with GOP policies. What or who do you think motivated those votes?

You answered that the two that you listed were "two of the worst things that we enabled in the 21st century" but never address the list of those (including voting to fund the Iraq War, and against increased education funding) as being negative at all.

Continuing to fund the Iraq war doesn't count as "enabling" one of the "worst" things you consider to have been enabled in the 21st century" or something you consider "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be)?

Why? Because BS voted yes it?

That indicates a cognitive dissonance, not being asked to explain the contradictions in your posts.

I think that owning it - just saying that you believe no matter what BS does or says, he is always correct, and should always be given the benefit of the doubt that his position and opinion are in the best interests of the country, and disagreeing with him is wrong - would be less contradictory.

I myself am much more inclined to first see if someone aligns with experts on a particular topic, look at their background on the topic, and seen if there is some collective political wisdom on it that they are tapping into before considering them to be on the right track. A candidate identifying as a Democrat answers many questions for me about them, because they have committed to the goals of the platform. And do they have the respect of their peers? I believe that a reasonable person can change their mind on something when they get more data. I have agreed with positions that politicians take, and disagree with others. There is no "north star" in my mind when it comes to individual polticians, just some I trust more on certain issues than others - I elect them to spend their workday immersed in those issues in a way that I can't be. When a politician talks about other progressive politicians in terms of "Where they are right is...." as opposed to "Where I agree with them is..." they lose me. I understand that sort of "I am right and everyone who doesn't agree is corrupt" position appeals to many people as "unshakeable and constant" but not me. I have evolved on topics with new information, and I would hope our leaders do too.

[aikoaiko]

130. Ok, so let me answer new questions.

You never asked me to address the things Bernie voted for or against other than whether they resonated with me more than the items I mentioned. I answered no that they didn't resonate with me more (i.e., the actual question you asked) and I explained why (i.e., 2 worst things we enabled).

I don't hold continuing the Iraq war against anyone. Not Obama, not Bernie, and other Democrats and lefties. We broke it and we needed to not leave it to someone else to clean up. As much as I wanted to say let's just get out, I trusted President Obama to make that choice. Getting out is harder to do than getting in.

If you want me to tell you what I think of each of those votes, I'd like you to first tell me what harm was caused by Bernie's vote for each of the bills. The issue for me isn't whether someone voted with Republicans per se, but the harm that resulted. The Iraq Resolution had more support from Republicans, but a majority of Democrats voted for it in the Senate (but not so in the House).

And I need to get back to work.

eta: In some ways, it doesn't matter. Even if I didn't like every vote by Bernie, I can still assess the Democratic party as sometimes not being as strong as I want.

[ehrnst]

131. The two factors that all of these votes on that list have in common are:

1. They were the GOP position (which you complained was what made the Demcrats - in BS' words - Not as strong as they should have been)

1. BS aligned with the GOP on them.

I simply asked if you held BS to the same standard of "supporting the GOP" that you did the Dems, as indicated by the two examples that you gave.

I don't need to know what you think of each of those issues - you said that "supporting the GOP" was the problem you had with Democrats.

I made no claims that those votes were "harmful," only that they supported the GOP position. Asking me to say "why I do" is another attempt to deflect from the topic.

The topic is that you "agreed with Bernie" and when pressed about what you agreed with was "not as strong as it should be" about the Democratic party, it was something that BS does and has done frequently, and you are trying to thread that needle without admitting that yes, BS doesn't pass that test of strength you defined for the Democratic party.

[aikoaiko]

132. Without rehashing everything, even if it is true that I don't hold Bernie to the same standards

as the Democratic party as a whole or even hated every single vote he made, I can still find my party wanting in some areas.

I asked about the harm from those votes because harm was my standard.

[ehrnst]

134. That wasn't the question, and no one here thinks that the party is beyond improvement.

That's a straw man.

If you define voting with a GOP agenda at ALL as harmful, then you need to apply that to all who do, not exempt certain people.

If one does exempt certain people, then one should take a deep look at whether they are looking at issues at all, because that indicates a cult of personality more than a political position.

Exempting particular votes is another matter, and one that I didn't get into. But numbers are valuable metrics, and when votes become more numerous, one can't ignore that.

[aikoaiko]

136. I think we disagree on the metrics.

Sometimes I'm ok with Democrats voting along with a Republican majority as they sometimes do. In the case of Bernie, I'm fine with him voting along with PLCAA. I wish more Democrats and Bernie had voted with Republicans on their no fly - no buy legislation.

I'm sure there are Democratic party members who are just fine with the elected Democrats who voted along with Republicans on the bankruptcy laws and the IWR. That's their prerogative.

[ehrnst]

139. What metrics do you think we differ on?

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 01:02 PM - Edit history (2)

BS spoke of the Democratic Party being "not as strong as they should be" without defining a metric for weakness, or examples of that weakness.

You said that you "agreed with him." Are you agreeing with him concerning the Party, or individual Democrats?

Sorry if I'm keeping you from work.

I'm more inclined to think that progressives differ on methods, or dogma, not on goals. Those who tolerate no dissent on methods or tactics get very little done. Democrats get things done, I think because we are a coalition and because of our diversity.

Walking lockstep behind a manifesto or individual isn't a strength. It makes for a very dynamic protest, and really gives those participating a feeling of being absolutely correct and accepted, but inevitably fails when it tries to become a movement.

Nader learned that. Enormous crowds of angry energized young people cheering him on didn't become the movement he believed he had started. He does more good as an activist than trying to make politics (which is heavily administrative and deadline driven) into activism.

[aikoaiko]

142. I have to end this with this reply and let you have the final word

I’m not saying I agree with Bernie because I want him to run for the Democratic presidential candidate or to be President. Really this is not about Bernie per se.

I do like that he is reaching out to the disaffected on the left including Democrats and others. I would include me in the disaffected category, too.

I think it helps bring the disaffected into the Democratic fold when they hear their thoughts from someone appointed by Schumer to be the Party Outreach person.

Others disagree with me, I know.

[ehrnst]

143. So Bernie, in this speech is appealing to the "disaffected on the left"

which you consider yourself to be.

What has you disaffected with the Democratic party - other than the two positions that some Democratic representatives supported?

And you think that him being appointed by the DNC, the national arm of a party he is saying has "not as strong as it should be" and that stated he is "ashamed of" (after the election) brings people "into the fold?"

I will say that I disagree.

[Cha]

115. Mahalo for all the enlightening

information on BS, ehrnst.

[betsuni]

118. +1

[betsuni]

120. OMG TWO TIMES.

[Hortensis]

119. Can you imagine...

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

(Finishing after Tillerson distraction)

if a Democratic mainstream candidate claimed a non-mainstream opponent stole votes every time a majority chose him?

The outrage would be on both sides, and it would be righteous. But that never happened, and imodissonance is far too nice a word for what did.

[ehrnst]

96. So you are saying that you agree with Sanders that

the Democratic party is either weak or lazy (not being as strong as they should)

"

Passively phrased, but clear nonetheless.

[Demsrule86]

70. No...he is not right...and should stop saying stuff like that. We need to win in 18 and 20...sour

grapes have no place in this effort.

[KPN]

84. +1

and right you are!

[Demsrule86]

125. Thanks

[Paka]

19. And the truth hurts?!

[Cha]

22. No, the truth is Wonderful. BS

is wrong.

[ehrnst]

110. This (nt)

[Cha]

114. Mahalo,

ehrnst!

[CentralMass]

24. I'm a life long Democrat and i see nothing wrong with his comments..

We clearly have some issues and ignoring them won't help.

[Cha]

26. Well, I do. No one is ignoring the issues.. the Democratic

Party is working on them.. constantly and consistently.

[Demsrule86]

71. There are no issues...that concern Sanders who is not a Democrat and has been treated

fairly in the past by the Democratic Party. He has in my opinion no reason to complain...hopefully he won't run again in our 20 primary as I believe he would be defeated soundly, and I don't want sad sad supporters (and Russian trolls ) disrupting our general.

[3sam3]

27. Soooo...

That quote is considered divisive here at DU? I happen to agree with it completely and I use the last pathetic election results to back it up. Enough of this lame bickering, much more important issues deserve discussion. I'm out of here. Buh Bye!

[Cha]

28. the quote is wrong.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. If you are going to leave may I suggest you spend every waking moment dedicated to

electing ANY democrat with a pulse ANYWHERE in America, do I need to explain why?

[Demsrule86]

72. This last election is meaningless... some Sanders supporters and others apparently fell for the

Russian bullshit provided by Assange and internet trolls. The only lesson I take from it is this...only Democrats run in the Democratic primary.

[QC]

21. I'll never forget when he called for "death to the dino fascist wing of the Dem"

Oh wait, that was somebody else!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5692646#5699079

[Cha]

23. Everybody is over that but you ... you

just can't seem to let it go.. you poor thing.

President Obama is over it, Hillary is over it, and I'm over it.. you really need to let it go.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. What in the hell is with pulling really old quotes from board members here?

Jesus, i cant say how that makes me feel ESPECIALLY given the subject matter here and who is doing what.

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY is UNDER ATTACK from NOT just the Russians, from NOT just the GOP, they are under attack from a well orchestrated and organized "alleged" group of progressives.

[Cha]

65. Oh yeah.. it's their go to..

They used to do it all the time.. you know when.

I guess I figured it was over.. I should have known.. not with these guys.

Thank you for your supportive words, Eliot.. they mean a lot.

[KPN]

87. Many here see it just the opposite. That's why it's foolish.

[Cha]

94. Yeah, the only ones who drag that out

from 10 years ago.. are sanders fans. They have nothing else to offer, so they go to attack mode to try to embarrass me.

I own it.. that was me.. My fellow Hillary supporters are cool with it.. and that's what matters to me.

Not what BS fans think.

[KPN]

140. Huh? I wasn't saying anything about 2008. My comment was about

the notion that progressives are attacking the party. I was saying that I don't see that and sometimes feel its more like the reverse.

[Cha]

141. Ok.. sorry then.. I butted in. n/t

[RandiFan1290]

30. Illuminating link

Thank you!

[Cha]

36. Oh yeah? From 10 years ago.. what

big illumination did you get from that?

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. Some folks are angry that others can evolve, learn, etc.

[Cha]

64. Mahalo, Eliot.. Everyone

has gotten over that but these guys.. who go digging up 10 years ago to try and embarrass me.

It says everything about them. It's not the first time they've tried this crap.

[R B Garr]

137. Exactly! I guess no one can change their mind about Bernie!

His loss by millions is like a big scarlet letter. Doom. No changing allowed.

[George II]

61. Really? You dug up a TEN YEAR OLD POST on a previous iteration of DU? Wow....

.....that's scary.

That's the kind of tactic used to try to destroy Joy Reid a while ago. It didn't work, and she's more popular and relevant than ever.

[Cha]

66. Yes, that's their MO, George..

They used to do it a lot back "you know when"..

They obviously don't have anything relevant to say to the discussion, so they go digging to try, and embarrass me from 10 years ago.

It would be kinda funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[Demsrule86]

74. I bet there are other quotes out there that you might not like so much...not cool.

[SixString]

111. The opinions change...

but the hate remains constant.

[SidDithers]

32. If only he'd campaigned that hard during the 2016 General Election...nt

Sid

[Cha]

37. Thanks, Sid

[GaryCnf]

39. Boy, you got it there

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2018, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Why wasn't Bernie in Detroit, or Milwaukee, or Columbus, or Philly or any other urban center in the upper Midwest in 2016 talking to black voters about black issues in states WE HAD TO HAVE TO WIN THE ELECTORAL VOTE (that is until he appeared with Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen at the last possible minute at Union Tranfer, no, wait, I meant Independence Hall)? It was all his fault!

[NurseJackie]

42. Nailed it. "If only" ... is the perfect observation.

[R B Garr]

55. +1 yes, like the primary that he was in is the only thing that

matters. There were other elections.

[ehrnst]

99. Indeed. (nt)

[NCTraveler]

43. Sanders repeats his stump speech from the early 1900's.

At this point, considering his career as a politician, shouldn't a part of this change be him removing himself from politics?

I'm pretty sure he has done more personal campaign rallies in the last three weeks than he did for Clinton during the whole GE.

[marble falls]

63. ''...more personal campaign rallies in the last three weeks than he did for Clinton..."

I bet you're wrong about that. Do you think that his many appearances may have something to do with getting 37 Democrats into various state legislatures in the last year? How many rallies has Hillary Clinton held for Democratic candidates for state office or federal office in Arizona?

Hillary Clinton admits that Bernie Sander's involvement in the last election helped her to evolve and better nuance a variety of her positions, why can't other Democrats admit that also? The big problem with the Democratic Platform was it did not skew far enough to the left. There was no way to bring Trumps supporters into the light, I think Hillary Clinton should have used Bernie Sanders to better effect to have gotten a better turnout of everyone who loathed Trump. She could have put him to work the day after the Convention at establishing a goal for an education policy, for example.

What we get as we move into an election to turn Congress around almost completely in one night is Democrats rehashing some version or another of the the '16 primary and letting someone or another how little or how much of whatever sort of a Democrat they are.

Lets get focused on November and just drop the Bernie/Hillary crap and figure out how to utilize the both of them to get out the turnout we are capable of at the polls.

Bernie is supporting Democrats for pete's sakes.

[Demsrule86]

69. And it will all be for nothing...he will not win a Democratic Primary in 20...we have moved on...

fresh faces.

[NurseJackie]

73. Yes, indeed... "fresh faces" and...

... LESSON LEARNED!

he will not win a Democratic Primary in 20...we have moved on...

Agreed. Most of us have. There are still some hangers-on, some dilly-dalliers, and some who still won't let go. I firmly believe, however, that our party's nominee for 2020 will be someone who has NOT run for president before.

[Demsrule86]

75. I feel sad for them...being a Deaniac, I well remember how it hurt, but I voted for Kerry and did

my best...folks 16 is over...the fat lady sang months ago. There will not be a repeat for a number of reasons. Read the thread and look at twitter (other social media too) the support is not there ...and with doubts cast over 16 with Russian trolls and blatant cheating, there is no lesson to be learned except...a la Carey, "Vote Democratic always, that is all".

[ehrnst]

101. Agree. (nt)

[marble falls]

80. Forget 2020. Think November 2018.

[Demsrule86]

126. Well insinuating that he was 'robbed' and sowing division...look at this thread...sure

won't help in 18...He should just stop or we will lose.

[aikoaiko]

108. Bernie is a part of the Democratic Party Leadership and charged with outreach

He’s supposed to be doing this type of speech.

It’s not just about the possibility of 2020.

[Demsrule86]

121. A job created for him that never existed before...and no offense, but I have not seen much evidence

that he is very good at it... he makes controversial statements and appears to sow discord among progressives often. I would not appoint any non-Democrat to any leadership position if I had my way...there would be no committees either. You are either a member or not. There is an obligation towards the party inherent in any position involving party leadership. Sen. Sanders has no loyalty to the Democratic Party. I doubt you would disagree with that statement and has in fact of late showed an antipathy towards the party. I am grateful that he votes with us, but I have no interest in what he has to say. I am a Democrat. I support Democrats. He can't run anyway in 20 as a Republican governor is in office in Vermont and would replace Sen. Sanders. I love Sherrod Brown but unless we elect a Democrat he can't run either. We need the Senate for judges going forward.

[Demsrule86]

146. He is not doing a good job.

[marble falls]

144. Absolutely. No Bernie Sanders run or Hillary Clinton run either. No one my age or older. But in ....

the mean time we need to turn out the vote for 2018 first. What will the White House mean to a President Clinton or a President Sanders without a new and Democratic Congress first? A lot of stupid shit could happen by 2020, lets fix Congress first.

[Demsrule86]

145. I agree completely. I want to turn out the vote and spewing insults at the Democratic Party will not

turn out the vote.

[aikoaiko]

89. Bernie's consistency, especially compared to others, is what many people like about him.

I'm sure someone like you can tell us exactly how many times Bernie campaigned for HRC and/or the Democratic Party during the GE. What is that number?

[Demsrule86]

122. I don't think he has widespread support...consider that we don't know how much the

Russians influenced both the primary and the election. I spend time on social media....I don't see a great deal of support.

[aikoaiko]

90. Thank you, Bernie. There aren't many who can walk into AZ and bring in Democrats and lefties

to a rally.

Keep up the good fight.

[Demsrule86]

123. I prefer precincts to rallies.

Let's win some elections. And I would say his words in Arizona were clearly divisive based on social media and this thread.

[aikoaiko]

128. Sure, but rallies can help bring people to voting precints.

Someone has to do outreach -- oh -- that's Bernie's job as designated by Democratic leadership.

[Demsrule86]

133. I don't call what he did outreach...I am giving him the benefit of the doubt ...but just like

the 'unifying tour' this speech did not unify I just don't see the need for Rallies...and it is too close to what Trump is doing for my taste. Now as the election get closer...Sen. Sanders could campaign where he can help..for general election candidates. That would be good...but these rallies...I don't see the point.

[NurseJackie]

147. "but these rallies...I don't see the point" --- I see the point.

But, for obvious reasons, I can't explain in detail what the TRUE point is. However, I'll go so far to completely agree with you that it's not to promote unity, and it's not to do outreach that benefits the party or any specific Democratic candidate.