Bernie Sanders' Economic Inequality Town Hall Draws 1.7 Million Live Viewers

[Donkees]

The Vermont senator is using his reach to try to shape a national progressive narrative.

By Daniel Marans

Excerpt:

The panel-discussion-style event, called “Inequality in America: The Rise of Oligarchy and Collapse of the Middle Class,” exceeded the viewership of Sanders’ first live town hall on single-payer health care in January.

The broadcast provided the Vermont independent with an opportunity to expand his new alternative media revue beyond “Medicare for all” to the broader issue of economic inequality, which he maintains that commercial media outlets frequently ignore.

“What I would say to our friends in the corporate media: Start paying attention to the reality of how many people in our country are struggling economically every single day ― and talk about it,” Sanders declared at one point during the discussion.

Billed as a seminar on the causes of, and solutions to, rising income and wealth inequality, the town hall often doubled as a progressive pep rally for social democratic reforms.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-economic-inequality-town-hall-million-viewers_us_5ab08fb6e4b0e862383ab6b4

[MyNameGoesHere]

1. He probably got a lot of "Likes" on Facebook too. N/T

[Voltaire2]

2. Meaning what exactly?

[MyNameGoesHere]

5. It's a little button on Facebook

Where literally anyone can like something you post. Literally anyone, from any country. You can click it to like.

Hope that added some clarity.

[HootieMcBoob]

8. Yes, literally anyone who is concerned with Inequality in America

and the Rise of Oligarchy and the Collapse of the Middle Class.

which incidentally was the title and theme of his presentation.

When I joined Democratic Underground many years ago Sanders was arguably the biggest hero here and thankfully he continues to push for the progressive ideals that I and many of us aspire to.

[DemocracyMouse]

24. Sanders is beating a good drum. Econ. inequality is a core issue

Since occupy Wall Street, which I attended and ENJOYED THOROUGHLY (so refreshing actually and very civilized) all the Dems have been encouraged to let their deep infrastructure flags fly (by which I mean addressing the core issues).

May Bernie, Hillary, Warren, Schiff, Pelosi and Franken from the media bully pulpit, let out a good, cathartic roar: we aint going to work for Maggie's farm no more (by which I mean doing 2-3 jobs to pay the rent and feed our children).

[George II]

47. If you clicked on it, watched 15 seconds and didn't like what you were seeing...

...you're still included in that 1.7M.

Or if you clicked on it a dozen times you count as 12 "viewers".

[MyNameGoesHere]

49. I don't click on things on Facebook, Twitter etc.

If I did I would most likely need to learn Russian. I don't aspire to that at this time.

[NurseJackie]

51. Clicky-clicky! So simple... anyone can do it!

[George II]

53. HAHA! My cat walked across my keyboard, they got ten hits.

[lapucelle]

237. How was the 1.7 million number tabulated?

The only two "news sources" that are reporting the ratings are HuffPo and Breitbart (which links back to the HuffPo story).

According to the author of the HuffPo piece, Daniel Marans:

"An audience of about 450 people attended the town hall in person in the U.S. Capitol auditorium. An additional 100 people viewed the event on monitors in an overflow room.

The rest of what Sanders’ staff estimates were 1.7 million live viewers saw the event online. (HuffPost’s back-of-the-envelope tally from the social media pages of Sanders, Warren and the various digital partners produced a similar figure.)"

Here's what the same author reported about BS's Medicare for All Town Hall back in January:

"The auditorium itself was packed to capacity with some 450 attendees. And together, the live audiences on the senator’s Facebook and YouTube pages, the the three news sites and some other outlets that picked up the stream added up to about 1.1 million people."

And one of the "news sites" was TYT.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-economic-inequality-town-hall-million-viewers_us_5ab08fb6e4b0e862383ab6b4

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-town-hall_us_5a680274e4b0dc592a0dbcf6

[Sophia4]

104. I never, ever go to Facebook.

[BoneyardDem]

131. or even if you clicked on it 300 times from overseas, and don't speak a word of English,

guess how many of those clicks counted towards the 1.7M? Yeah, all of it.

[LanternWaste]

55. It's often entertaining to watch people cower behind implication.

It's often entertaining to watch people cower behind implication.

I s'pose it's been a long time since people stood in front of their sentiment rather than pass the responsibility of their own opinion onto everyone else.

Clarity, indeed.

[KPN]

86. +1111!

[MyNameGoesHere]

174. If you need help finding the like icon

I can be way more clear. Although I might have to use a translator

[juxtaposed]

212. do you Hate Senator Sanders?

[ehrnst]

385. ???

Not seeing hate for Sanders.

Can you explain why you see "hate" for Sanders in that post?

[Voltaire2]

3. Sanders is presenting the reasons why

people should vote for Democrats rather than against Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

4. So he didn't call out Democrats?

[pampango]

197. Shouldn't we all 'call out' people who do not support liberal values like

Income equalty. Fortunately there are not many Democrats who support tax cuts for the rich and corporations or who oppose empowering unions and other policies do deal with income inequality. To the extent they exist, should they not be 'called out'?

[ehrnst]

386. Are we allowed only to "call out" Democrats?

And not other progressives?

[pampango]

392. To the contrary. We should call out anyone who does not support the liberal values

I listed. As I said, "not many" Democrats would be on the list of those called out since most Democrats support those values. That list would be dominated by republicans.

[Demsrule86]

399. The Democratic Party has to be big tent in order to gain a majority...and there is no consensus on

liberal values. Sorry...there can be no purity police. And calling out Democrats enables Republicans. You are important to the Democratic Party as is whatever state you come from...but so are those in West Virginia who hopefully will re-elect Joe Manchin. We need a big tent with diverse views this would include common Democratic values of course in order to win a majority without which we can do nothing of importance.

[pampango]

403. What do you define as "common Democratic values"? Are they not 'liberal'?

[Demsrule86]

418. I am a liberal so I have liberal values. I want universal health care, living wage, something done

the cost of college, public education money (no vouchers), no more wars, take care of the poor and the mentally ill as wel,LGBTQ rights, DACA and immigration reform ET AL...Those are liberal values. Although Manchin does not agree with me completely if you listen to this Town Hall, you will see Democratic values on display. We are a big tent party and will not have a majority any other way.

.

[Demsrule86]

397. No...not by an independent who is not a member of the party...and he usually just generalizes...like

"Democrats haven't done enough"...blah blah...oh and as for calling out Democrats...he called out Kennedy, Mondale, Jesse Jackson and others out in the 80's. He advocated then for third parties. He has long been critical of the Democratic Party...and I think it hurts are electoral chances and this is a very important year. There is an op-ed written by Sen. Sanders in the link below.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech?utm_term=.xfoZe1QDZv#.tkOnwVoNnK

[DownriverDem]

15. Please Bernie

I like Bernie. I agree with his ideas. However he better not join the Dem Party just to run in their primaries. I am a proud Dem. I had a problem with what he did. If Bernie does it again, I will have a bigger problem with him.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. How do you feel about him being one of the most reliable votes for progressive issues for 25 years?

How do you feel about him being a reliable caucus vote fore the Democratic Party leadership in both the House and Senate for 25 years?

[MrsCoffee]

30. I think he blew it up.

Obviously we are going to disagree about that, but given the current situation, many people are over him.

I think his lack of transparency (tax returns, email lists), votes on Russian sanctions and continued attacks on Democrats and the party make many people uneasy.

Our Revolution is pissing people off. So is his son. Not helpful.

I don’t think there is anything Sanders can do to walk back the damage that’s been done.

[Me.]

54. I Think You've Nailed It

[arthritisR_US]

242. I totally agree!

The Sanders have been exposed and the rest is history.

[George II]

58. I think the results of the Mayoral election in Burlington two weeks ago says it all.

[Me.]

66. Sept. Is The Primary In NH

We'll see

[MrsCoffee]

95. I missed that.

I see that she had to take a parting shot at the Mayor.

"While the mayor won, it was below 50 percent," Driscoll said, adding that Weinberger should remain aware of that when he shows up to work in the morning. He must change his perspective, she said, "on who is in charge in this city."

[George II]

96. Yeah, but she only got 36% of the vote, only about 1/3 of the voters of Burlington approved of her.

[lunamagica]

111. Don't forget voting against immigration reform, voting five times against the Brady Bill, the Amber

Alert, Sierra Blanca, voting in favor of the Minutemen...

[MrsCoffee]

116. All great points!

[pandr32]

135. Totally with you on this

[ehrnst]

387. Indeed. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

400. I agree with you.

And we will never be sure of the true level of support in 16 with the Russians and GOP dirty tricks.

[George II]

35. In this day and age we need our Democrats to vote in favor of tougher gun legislation, not....

.....against it.

[DanTex]

50. Personally, I feel great about that.

He's neither a god nor a devil. His voting record and advocacy for progressive issues has been consistently great for 25 years.

That doesn't change the fact that the movement he started with his presidential run gave rise to some anti-Dem/pro-GOP factions that ultimately helped Trump become president, and he didn't do enough to control that. I don't think he meant harm, but harm still came of it.

[Wwcd]

89. That's not true, Sen Paul Wellstone was & remains the most reliable Progressive.

Sanders claim of being so Progressive began with his 2015 Primary Campaign.
As for his voting record. Hardly Progressive.

Sen Wellstone was killed in a plane crash in 2012.
Your claim of 25 years is flat out wrong.

It was Senator Wellstone who was the Progressive voice of the people of Sierra Blanca Tx.
It was Wellstone who stood up against Bernie Sanders as he tried to pass a bill that benefitted his own State of VT, and the Toxic waste board, which his wife Jane was a board member.

The one tax form that was submitted by Sanders in the 2016 election, showed the Sanders' were STILL receiving funds for their work on dumping VT's toxic waste in Tx.

Sanders is a far cry from most Progressive for 25 yrs.
It is just not the truth.

Here, have a look at what the true Progressive platform is about.
Sanders is an Independent from VT.
That is who he is.

He does not own the" most progressive for 25 yrs" label.
That belongs to Sen Paul Wellstone.

https://www.wellstone.org/legacy

October 2017 marks the 15th anniversary of the plane crash that killed Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, and three members of his campaign staff – Tom Lapic, Mary McEvoy, and Will McLaughlin.

Join with us to honor their lives and legacy.

This year will be the 16th Anniversary of Sen Wellstone's death.

Bernie has 9 more years to wait until he can make that claim of "25 years" .

He will never replace the Progressive legacy of Sen Wellstone, no matter how many times he says the word.

Sanders is an Independant.
Meaning he has no particular political Party affiliation nor loyalty to.

His voting record does not reflect loyalty to all Progressive causes.

Its high time that is made clear.

Walk the Progressive walk Mr Sanders. Not just talk the Progressive talk.

[EffieBlack]

113. Ask any civil rights activist fighting on legislation and noms on Capitol Hill for their go-to list

of Senators they worked closely with in their battles whom they could count on to do more than talk the talk and vote right on important issues.

You’ll find that Bernie Sanders is unlikely to make the top ten in any of their lists.

He talks a good game and votes right (hardly a profile in courage given his constituency), but otherwise, he’s been nowhere to be found.

There’s a reason the civil rights community didn’t clamor to support him in 2016. It’s not that they didn’t like him - they just didn’t really know him because he’s never been in the trenches where the real work was being done.

[JCanete]

118. well why do you think that is? Look at where our politics has taken us. Look at what our Dems

are abdicating on right now and what some of our own dems are crossing over to vote for. I never want Sanders to sign on to some of that shit, and I never want him to shut up about it. If that is what compromise and "progress" looks like, then we as a nation are already over.

[EffieBlack]

138. Im not talking about watered-down progress

I’m talking about such things as fights to stop confirmation of anti-civil rights judges and to block unanimous consent on bad bills. The kinds of fights people like on which Kennedy and Durbin and Clinton and Wellstone and Edwards and others not only spoke out and voted right, but also listened to, advised, coordinated and strategized with the activists, twisted colleagues’ arms, used their power to shut down unanimous consent resolutions, etc. Much of this was done behind the scenes and off-camera so they didn’t get a lot of public credit, but they were valued, hands-on partners in the fight. Sanders not so much.

[JCanete]

143. so buddies who work together on a lot of different issues, including the ones I spoke to

spoke of each other fondly. I like people you mentioned on that list by the way, but your own metric isn't that convincing to me.

[EffieBlack]

145. I was knee-deep in these fights and know firsthand exactly what Im talking about

But you are surely free to believe whatever you wish.

[JCanete]

150. that was off the cuff, and it was a dumb comment on my part really, because there are

a lot of fights to have and of course Sanders isn't on the ground floor of all of them. He is generally right on civil rights issues...and particularly when economic issues are going to have incredibly unfair results, he is one of the few voices who talks about them. Have you looked at just how much damage has been done to economic equality across racial lines since the 80's? It has gotten worse, not better. The biggest benefactors of racism and disenfranchizement are those who use these issues as a wedge to hold power and distract while they take it all. And then they still point at black people and immigrants with their propaganda arms and say look over there, "they're stealing your shit..."

The class war. We need to fight back on it already. Its how we get white rural voters to realize they've been fighting for the wrong side against the wrong people. You don't want to take up that fight, well, I'm pretty sure that we can expect more of the same.

[EffieBlack]

166. You surely dont mean it that way but your lecture about civil rights and economic inequality

is very patronizing. This kind of thing is one of the reasons so many African Americans - especially people like me who have been in the civil rights struggle for decades - are put off by Sanders and his supporters.

I suggest more listening and fewer lectures about how to do civil rights right and warnings about what will happen if we don’t do it your way.

[JCanete]

168. It cannot work that way. That would be an entirely different kind of patronizing. If I don't

tell you how I'm thinking because I just don't want that charge levied at me, then how do you address my points. We end up not having a conversation. If you disagree with me, I suggest you educate me. I know too many people who simply bite their tongue and go off and then spout their unchallenged beliefs in the comfort of their own demographic. How does that actually work out for us?

[ehrnst]

446. Yes, Democrats are "abdicating" because you want to think that.

But nothing to back that up.

Meanwhile, Betsy Devos and conservatives get a big middle finger, thanks to Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17152122/winners-losers-omnibus-congress-spending


She's not chasing the spotlight to self-promote on this, nor does she need to. There is a satisfaction in getting the job done, among many devoted public servants. She's focused doing the job her colleagues and constituents continue to elect her to do, in heels, while ignoring the frantic squawking of men who are threatened by that.

Of course the idea that house Democrats, who are in the minority, didn't achieve the full and total capitulation from the GOP that many lefties demand will be used as a baseball bat (on Nancy in particular) by those who have a constant bone to pick with the Democratic party, when they fail to yell and scold everyone else sufficiently then stomp away from the table, after accomplishing nothing.

I'll take actual results over "sound and fury, signifying nothing." I'm a progressive.

[JCanete]

450. Wait, what the fuck did we get in the omnibus bill? Less bad stuff than we could have gotten?

That is not a compromise. That is not(god I hope it is not) what should be called a bipartisan result. That is Democrats making concessions so that worse things don't happen, which is always the justification for concessions, something Republicans never have to worry about because we never give them a worst case. When republicans hold over our heads policies that they know aren't even popular with their own constituency and WE cower to those instead of calling their bluff(or force their hand), that is not winning. Ooh, they put on the table that they really wanted to do harm to research spending and the Census, and we really showed them... by giving them other stuff they wanted so that that wouldn't happen.

WINNER: The republican Tax Bill
LOSER: Conservative Kabuki theater that cares about budgetary spending...right...
LOSER: Susan Collins who was, gasp lied to about something she only needed to stand up for so that she would appear to care? Teh real loser here of course is that no such stabilization measures are being talked about.
LOSER: Trump only getting 1.6 billion for his wall, not 25 billion. That's like "heheh, he only took what was in my wallet but I have a wad of cash in my underwear...what a sucker..."

[ehrnst]

455. And you illustrate my point in ways I could not have.

Thank you.

Just go on swinging that bat.

[lunamagica]

119. I remember well when a certain group turned against Rep. John Lewis for saying he didn't

really remember Sanders and then endorsed Hillary. Boy that was ugly.

[stranger81]

186. Yes, it was ugly for Rep. Lewis to allow himself to be used in that way.

I lost a lot of respect for him as a result.

[lunamagica]

198. Typical

[EffieBlack]

208. And, I say again, they wonder why black folk don't fall all over themselves for Bernie

Despicable.

[Hortensis]

225. Agree. They don't wonder why they never win

friends or influence people, though. Ever. 'Cause everyone else is corrupt.

Sigh.

[GulfCoast66]

253. Hey, not just black folk!

There are some of us southern white folk who see it all too clearly. My father was raised in rural Louisiana in the depression and just after. He went to university and left because of the racism and had a huge distrust for progressives who sacrificed civil rights for economic improvements for white folks. We should teach about who was NOT eligible for Social Security, Minimum Wage and other benefits prior to LBJ.

Claiming to be a progressive in the South dubious at best. I refer you to the famous southern progressive, Huey Long! A real nationalist progressive!

[EffieBlack]

254. I think I'm a little bit in love with your dad.

He was woke before it was a thing.

[GulfCoast66]

256. Well, it complicated, like everything in the South

Dad died 30 years ago, but today he might be considered somewhat racist while at the time of his youth he was radical!

I am pretty sure he would have been opposed to my sister or I marrying a person of color and neither one of us even considered it, so the venom of racism may have creeped down another generation. My sister and I started out as fiscal republicans, but are now strong liberals realizing that my dad was correct.

My father left the rural south for life in the University because he could not stand the double standard for being a 'Christian' and treating 40% of the population, who were also Christians, like 3rd class people.

He taught me that not all whites agreed with Jim Crow, but they risked social and financial ruin for speaking out. Which or course pales with the lynching blacks faced.

Dad hated the Southern progressive movement which was economic nationalism wrapped in racism. He hated Huey Long with a passion.

So it astounds me at how tone deaf many members of the Democratic Party are thinking that southern Blacks and liberal whites will accept a Vermont independent proudly claiming to be a progressive who does not even seem to care about our history. It kind of reinforces our perceptions. Because progressive is not a nice word where I come from.

You have a nice evening and I look forward to reading more of your posts.

[EffieBlack]

257. Im sorry you lost your dad

He sounds like he was a product of his time who broke free of many of the constraints and would likely have continued to grow.

I agree with your assessment of Sanders. Like many northern liberals who have had little real contact with minorities, he seems very certain of his progressivism and has a sense of superiority over everyone else. He believes the fact that he dabbled in civil rights activism in college, before absconding to lilly-white Vermont (the ultimate form of white flight), confers some sort of special sanctity on him. This demonstrates an amazing degree of ignorance about real civil rights activism and those who engaged in it. The arrogance that he and his supporters demonstrate on this issue - particularly their propensity to lecture people of color about what civil rights is and isn’t, who our heroes should and shouldn’t be and why we owe him lifelong gratitude and honor because he once did something that we, our parents, grandparents and friends did over and over over many decades and at much greater risk than he ever faced - has driven many of us far away from him.

And their disconnect from diverse groups and movements is one of the reasons they seem to think they can convince Trump voters to come around. It stems from a similarly patronizing view of these people as ignorant and misguided - like little children who just need to be molded and disciplined with love - when in reality, most of them are neither ignorant nor misguided. They’re just bigots.

[EffieBlack]

207. Wow.

Just wow.

Rep. Lewis could read you AND Bernie and then eat you both for lunch.

How DARE you suggest that he's too stupid to make his own choices and that he could EVER "allow himself to be used" by anyone.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Gothmog]

232. I was a Clinton delegate to the DNC

The Clinton campaign had a great whipping infrastructure. We ere given warnings by our whips of protests to be staged by persons trying to disrupt the National Convention. BTW, I love the term "whipping infrastructure".

I was surprised when I got a text warning me of a protest to take place when Congressman John Lewis was introduced. I showed this warning to a state court district judge and a state senator sitting next to me and they could not believe it either. I could not imagine anyone booing this great man. Even though I had been warned, I was still pissed when a group of idiots booed Congressman Lewis.

Congressman John Lewis is a national treasure. I have been at events where I got to hear Congressman Lewis tell his "preaching to chickens" story four times and I hope to hear this story a few more times. I have autographed copies of his March books. I have some great pictures of Congressman Lewis and Congressman Keith Ellison standing next to Kareem Abdul Jabbar from an event held off site during the national convention. Congressman Ellison loved these pictures and had me e-mail them to his assistant

I know that the posters on the JPR site hate Congressman Lewis and applauded Congressman Lewis being booed. I have no respect for the posters on that site.

I have the up-most respect for Congressman Lewis.

[ehrnst]

286. He deserves all our respect. He is a tried and true progressive, and one who has shed blood

for change.

Not many progressives, even his age, can claim the kind of real hard work of social justice, where it was happening, and when it was happening.

And he still does. He's been arrested for protesting during his political career.

His life is a shining example of courage, longevity in the movement, progressive accomplishment and resistance.

It appears that threatens some.

[Gothmog]

350. I have met Congressman Lewis and have heard his "preaching to chickens" story 4 times

The man is a national treasure

[EffieBlack]

292. He IS a national treasure

And he has earned, in blood and sweat and shoe leather, the right to criticize anyone he damned well pleases. How DARE these johnny-come-lately "activists" - and in Bernie's case, the "I'm one of millions who marched for civil rights in the 60s but one of only abut 17 people still milking a protest I did 55 years ago" crowd - question his strength, integrity or right to speak his mind because he's not eternally grateful for Sanders' great sacrifice on that long ago day.

Here's a clue, folks. Bernie's not the only person to get arrested protesting in the 60s. Black and white folk did it in droves. And many of them did it without knowing whether they would get out of the jail alive - and they didn't do it a once and then escape to the whitest state in the country.

So, to anyone who has the temerity and arrogance and ignorance to criticize my hero John Lewis because he refuses to worship at the Shrine of St. Bernard, I say - you have no have no right to even speak of him so take John Lewis' name out of your mouth.

[Gothmog]

351. I am still mad at the attacks on Congressman Lewis at the DNC

This was a planned stunt that all of the Sanders delegates knew about and I was warned by my whip at least 15 minutes before it occurred. The sanders supporters on JPR are actually proud of this incident https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hey-john-lewis-karmas-a-mf-aint-it/

[sheshe2]

233. used?

He allowed himself to be used? You are saying that the man that took the beating in Selma is a wimp that is used and manipulated by Hillary?



OMG. On Democratic Underground no less. John Lewis, by your words lost your respect for endorsing Hillary.

[Gothmog]

238. I agree

[lunamagica]

251. Right. It is incredibly insulting. But I'm glad they keep showing us their true selves

[Cha]

243. That's ugly insult to our Civil Rights Icon and

a National Treasure for the ages. Rep John Lewis is NOT "used" by anybody.

This insult of yours says everything about you and absolutely nothing about John Lewis.

[EffieBlack]

244. It speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[Cha]

245. Blaring volumes

on so many levels.

[George II]

246. "Used in that way"? How was he "used"? Representative Lewis is the most honorable and respected...

....leader of the Civil Rights Movement.

Not many today would be willing or brave enough to have his skull shattered on principle like he did.

[EffieBlack]

248. Because he refuses to acknolwedge that Bernie is the greatest civil rights activist of ALL TIME!!!

{That was said in Muhammad Ali's voice, by the way)

so someone must have gotten to him.

[stranger81]

266. He allowed himself to be used to promote the false implication that Senator Sanders

was not involved in the civil rights movement -- stating that "he never saw" Sanders himself while working in Alabama, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that Sanders was in fact working for the same organization as Rep. Lewis (SNCC) in Chicago.

It was an unfortunate thing to see Rep. Lewis use such a deliberately misleading statement in an attempt to paint Sen. Sanders as lacking concern for racial justice issues, and it disappointed me to see him leveraging his own well-earned civil rights credentials to serve that purpose.

[George II]

283. John Lewis NEVER said that Sanders was not involved in the civil rights movement....

....that is an abject lie. Nor did he "imply" that he wasn't involved in the civil rights movement.

You should be ashamed of yourself for saying something like that.

A little history, which hopefully will result in a retraction of your statement.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago/

[betsuni]

285. Your comment is offensive and wrong.

[EffieBlack]

295. Bullshit

Take John Lewis' name out of your mouth. You don't even deserve to utter it.

[stranger81]

324. I realize this may come as quite a shock to you,

but you are not the ultimate arbiter of how all Democrats perceive events, nor of what opinions are posted on a public message board.

[Gothmog]

349. Did you approve of the Sanders delegates booing Congressman John Lewis. at the DNC?

You may want to consider posting on JPR. The posters on that board applauded the Sanders delegates booing Congressman Lewis at the Democratic National Convention https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hey-john-lewis-karmas-a-mf-aint-it/

I was at the national convention and we had some great whips and a "whipping infrastructure" that warned us of protests. I and other Clinton delegates were warned that the Sanders delegates were going to protest Congressman Lewis. My whip later told me that sanders had evidently consented to this protest or refuse to talk to his delegates about it.

I was appalled and disgusted at this stunt.

[stranger81]

357. I don't think that kind of public display of disrespect towards Rep. Lewis is appropriate or helpful

and I certainly wouldn't have engaged in it had I attended the convention. But I was still disappointed by his statement.

[Gothmog]

364. Your disappointment is something that I can live with

I believe that you are totally wrong on the facts here which means that I do not care if you are disappointed.

[stranger81]

365. That's fine. I can live with that too.

I see we have other areas where we are in strong agreement, and that's the nature of the Democratic Party -- it's a give and take coalition. That's good enough for me.

[Gothmog]

424. Congressman Lewis is a national treasure

I trust him a great deal and it is clear to me that your claims are simply wrong.

[Eliot Rosewater]

353. Worse yet, being called a liar. Weird that it is allowed to stand.

And my apology to you that black Americans still have to deal with this shit.

[George II]

341. You never responded, wonder why? The fact that they both worked for the same organization...

....(SNCC, Sanders a couple of years, Lewis for many years), except for the March on Washington (which Sanders attended) the two were probably never in the same place at the same time. Sanders worked his two years solely in Chicago, Lewis all of his years in the South.

As you point out, Lewis said he "never saw" Sanders, which is 100% true. It's not misleading at all. And yet you claim that he was "used"? By whom?

You know, I went to high school with Eric Holder (you can look up his biography), and even though we went to high school in the very same building for a few years, if he said he "never saw" me I sure wouldn't be offended and carry on about it for years. To be honest, I don't remember ever seeing him, either.

[Eliot Rosewater]

352. Misleading is short hand for lie, so Rep Lewis is being called a liar here and it stands. got it

[stranger81]

363. You know what? I completely agree with your point

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2018, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

that there would be no reason for Rep. Lewis to have personally encountered Sen. Sanders while they were both working for SNCC, given their disparate geographic locations. But that's exactly why it was a misleading cheap shot for Rep. Lewis to use that statement as a way of dismissing Sen. Sanders' involvement in the civil rights movement.

As for whom the statement was used by, we both know the answer to that, and we both know that getting into it here would be refighting the primaries in violation of the TOS.

[George II]

372. John Lewis' statement was 100% factual, and he made it of his own volition. He was "used"...

....by no one.

But you choose to disparage Representative John Lewis by claiming he was misleading AND was "used" by others with respect to his statement, and further that he was "dismissing" Sanders' involvement in the civil rights movement.

As far as I'm concerned, Representative John Lewis is and American hero and icon, certainly not worthy of having his reputation or achievements tarnished by frivolous comments about him.

[all american girl]

360. John Lewis didn't know him in the 60's

John Lewis was the leader and bernie was a worker bee at damn one school. God, they all didn't know each other. He didn't dispute any facts-he didn't know him. Wow, this is why bernie wasn't connecting to AA voters. His supporters just can't listen and then make up your own narrative of what happened. Everything you just wrote was a lie.

[George II]

373. Sanders spent two (2) years in the civil rights movement as a college student.

Shortly after he graduated from the University of Chicago, for whatever reason, he moved to perhaps the least diverse state in the country.

While John Lewis was getting his beaten and having his skull fractured in the South, Sanders was getting fined $25 for a demonstration in Chicago.

[all american girl]

361. You told me to come and look at what you where talking about, and that I was putting words in your m

After reading this, you made it much worse. You are the one putting words in Rep John Lewis's mouth. He did not know bernie, and why would he? Rep John Lewis was heading the organization up and bernie was a worker bee in one school (which I wrote out before seeing that you directed me to this post). You made an assumption about what Rep John Lewis said and then made it fit your narrative. All he said was that he didn't know bernie back then...he never implied or said ANYTHING about bernie lacking concern for racial justice issues...that's all on you and in your head. Go look at what Rep John Lewis actually said. Oh, and on a side note this sentence-"stating the he never say sanders while working in Alabama" bernie didn't work in AL, he was in Chicago, so why would Rep John Lewis had seen him there? That sentence makes no sense.

[stranger81]

362. It's preposterous to try to claim now that no implications were attached to Rep. Lewis's statement.

The national media seemed to understand what he was saying quite well:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/endorsing-clinton-john-lewis-questions-sanders-civil-rights-record

As for the sentence you criticize, maybe I used too many pronouns -- the "he" you quote refers to Rep. Lewis, who was in Alabama, not to Sen. Sanders.

[all american girl]

375. Please explain to me why the elder of a nationwide movement would know

one man at one college? Why is it that you can't believe that Rep John Lewis had no idea who bernie was in the 60's? Why do you think it's OK to call him a liar? Why can't you take the word of the man who did far, far, far more work, almost died, was standing next to MKL in Washington, marching with him in AL? Why is it that you believe the narrative and not the man? Must be hard to admit you where wrong to accuse a Civil Right hero a liar. We are done.

[George II]

407. But the bottom line is that nothing he said was incorrect despite what some....

....want to read into it.

John Lewis is the most honest, forthright man in Washington who holds nothing back. If he wanted to say what some claim, he would have come right out and said it. He didn't.

[Demsrule86]

419. One protest in 63 is not really impressive...unless I missed something after that.

And those who booed Jon lewis acted badly and made Sen. Sanders look bad. (although It was not his fault)

[all american girl]

358. Wow, so you are saying that a Civil Right icon,

a member of congress, a leader in the black community was too stupid to sort out who he supported? That's just racist, man. How dare you even think that this was OK to type out. I'm a middle age white woman and I saw that foul dog whistle. You should be ashamed of yourself. bernie thinking that this behavior from his supporters and his campaign is OK is one reason why he lost POC vote.

[stranger81]

359. No, that's not what I'm saying.

If you're interested in my opinion, read post 266. But please refrain from trying to stuff words in my mouth that bear no resemblance to what I actually said.

Thank you.

[Gothmog]

431. You accused Congressman Lewis of using misleading terms and making false statements

Those statements are simply false. Congressman Lewis made accurate statements and the fact that you disagree with these statements do not mean that Congressman Lewis' statements were false or misleading.

Your claims here echo the claims of the Sanders supporters who booed Congressman Lewis at the National Convention and the statements made by the posters on JPR who applauded these actions. The posters of JPR may buy your claims but I do not.

[Gothmog]

480. Rep. John Lewis had a message for young activists

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

394. Who was it that "used" him? (nt)

[ehrnst]

398. Well, that pretty much tells us, doesn't it?

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to post over at JPR?

You wouldn't have to use passive language to communicate your feelings about Democrats there.

[lunamagica]

114. Yes. Oh, how I wish he was still fighting for the voiceless

A TRUE progressive. There is no comparison.

[Demsrule86]

401. Misunderstood...yeah Wellstone was a good guy...I thought you meant Sen. Sanders and he is still

in the Senate.

[lunamagica]

429. lol, no, I would never sai that about the independent senator from Vermont

[Demsrule86]

453. I often wonder what would have happened if Wellstone had lived...he had an impact

for sure...

[lunamagica]

460. His death was a tragedy for America. A loss for the most vulnerable among us

[Eliot Rosewater]

128. Wellstone was the REAL deal, true American patriot, true liberal. Great man.

He stands apart from almost all others.

[ehrnst]

410. And Paul was being called an "establishment sell-out" at the time of his death

by the "more progressive than thou" crowd.

See my post below.

This is a personal issue with me.

[Eliot Rosewater]

420. That is insane, did not know that. Wellstone was not a sellout at any level on any issue.

[ehrnst]

422. He didn't think that evolving on an issue when you got new information was "selling out,"

even if it contradicted lefty "dogma,"

This was someone who was more interested in being a good, effective representative which meant serving the actual common good over clinging to dogma, or fear of admitting that you might have been wrong.

Like Hillary. And not because HRC somehow performed "status quo" sorcery on him, as per Mother Jones. They were kindred souls. She was the keeper of his flame, not Sanders.

Oct. 1, 2008: H.R. 1424 (110th): Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

Clinton, Yea. Sanders, Nay.

[Eliot Rosewater]

425. What could anyone have against

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) is a federal law that generally prevents group health plans and health insurance issuers that provide mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits from imposing less favorable benefit limitations on those benefits than on medical/surgical benefits.

What the fuck?

What possible reason is there to vote against this from the left?

[ehrnst]

426. Yeah, go figure.

Every goddamned vote Hillary made in her time in the Senate was cavity checked for purity.

Others, not so much.

[GulfCoast66]

255. You know what else Senator Wellsone was...

A member of the Democratic Party. Or whatever they call it up there.

He was no fucking independent.

[Wwcd]

411. He held true to a single Party representing his values & vision.

That is the Democratic Party.
Thank you

[ehrnst]

423. Yep.(nt)

[ehrnst]

409. Paul was being called an "establishment sellout" by the purists at the time of his death

Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2018, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

for running for a third term against his campaign promise (because he learned that experience made him a more effective rep, not a more "corrupt insider" rep) , for changing his mind about supporting single payer after talking to people (including Hillary) and getting more information from unbiased policy analysts, and for hiring "Washington insiders" for staff instead of activists who were enthusiastic, but weren't as effective in getting the boring administrative work of actual governance done.

I worked with Paul (as did my late Father-in-law) and I remember how he was being spoken of. I won't forget it, either. It grinds my ass to hear the "Leftier than thou" crowd claim him as one of their own, when they don't remember how he was spoken of by their predecessors not long before his death.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/seduction-paul-wellstone/

Can you imagine the response of the far left if any GOP'er spoke so highly of a progressive Democrat today- after working ACROSS THE AISLE to get a mental health bill passed? Let alone a GOP'er being the one to introduce his last legislation in the house as a post-mortem tribute?? It would be held up as "proof" by many that said Democrat was "Republican lite." Imagine, getting progressive legislation written and passed, by working with other legislators, instead of dismissing anyone who disagreed with you on anything whatsoever as "corrupt!" or "corporatist!"

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/264093-remembering-my-friend-senator-paul-wellstone-

He would be "establishment-shamed" as (along with Planned Parenthood and the Black Congressional Caucus, whom he would be proud to be lumped in with) by many self-proclaimed arbiters of what is and is not "progressive" if he was alive today.

As Al Franken said at the convention, Hillary is "good enough, she's smart enough, and doggone it, she's a Paul Wellstone progressive," and Al knew what he was talking about.

So many of the real lessons of Paul's progressive accomplishments have been forgotten or misconstrued by so many.

[Wwcd]

413. Franken on Hillary, "She's a Paul Wellstone progressive"

"As Al Franken said at the convention, Hillary is "good enough, she's smart enough, and doggone it, she's a Paul Wellstone progressive," and Al knew what he was talking about."


Thanks for this post. It is how a true PROGRESSIVE defines himself.

He was never an Independent.

[ehrnst]

414. And like Neil DeGrasse Tyson recommended, he thought it was OK to change his mind

if he got new data.

He was a scholar, and had a scholar's curiosity, openness, and lack of attachment to dogma.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I'm glad that he did

We can pretend otherwise but there are tens of millions of Independents out there, more of them than there are registered Democrats. When you strip away all the bluster it seems we expect them all to sit out our election process until it comes time for them to choose between a Democrat and a Republican in November. Increasingly though Independents have been thinking of challenging both major parties in November, either that or forming or aligning with a third party more to their liking.

Consider how ballistic we go here on DU when anyone has the audacity to challenge a Democrat from the left in a General Election, like for example Green Party candidates sometimes do. We say without hesitation that they are stealing votes away (as if we owned them to begin with) from the Democrat and handing victory to the Republicans. There were plenty of people out there willing to pledge small donations to Bernie to run as an Independent for President in November (I wasn't one of them). The Green Party virtually begged Bernie Sanders to head up their ticket in November for President.

Instead Bernie Sanders agreed in advance not to run for President in November unless he won the Democratic Party nomination for President. He agreed to abide by the results of the Democratic primary process instead, and to endorse the winner of the Democratic nomination - which he did. His name was not on the ballot in any of our 50 states in November. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein however were on those ballots.

There are always a few posters on DU who say that they would have liked it better had Sanders run for President as an Independent in 2016 rather than agreeing to pursue his candidacy through the Democratic Party and backing its ultimate nominee. Frankly I think that's nuts.

[appal_jack]

43. Well-said. nt.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

83. Well said!!

[KPN]

87. Hear, hear! Well done.

[Doremus]

140. Good points that are seldom mentioned in the rush to condemn Sanders. nt

[mountain grammy]

141. Well said, as always.

[seaglass]

196. Only 10% of "Independents" don't vote along party lines. No idea why there is any suggestion that

"Independents" have some kind of homogeneous political beliefs - they don't.

I am an unenrolled voter. Unenrolled voters make up a larger percentage of registered voters in MA than Rep. or Dem. Yet we always seem to elect Ds. It would appear we would be ripe for a 3rd party candidate with such a large unenrolled population - so why isn't it happening here?

Bernie would have been dead in Congress if he took the Green Party nom. Democrats might have supported a viable D candidate against his Senate run if he had done that. This was not an option for him.

From an ethical perspective Bernie should have run as an Independent. He wasn't ever a Democrat and it was clear he only became a Democrat to run in the party primary. If he ran as an Independent though he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the support he did and he certainly wouldn't have been invited to any debate. Maybe there could have been a Green-Libertarian-Independent debate. He would have lost and burned bridges in Congress.

[Tom Rinaldo]

289. OK, let's look at your state then

You wrote:

"I am an unenrolled voter. Unenrolled voters make up a larger percentage of registered voters in MA than Rep. or Dem. Yet we always seem to elect Ds."

But you don't. Between January 1991 and January 2007 Republicans controlled the governorship of your state. In 2015 Massachusetts elected another Republican as Governor. From what I read he is enjoying remarkably high approval ratings currently in your state. Mitt Romney got his toe hold in politics by becoming Governor of MA.

Meanwhile Scott Brown won a special election to the U.S. Senate in 2010 as a Republican, probably dooming the chance for a Public Option in Obamacare to pass. And your Republican ex-Governor William Weld rand for VP as a Libertarian in 2016. Most people who run third party don't expect to win. They hope to spread their message. Sanders was concerned that a third party run by him would hurt Democrats chances. Weld figured that out too but by then it was too late, he had already helped given legitimacy to a Libertarian ticket.

Ir people register unrolled it usually indicates that they don't want to be wed to the Democratic or Republican parties.

[seaglass]

298. One office - Governor is often taken by Repubs because of the super majority of Dems in

the state legislature. It's quirky but a check and balance from some view points. Usually they are moderates as Baker is and Weld was - Romney not so much, though he did work closely with Ted Kennedy on health care.

Yes, Scott Brown won a special election in January and then he lost.

We also voted Reagan in 1984. I didn't say we were perfect, but pretty close.

People register unenrolled, independent etc. for a variety of reasons. It does not mean that those people can be grouped together with a similar political philosophy. .

[Tom Rinaldo]

316. Let me just say that I wish a whole lot more states were like Massachusetts

Keep up the good work!

[aka-chmeee]

28. Hey, It's just a small change!

www.democraticsocialistunderground.com

[JCanete]

120. because what you really want is for him to run third party? You would have no beef with that? hmmm?

[zentrum]

6. Country trusts Bernie. Show also

……included Warren BTW.

Amy Goodman this morning is featuring an economist on the show who talked about the intersectionality of class, race, inequality and the economy. Sounds like a very important event. Bigger than "But did Bernie support Democrats?" He talked about issues and policies and deeper structures, as did they all.

[leftofcool]

7. That is a big assumption

[KPN]

91. Hmmm .... how many people tuned

in to just this one on-line townhall. Pretty big number -- oh, and that's a fact.

Not to mention the numerous polls showing Bernie as most popular politician in the nation. I wonder, does authenticity and perceived trust-worthiness have anything to do with that?

[zentrum]

132. Exactly.

[ehrnst]

338. Ralph Nader also drew huge crowds. (nt)

[KPN]

371. Yes he did -- for decades.

[ehrnst]

377. Right - 400 in 2010.

A crowd that size, even for a listening session, would be dismissed as a nothingburger for many on DU in 2016.

With Nader and others, as we have seen, crowd size isn't a reliable indicator of turnout for a candidate at the polls.

[KPN]

383. Oh? Did you ever see Nader? How many were present then? I saw him in 1972

at University of Massachusetts. He filled the arena which held nearly 5000. That was 4 decades ago.

The Nader-Sanders comparison is a conspicuous but not surprising false equivalence by the way. The Sanders hate is pretty clear.

[ehrnst]

384. I responded to your post about large crowds

stating that they were not a reliable indicator of voter turnout, and gave two examples of politicians who drew big crowds, and did not do well in terms of numbers of voters.

Comparing similar outcomes for politicians who drew large crowds isn't "a false equivalence," it's a comparison, using the metric you supplied.

If you want to see "hate" in that post, that's your problem, not mine.

[KPN]

388. Sanders didn't "do well in terms of numbers of voters"? That's an unusual interpretation of

13,206,428 votes. AS for indicator of voter turnout, where's your evidence?

[ehrnst]

389. Turnout would be the number of voters who cast votes for a politician in an election.

I thought that would be obvious.

My post made that claim about Nader and McGovern, so the "quote" you attributed to me isn't mine. It's yours.

But nice try.

How about this metric: 43% vs 55% of the voter turnout.

[KPN]

390. And that's what I asked about -- seemed obvious to me.

Must we have to perpetuate this back and forth? Oh, BTW, I meant to post votres for Sanders in the primary --13+ million isn't much?

[ehrnst]

391. I'm not not the one manufacturing quotes here to create a strawman.

Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2018, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

You are.

Comparisons are not "false equivalences" either. Another strawman.

Especially when talking about primaries vs general - but switching back and forth between to make a case about a single number isn't even really a valid comparison.

But in all of those instances, whether in the GE or a primary, they got *millions fewer voters* turning out than their opponents. Which shows that large crowds are not indicative of a large enough turnout to win the election, especially when it's only a 43% vs a 55% of voter turnout.


I recall the record numbers that Hillary got out in the GE being "poo-pooed" here by Hillary detractors because that number of voters wasn't it enough to overcome voter suppression of Democrats in key states.

[zentrum]

136. Not an assumption.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-country-poll-says/

[ehrnst]

434. Hillary had a high approval rating as SoS, that suddenly dropped when

she ran for POTUS.

Different metrics for POTUS and all.

That happens sometimes, especially when one is truly vetted for a General Election, and is also the subject of a concerted effort by a hostile power to put one's opponent into office.

When a politician is actually vetted, especially when opposed by a foreign power with powerful technology at their fingertips, popularity can be compromised, be it with truths, falsehoods or half-truths.

Doubly so when one hasn't been thoroughly vetted by one's own nominating party, under the assumption that there isn't anything to find out.

Sarah Palin is an example of an undervetted candidate coming back to bite the party in the ass.

HRC was likely the most vetted candidates ever- financially, legislatively, personally - and still people, including self-described progressives, swallowed the Cambridge Analytica propelled BS about her.

Imagine what they could do with someone's popularity who hasn't really been so thoroughly vetted - financially, personally and legislatively.

[Demsrule86]

20. There is no bigger issue than supporting Democrats...with Trump and the GOP

in power. They are the only ones who can stop Trump. I won't vote for sen. Sanders in a 20 primary and don't think he should permitted to run as a Democrat. Had he remained a Democrat after 2016, it would be different. As for income inequality...I didn't listen but I did read over the written stuff...same old same old. I saw no new possible ways of dealing with income equality presented.

[DemocracyMouse]

31. How do you flip the economic pyramid? You don't know?

You return to the New Deal, which worked amazingly well. You get serious about a progressive tax – which means you tax the upper brackets a lot more and the lower brackets less. Then you target money for physical and intellectual infrastructure – roads, schools, and environmental protection. Creates the conditions for a robust people's economy.

What's a people's economy? It's not one where corporations get all the concessions and tax breaks and everyone else gets crumbs and have to compete against those propped up behemoths. In a people's economy small business has leverage again – and "small" includes both a small family restaurant or plumbing outfit all the way to an individual getting a state-funded nursing degree or electrician's license.

Return America to the Americans! Thank you Mr. Sanders for reminding us that we abandoned what was once working in this country: the New Deal. Same old? Hell yeah! It worked!

[Demsrule86]

65. That will never happen. The new deal relied on government sponsored jobs and unionization.

All of what you said did work during the new deal...and we will not be able to get it through in modern times...I am looking for what will work now. When taxes first started lower income and middle class people did not pay taxes...you think that will ever happen again...when Reagan lowered taxes the highest bracket was like 90% and there were many offsetting deductions...you won't get that again. So what you described to me is the same issue I have with Sen. Sanders on this subject. He doesn't have any concrete suggestions that could work in our time. I think the best we can hope for is to get rid of Trumpies tax cut...and tailor tax cuts for business for investment...and bring back the inheritance tax of course...very simple...and it will take years to accomplish probably.

[whathehell]

78. How do you know it "will never happen"?

On what do you base that assumption?

Democrats aren't against government jobs and unionization.

[Demsrule86]

183. The things that solved issues in the 1930's won't work now. It is a different world...the answers

are somewhere...and we should alway look at the past but let's not wallow in it.

[whathehell]

219. No, many things from other decades still work. Thing's aren't automatically

obsolete just because they' began at an earlier time.

Social Security -- a New Deal program -- began in the '30's, and is still America's most popular government program..Unions are older than that and, as last week's victory in West Virginia shows, they're still working.
.The Constitution is a lot older than anything in the New Deal, and it is still working... Everything isn't determined by age.

[Demsrule86]

276. Unions have been demonized and free trade has driven them out...that is a fact. We soon

will have a Supreme court ruling which we would not have had if Hillary had been elected that will likely deal a death blow to unions...and I believe in unions and am still a member of one. The policies for a simpler time...30's won't work today...they just won't. People on the left also long for good old days as much as those on the right...only they were not so good for people of color who were still enslaved at that time or for women. They were not so good for people of Japanese heritage who had all their goods stolen and were put in camps. Roosevelt was a man of his times and he did much good and it is not really fair to judge him by our modern standards ...but he is of the past and we need to move on and find 21st century solutions for our rather complex problems. And just telling voters that Roosevelt holds all the answers to today's problems isn't true and simply won't work. I adore Roosevelt and again he saved this country. He is of the past and will not inspire the next generation.

[whathehell]

279. Yes, and no one's denying that..

but what's the solution to that?...Just give in to it? Free Trade hasn't been "free" for anyone but the 0.5 Percent...I think most union leaders and other progressives would tell you the same.


I've noticed that you keep saying that a 'new' New Deal "just won't work's, but, even after I gave you two examples of things from that time that are STILL working, you can't seem to give any specifics as to WHY they 'won't work'....You need to understand that, without specific reasoning or examples, saying "it won't work", like it's self-explanatory, isn't sufficient, it's not convincing...These assertions may SOUND good, sound like "common sense" but when you scratch the surface, they' amount to nothing but empty slogans. because, again, "old" doesn't auromatically equates to mean "obsolete"... Something old (or new) MAY not work, but unless you can explain your reasoning, you really can't make the point.

[Demsrule86]

282. I am not giving up...just have to find new solutions. I am working my ass off...I live in Ohio

so I am working with the Sherrod Brown Campaign...lots of money coming against him...also for Tim Ryan. I am merely discussing issues that I think will work in the coming elections. Health care, manufacturing plan/trade and jobs. Now this will work in a state that went for Trump...it may not work in a blue state. We really do need to tailor candidates to the states and run on local issues too...I thought Virginia was an amazing election. We all worked together to put a moderate governor in but at the grass roots, many progressives were elected. I thought at the legislature level, local politics worked...I mean we got our first Transgender woman elected! Her issue was roads...it worked.

Consider that if we work on jobs and healthcare it will impact inequality in a good way. Inequality is the end result of bad policies that need to be addressed...and I think it will resonate with the voters to address those policies. We all know there is income inequality. So how do we fix it? While there are lessons to be learned from history...it is not an answer for inequality to say...go back to Roosevelt's policies. Lets move into the future with confidence that we can solve our problems with 21st century solutions.

Now consider we are treading water right now...we just need to stop the GOP from enacting anymore bad policy like the tax cut or finance bill which is a mess....and any safe Democrat who voted for it should be primaryed after Trump is gone...disgraceful. But once we get in power, then we can start. First a public option for those folks who's governors did not enact the Medicaid expansion and for those who have limited exchanges. This will lead to single payer and can be done in reconciliation. Next we need to fix the tax bill...and work on inequality by enacting good policy. Inequality is an end result of bad policy...bring back inheritance taxes, targeted tax cuts for business that add full time employees, restore middle class tax breaks and deductions and add manufacturing plan which will use fees and tariffs to make sure other countries play fair. We may or may not bring back steel, but we need to work on protecting autos,other manufacturing and paving the way for green energy...There is much we can do...it won't happen overnight though.

[zentrum]

222. Many of those

…things work in Europe. At least better than they do here. And as a result, they have more happiness, lower infant mortality, lower maternal fatality, more upward mobility then we have, cheaper drug prices and free or near free college educations. They also have strong trade unions. A stronger middle class. And the absence of money in politics. Yes, they still have huge problems—but it's very New-Dealish and last I looked, it's 2018.

With the level of growing income inequality we have, we're on the Titanic economically. Of course we could re-enact many New Deal policies.

[DFW]

268. I live in Europe, and it's just not like that here.

Some drug prices are cheaper, some are way more expensive. Upward mobility is only if you have a NASA booster rocket behind you. There is a crushing bureaucracy to thwart you at every step. Only the most clever manage to break through. Universities are not free any more than they are in the USA. The cost is just distributed onto the backs of all taxpayers instead of onto the students. And absence of money in politics? That's a laugh. Former French president Sarkozy was just taken into custody for receiving money from Qadaffi ten years ago. Here in Germany, Lindner, the FDP head who scuttled the planned coalition between his party, Merkel and the Greens, is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. His opposition to renewable energy, completely illogical in a country as thickly settled as Germany, blew up any possible work with Merkel--a scientist in her own right--and the Greens. It forced the stagnation and renewal of the old coalition which the voters clearly indicated they were tired of.

We may LOOK "new-dealish" here, but only because the USA has taken such a big step into the black hole that is the Trump era. Romanticising our life here is neither accurate nor helpful. Universities are not "free" in Germany, health care is neither free nor universal, government bureaucracy is all-powerful and crushing (and often corrupt as hell) etc. etc. We have our strong points and our weak points, like everywhere else.

[Demsrule86]

275. What policies in Europe are Roosevelt policies? I can't think of any.

Roosevelt gave us social security and saved our Republic...but he was not a socialist...He was unable to get any medical coverage either. And nothing is perfect. Europe has their issues as well.

[whathehell]

331. Do you mean what policies in Europe are similar to Roosevelt's?

American presidents don't have domestic policies in Europe, anymore than Europe has domestic policies in America....

As to Roosevelt "not being able to get any medical coverage"...No, he was too busy getting his New Deal policies enacted while getting us through the Great Depression and World War II -- His plate was exceedingly full.

[Demsrule86]

332. It was said by someone perhaps not you that Europe had adopted Roosevelt policies. I don't see that.

I like Roosevelt...and think he saved the country...my Grandma had his picture on her wall as long as I can remember as a child. However, my contention is that Roosevelt acted for his times and solved the problems associated with those times. He was an amazing president. But the things he did are not going to solve our problems today. We need fresh solutions for a more complicated world. You can't live in the past.

[whathehell]

344. If you read at least one of the links I provided..

You'd see the Roosevelt Institute' ideas on tweaking it for the present -- The "new" New Deal. I doubt if you'll do that, of course, because you seem quite invested in tossing it for some undefined "new" plan.

[Demsrule86]

348. What link?

I may have missed this post... I went back and didn't see it...perhaps you would repost it...sorry for the inconvenience. The grass is always greener in Europe and elsewhere...but it is not all it is cracked up to be. As one poster noted...there are societal issues in I think Germany...it is just we have lost so much with GOP asses in charge.

[whathehell]

366. I'll repost it...

No time right now, but will do so by this evening.

[Demsrule86]

367. When you get a chance...I looked through it and didn't see it. I will do so again...Sorry about that

[whathehell]

368. No problem at all..

Actually I looked at the post and it seems I "missed" it...I had this link from the Roosevelt Institute, but somehow it didn't take...I'm sorry..

I'll be able to post it in a post in a few hours.

[Demsrule86]

311. We are not going to get a new deal through...I don't know what else to say.

You think they will only have the income tax for the rich? And remember Roosevelt was against government unions...the banking stuff is mixed up with Trade...I don't see Glass Steagall in our future or bucket laws...what part of the new deal will come back ever? You think the right to work states are going to run out and organize unions? Roosevelt's policies worked in the past but can't solve our issues which are vastly more complex.

[whathehell]

315. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to say to blanket statements

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2018, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)

like yours, except that, again, you don't seem able to back them up with anything specific...You don't explain exactly why, and as I said, without that kind of cause and effect reasoning, you have no argument.

On sites like DU, we can't just flatly state something as fact without backing it up with reason and examples. You CAN do it, but if someone challenges you, you and your argument will look pretty weak if you can't back it up... Simply stating something as true doesn't make it so.
Thouuyou do seem to be getting closer to doing that, you still haven't "made a case". These "rules" don't just pertain to this subject, by the way, they pertain to every "fact" you or any of us tries to assert.

You seem to be trying to make a point by asking "You think they only have the income tax for the rich"?...The problem is, I'm
. reading this question and I honestly don't know what you mean -- Are you worried about taxes?. What "income tax only for the rich" are you referring to?...Can you explain, because I really don't understand.

[Demsrule86]

325. I discussed why and what..."get the new deal" is the mother of blanket statements.

Exactly what does it mean? It will be meaningless something to run on...not specific enough and few alive today even remember Roosevelt.

[whathehell]

328. The New Deal is only "meaningless" to people who don't know what it is..

That's an easy problem to solve..You read about it and learn what it is...Here's some links.

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=B011US91010D20141012&p=the+new+deal+programs

"Most people don't remember who Roosevelt was".

Most people don't remember Lincoln either, but they know and understand his impact on America. Y

[Demsrule86]

333. I know what the new deal was...I studied it in economics, my Grandparents loved Roosevelt

too...I recite the new deal particulars...how it was implemented...the court fights and businessman's revolt. I don't think it would work ...not today. So we turn backwards to a a new deal plan that is almost 100 years old and announce that all the answers to our modern problems are found in the past? I don't see that as a winning message today.

[whathehell]

343. So the New Deal is too "old" for you....Got a replacement?

and no, simple demands for "something new" won't cut it...You'll have to provide specifics.

And again, a program's age doesn't serve as an automatic disqualifier of it...The Constitution's over 200 years old -- Shall we get rid of that too?

[KPN]

93. Never say never. "Never" is self-defeating

, self-fulfilling mind-think. Expecting less always leads to less and usually more less. Geesh!

[Demsrule86]

97. No it is not...it is self defeating to try to do stuff that won't happen...figure out what can work

and go from there...saying we will bring back the 'new deal' is impractical...won't work, but saying you will end the Trump tax cut, restore middle class deductions, make rich folks pay their fair share with a higher bracket, also capital gains should not be lower than taxes on wages and target deductions for business based on if they keep jobs here...that is doable tough but doable...I would far rather have concrete practical ideas that we can work on then the pie in sky type stuff from last night. It becomes at some point meaning less drivel...and makes people angry and depressed when nothing happens.

[KPN]

100. I disagree with that old tired mantra that has resulted

in the middle class being plundered for going on 40 years.

[Demsrule86]

179. The middle class will continue to be plundered if we don't win elections. That is our priority. As

much as I agree about income inequality, it was not a winning issue last time and it won't be this time either. Jobs, trade and healthcare are the important issues that we can win on now.

[KPN]

112. Says you. I'm not you. Starting out by saying we can't is a recipe

for never getting there. Shooting for mediocrity gets one mediocrity or worse. Any good negotiator knows and understands that.

[Demsrule86]

178. Getting where and how do we get there...I saw nothing practical last night...just rhetoric.

We have to win to get anywhere. This won't help us therefore, down the road we may be able to use it but not now.

[DemocracyMouse]

309. With a defeatist attitude all things are impossible.

[whathehell]

345. Yes..Thank you. n/t.

[ehrnst]

393. The New Deal was geared towards a particular segment of our population

White male. The cultural tensions that would have made it impossible for white Americans to accept this being extended to POC and women were avoided by simply leaving out women and POC.

That can't happen now.

It was also during a time of massive unemployment when white men would accept any and all jobs - even those that only immigrants will do now.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a push by the Federal Government to create jobs - but it will not be greeted with the same popularity as the New Deal was at that time, because it will not have that emphasis on white male earning power, and focus on white male employment.

There was also not the virulent anti-government/status quo/Washington sentiment being propagated everywhere.

[Adrahil]

33. I don't trust him. I wan to see his tax returns.

He lied when he said we'd see them when they were "done." Yeah, right.

[TexasTowelie]

231. The lack of response to your post is noted. nt

[George II]

59. Elizabeth Warren is a good, loyal Democrat. It went under the radar, but...

....about a week or so ago she made a contribution to the DNC and contributions to each of the 50 State Democratic Parties.

[whathehell]

80. Yes, and she's a progressive Democrat. n/t.

[Demsrule86]

172. Supporting Democrats is the only issue for me at this moment.

[LexVegas]

9. ...

[DemocracyMouse]

32. I'll get you some coffee.

[BannonsLiver]

42. Lol

I wonder how many were awake by the end.

[JCanete]

124. Well doesn't that just sum up why we're fucked....

[LexVegas]

151. ...

[democrank]

10. Glad to see a town hall discussion on economic justice.

Once again, progressives lead the way.

[Demsrule86]

21. How so...I saw nothing new here.

[Ferrets are Cool]

25. So? It's so unimportant that we should not discuss it? So what

if it's not new. Maybe it's NEW to some who were involved.

[DemocracyMouse]

34. The "New Deal" is still new evidently. Let's keep fighting for it.

[Demsrule86]

67. It just seems a waste of time. We know from PA that the issue was healthcare in district 18

And the town hall participants also discussed reparations which no matter how just (and I think it is just) doesn't play well with the voters we need to win in the mid-term...we are going for voters in Republican districts. The ACA is what should be discussed over and over...not single payer ( we will get their with a public option for those not covered by the states) and not income inequality accept to rag on Trump's tax cut.

[mountain grammy]

159. I just can't see discussions of growing poverty in America as a "waste of time."

This was a townhall that discussed issues of poverty in America that aren't being addressed in our great halls of government. Will we address them as Democrats or not? Maybe these issues aren't important in PA, but poverty is everywhere in America. Are we one country or not? Are we our brother's keepers or not?

That's all this townhall was trying to say. Poverty just can't be a "waste of time," people living with it are running out of time and so is America if we continue to ignore it.

[Demsrule86]

170. It is when there is no solution at the moment. There are lots of issues that are not voting issues

People in the districts we need to win won't vote on inequality and some of the suggestions last night like reparations will never work in the moderate districts we need to win. I want to fix income inequality but it is too broad...health care works...let's use that..or maybe we find something that works better...we need to tailor the message to the district. What is important is to win elections and stop the GOP from increasing poverty...there is little we can do until we win Congress and the presidency. There are many important issues out there.

[KPN]

99. 1.7 million viewing is new.

[Demsrule86]

176. I don't trust facebook...and we need to be working towards as 50 state solution...I don't see the

benefit of this. I just don't...everyone knows about income inequality.

[JCanete]

121. really? Cuz this is what our politiicans, as they vote to deregulate the banks, sound like daily.

Really, you can't seriously believe that this is what the Democratic party focuses on daily.

[Demsrule86]

173. You know I believe every single safe Democrat should face a primary after Trump is gone as a result

of this vote...not now we have bigger fish to fry...but after Trump is gone. I don't think income inequality is an issue we can win on. I believe in it it for sure;putting an end to it. There are other issues for the sort of districts we are trying to win like healthcare. There are practical things we can do after we get in power, but if we don't win some elections, we lose everything...I have little interest in Town Halls which I did not watch;I will be honest...but I did read the transcripts ...that will not help us to win in 18 and 20.

[JCanete]

177. no, I'm done with that. not being "safe" is the cover our politicians and our party leaders use to

condone or forgive votes that have absolutely no bearing on those races in terms of constitutent popularity, UNLESS it is to be admitted that the bearing it has on those races is the money, which is just another way of saying that these politicians are either bought or too afraid to govern. At which point what are they worth to us? They are a Trojan horse. Lieberman is a case in point. He's hardly the only one...he's just the one who got called out on his bullshit and then showed his true colors.

[Demsrule86]

427. You have to get elected...look do you really think at this moment we can get a Senate and a house

majority without a big tent...where some elected will disappoint you and me with their votes 5-10% of the time? Look at the Senate...there are 7 red state Democrats now...and all are up for re-election. But if we lose those 7 tell me how we get a majority? Sure we go to the grassroots and the legislature level and work our asses off, but we don't have that kind of time...so lets get warm bodies elected this year and in 20 and work on changing hearts and minds at the grass roots level and the legislature level. We also need governors to prevent more gerrymandering in 20.

Lets save this fucking Republic. If we don't act soon, there will nothing to save. The House is on fire...and we have a heavy lift in both the House and the Senate. We have way more Senators running than the GOP does and the House is gerrymandered so we have to overperform. The Virginia election was very inspiring...we elected all sorts of Democrats...you, me and others are going to have to accept a big tent and it will contain ideologically diverse Democrats who vote for us 90% of the time. But that is way more than any GOP type would, and we will have a majority to protect those progressive policies in place now and to legislate new ones. And we will be able to put our judges on the bench...so one vote that I don't agree with is meaningless to me. I am looking at the big picture.

[JCanete]

442. A big tent should not mean catering to industry over people. If we can't

figure out how to effectively sell a class message to the people, then we aren't trying very hard, and THAT IS the current reality. Its just so much easier to ignore those topics and let those industries pat us on the head rather than to kick us. It sucks being kicked. We should figure out how to bite back.

Again--Being a friend to big industry is not about appealing to the voters. It may be about getting elected, because money can certainly work its magic to turn the voters against you, but it is not about appealing to a big tent, and I wish we would quit pretending that THAT is what is going on here.

[Demsrule86]

451. It is about getting elected but I looked at the bill and don't think it is that bad.

Smaller banks and credit unions in particular were getting squeezed...and it looks to me like most of the important stuff is still there. Look I just want to win in 18 and 20...if people think their rep was wrong...primary them but please after 20.

[JCanete]

182. Also, it will not help us fix these things if we don't talk about them. You cannot avoid these

issues and somehow, with a hope and a prayer, think that our magnanimous politicians who apparently, according to your own wisdom here should stay away from these topics when campaigning(why I have no idea), are going to get into office and then do things they never promised to do, which they never helped to generate political will for. That's absolute madness, and if they don't do these things, then we're still screwed and it does not matter, except for a question of pushing back the timeline of our inevitable national dive off the cliff, and making it a slightly gentler impact, who is in office, because the same trend towards oligarchy, environmental destruction, bilking of the commons, etc. will continue.

[Demsrule86]

430. Candidates should discuss what works in their state or district ...stuff that helps get them

elected and it could vary from place to place. The point of running for election is not to get our message out...although we often do...it is to get elected to win and ultimately to govern.

[JCanete]

438. you can't govern on your message if you don't run on it. For that matter, it clearly

isn't your message, so what are we getting when we elect you?

If the magic stuff that gets you elected in your district is to not piss off the coal companies or the insurance industry, etc. then you are not going to be an ally when it matters and we are going to be so worried about your precious seat that our party leaders won't take a hard line on how our own members should vote. We won't hold any feet to the fire. We'll certainly stay away from fiery rhetoric because of that guy who's seat is so important.

Holding the house and Senate, maybe the Presidency for 2 years is a joke of a proposition. We've done that a couple times now. That is not enough of a window to change things if the rhetoric we are selling is weak sauce and we aim for incremental steps and get maybe one or two of those steps in that window, which can be immediately "remediated" by the GOP when they regain control. We've just barely hung onto the ACA, and shit ain't over. If we have the presidency, we get to prevent big disasterous changes for 4, maybe 8 years, but even business as usual is killing us. If we can't move forward we are certainly moving backwards and running out of time. . This approach of not demanding progressivism of our candidates is a recipe for having such a tiny window to effect policy, and at such a tiny scale, not one for winning.

[Demsrule86]

452. People don't run on the entire Democratic platform...you run on what works...

and when we get back in power, we can prioritize and finally get something good done. We both want to in...that is the bottom line here.

[JCanete]

454. again, this cannot just be ignored by you....if the way you win is by not riling big money

then when you take your seat back are you, or we by extension, really in power? It is not okay to keep pretending that what these politicians are doing is appealing to a big tent. That's an obfuscation of the reality.

[Demsrule86]

471. You have to win for power...I don't know what to say except...you can bring bills to the floor

which we can't now. You have to win no matter how it happens...United has made it so we need money just like the GOP.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

11. K&R nt

[RandiFan1290]

12. Bernie attacks republicons!

Trolls attack Bernie.

I love how mad the trolls get when Bernie speaks out!


Thank you, Mr. Senator!

[left-of-center2012]

16. Agree 100% !

The daily attacks on Bernie are so boring.
I expect one day to see complaints how he wore brown socks with black shoes.

[DownriverDem]

17. I'm not a troll

I'm a proud member of the Dem Party. My only problem with Bernie is that he used the Dem Party last time just so he could run in their primaries. Then when he lost he quit the Dem Party. Do you have any understanding of what this did last time?

[UCmeNdc]

19. Do you agree with what Bernie is saying about US Economy?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

27. So he should have run as an independent?

He certainly could have. He would have been able to get on the ballot in every state, too. THAT'S what you would rather he have done? Because DU would have lost its collective damn mind if he had.

[DemocracyMouse]

36. Good point! OK, let's get back to building a PEOPLE's economy.

[Demsrule86]

68. It would have been less damaging for the Party had he run as an independent.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

74. Clinton would not have won the popular vote if he had.

It would have been horrible for the party to have a progressive independent running. The split in the party would be significantly worse than it is now.

To argue that things would have been better if he had not primaried as a Dem is just disingenuous. Or ignorant of history. Do you think Perot running as an independent had no impact on that election? Clinton won the popular by roughly 6 million votes. Perot got 19 million votes.

[Demsrule86]

181. I think that those who would have vote for Sen. Sanders voted for Jill Stein...we all know since

Nader that voting for a independent is a waste of time...we might still have lost but the party would not have been torn to shreds.

[Demsrule86]

436. Winning the popular vote while satisfying has done nothing to negate the horrors of Trump...if I had

a choice between winning the popular vote and a unified Democratic party...I choose unity.

[KPN]

103. BS. Trump would have won fair and square had Bernie not in that case.

Better that his so-called win is attributable to treasonous acts.

[Demsrule86]

180. I didn't say we would have won in 16 had Sen. Sanders run as a independent . I said there would

have been less damage to the party. I stand by that statement.

[KPN]

218. What damage?! You miss my point.

I see strengthening, not damage.

[Demsrule86]

435. You are kidding me right? I have seen the 16 primary refought in several elections...

You know the party is divided. Some progressives think that Sen. Sanders was treated unfairly, and it it has divided us. Had he run as an independent this would not have happened. I don't see any good in terms of strengthening the party from 16...not a bit. It will take years to fix this.

[KPN]

472. Nope. I believe what I've said, otherwise I wouldn't say it.

[Demsrule86]

476. I wish it were so...I wish the divisiveness and bitterness of 16 were behind us but it is not.

[Demsrule86]

432. I have no idea what you mean. I believe the party would have been less damaged had Sen. Sanders run

as an independent. Would we have lost? I don't know- probably. But we wouldn't have this divide today. I am against any independent running as a Democrat for president in the future for this reason.

[progressoid]

189. Bullshit.

Nearly all of the new volunteers that I work with on the local level joined BECAUSE of Bernie. If it weren't for them, our county activism would be stagnant right now.

It would have been less damaging to DU though. Lot of butthurt here.

[Demsrule86]

433. It hurt the Democratic Party and if you spend any time here or on any social media, you see it.

How many volunteers are we talking about ? And I am curious...where are you located. I am in Ohio.

[askyagerz]

79. He gave me the choice to vote

For a candidate that didn't vote for war in the primaries. The people who voted for Hillary ended up forcing me to vote against my principles in the general.

[mcar]

294. Oh, we're so sorry

The people who voted for Hillary ended up forcing me to vote against my principles in the general.

[askyagerz]

307. Yeah typical response

Don't care about my antiwar values. If Hillary wouldn't have voted for the war she would have been president in 2008. No ones fault but her own. Glad you're sorry though

[EffieBlack]

297. You poor baby.

[askyagerz]

308. Yeah I'm a poor baby because I'm anti war.

I know such silly principles.... No one here was standing up for Hillary Clinton here when she voted for war. Not real sure what happened but whatever. I still have enough energy to fight for ALL progressive causes. Not just one

[EffieBlack]

310. For years, voters have had to pick candidates they disagree with on numerous issues

Minority voters, in particular have had to do this ever since we got the vote. But we don't go around whining about it.

For some reason, in the last couple of election cycles, we've had to listen to some voters complain that they "had to hold their noses" to vote. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for that. It's politics. That's how it works. Everyone has a say and the majority chooses who the candidate will be. Sometimes your favorite candidate wins. Sometimes they don't. I didn't agree with every vote or position of Hillary Clinton's. Nor I did I agree with every vote or position of Bernie Sanders. But I would have happily and without any complaint voted for him had he gotten the nomination because I'm not looking for perfection.

But the constant harping about how awful it is to have to pick a candidate who disagrees with you about something is just tiresome. Any time you participate in a process engaged in by people with disparate views, this is likely to happen. It doesn't make you some kind of victim or martyr.

[mcar]

313. +1000!

[askyagerz]

314. I could care less about any candidate.

Its all about the message. I could care less if its coming out of Hillary, Bernie, or a pink dinosaur. There seems to be a few things a lot of people on this forum seem to forget. Politics may be kind of nitpicky at times but there are a few basic rules of being a progressive. One is don't vote for inexcusable wars.
And people here keep wondering why Hillary just kept losing? It maybe the big tent party but there are still a few basic house rules.

If the Democratic party decided to run a candidate that had voted to turn back minority rights because the republican was also running a racist and it therefore became a wash, plus they might pick up a few racist votes along the way. How would you feel about having to vote for a racist? Would you just say ok this is great! Or would you want your voice heard as a loyal democrat, stand up and say that wasn't right? Then, if and when you spoke up I said oh you poooooor baby?

That's exactly what the Democratic party did to me. I fought hard against that war for years. I have a friend who is still messed up in the head from going.

Then I vote for Hillary, someone who I don't morally agree with and you mouth off? Keep up the poor baby taunts for me speaking about my antiwar opinion. Just shows your character.

[EffieBlack]

317. Your hypothetical is a strawman

You weren't asked in 2016 to vote for a racist. You were asked to vote for a highly accomplished, experienced woman with an excellent progressive record whom any sane person paying attention knew would be a much better president than Donald Trump, who had voted, along with more than half of the Democratic Senate Caucus, to authorize President Bush to go into Iraq if the UN process failed. That isn't anything close to your hypothetical.

Racism is completely antithetical to the fundamental principles of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, there was an honest difference of opinion among Democrats regarding the Iraq War. While many House and Senate Democrats felt very strongly that it was wrong, many others felt that it was the right thing to do. If we ever got to the point that there was a strong difference of opinion in the Democratic party about racism with the pro-racist side having any influence, I would have left the party long before it got to the point that it nominated a racist as its nominee.

Democrats for decades have run candidates - at the national, state and local level - who were less than stellar on civil rights. That didn't stop African Americans from voting for them if we believed that, overall, they were more in line with our interests than the Republican. FDR, Harry Truman (who used the n-word regularly but also desegregated the armed forces), Kennedy, LBJ, Robert Byrd, all had troubling views on race to one degree or another. Hell, even George Wallace, later in his life, built up a strong black voting block because African-American voters are savvy and pragmatic and vote our interests, not our butthurt.

[askyagerz]

319. Oh poooor baby... Lol

Says you! I'm glad you find the deaths of thousands of people and the loss of trillions of dollars so trivial. Me not so much. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative but that's how my story goes and therefore my vote. The half of dems that voted for that war never got a vote from me after that. I was barely 20 and knew what the republicans were pulling so I have no sympathy for anyone who voted for the b.s.

I definitely don't need political advise from someone who thought Hillary Clinton was a good national candidate.
Anyone who "knew" anything about politics was screaming that she was a liability to the democratics in a general election.

Now anytime someone stands up and says see we told you so lets not do that again you all lose your minds. She was just a bad choice through some of her own actions and because of the years of propaganda that wasn't her fault. Face the facts and move on and try not to fall under the spell of career politicians so we can fight for ALL of our causes. They are our employees not our saviors

[EffieBlack]

321. "Anyone who knew anything about politics was screaming that she was a liability to the democratics"

The fact that you believe that says it all. No point in any further discussion, so I'll leave it right there.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Demsrule86]

437. Did you vote for Kerry? He voted for the war too.

[KPN]

101. Would you rather he had run as an Independent in 2016?

[MrsCoffee]

115. Yes. I would rather he not have used the Democratic Party for money, attention, etc.

He would not have had access to the DNC's massive voter file or Hillary's voter models. He would not have had backing from top Democratic politicians or strategists. He would not have been able to cause so much irreparable damage and division to the party.

Just my opinion obviously.

[progressoid]

190. The irreparable damage and division mostly shows up on places like DU.

I work with both Bernie and Hillary Dems on the local level. That division isn't really a thing there.

[KPN]

215. Same here. That's a good observation.

[Demsrule86]

439. No it doesn't. It often shows up in elections...it showed up in Texas a week or so ago.

I showed up when Ellison didn't get to be chairman...It showed up when Sen. Sanders supported Mello and Perriello. It would have been less damaging had he run as an independent.

[KPN]

214. Hillary's voter models? Backing of top party

politicians and strategists? He was provided those?!

[MrsCoffee]

223. Yes.

And Yes. How many top Democratic politicians back Independents in the General Election? And how many Democratic strategist work on Independent campaigns?

[R B Garr]

217. Yes, exactly, this is why he knew that he needed Democrats.

He had said himself he needed Democrats for the exposure the party could provide that he never could have gotten on his own.

[Bluepinky]

291. I disagree with your opinion. Bernie caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.

By any measure, he is a progressive Democrat. He consistently votes in favor of Democratic policies. The people who are causing damage and division to the Democratic Party are people who are continually whining about him. It seems to never end.

[MrsCoffee]

293. He consistently bashes the Democratic party and it's members.

He is an incredibly divisive figure. Angry all the time at the wrong people.

[Bluepinky]

300. Yes, he does seem to have a lot of anger.

But I see him as mostly angry at the Republicans. I know he has spoken out against some Democrats, which I don’t always agree with him on, but primarily he’s anti-Republican.
He’s a controversial figure because he is so outspoken. He knows how to stir things up. But I get tired of seeing him maligned all the time. He does highlight important issues that otherwise get overlooked. Nobody speaks about wealth and income inequality like Bernie does, which is one of the most important issues today.

[Sophia4]

109. Yes.

Democrats need to take a better look at what is going on in our economy.

Last night, a guy after a meeting started complaining that he tried to get a job for a government agency, but that although he had worked for the government before and had served in the military, he didn't have enough "points."

Apparently he thinks you get "points" if you belong to a minority, are a woman, etc.. I don't think that "points" had anything to do with the reason he did not get the job.

But it's his belief in this mythical "points" that caused him to vote for Trump.

Bernie is speaking to that myth about "points." He is talking about the economic inequality that makes it easy for people to resent others based on race, gender, etc.

The Democratic Party used to be more outspokenly the Party of working people. We still are when you compare the Democratic Party to the Republican one. Bernie still speaks to the traditional Democratic economic issues of working people. Too few Democrats are speaking clearly to those issues. That's one reason we don't hear about those issues much in the media.

We Democrats need to take a page from Bernie's book and talk more about economic issues that unite and touch all of us.

The Democrats and Independents who were working people who were upset by economic issues voted for Reagan and in 2016 many of them voted for Trump.

We need to ask ourselves why they are not hearing the message they want from Democratic candidates.

As Democrats, we need to look at our Party and ask why we lost so many elections over the years. We are winning elections now because Trump is just so horrible. But will that last? Are we really dealing with the issues that the working people of America care about? Bernie speaks to those, and that is why he draws the crowds.

Dissing him for his successes is just putting our heads in the sand. It is not going to carry our Democratic Party to the successes we had during, say, the FDR era.

[KTM]

284. Didnt see it, but that guy might have made sense...

In some Gov jobs, where there is often a contractual preference for Veterans and Veteran owned small businesses, applicants for a job do have some "points" calculated. I tried to help a buddy apply for a job, and his degree of disability and time in service did give him a certain number of "points" that were used in determining the final applicant pool. Having multiple service-related disabilities gave him more points. In that case, although he had little real world experience, he was immediately moved into the "interview" pile (IOW, from a pool of 100 or so into a pool of 20 or so) based on those factors, over others who had not served but who had more on-the-job experience. In the end he did not get the job, but that may be the system that Veteran was talking about. (In this case, the job went to a different Veteran who was also disabled but who had more relevant post-military work experience.)

[CentralMass]

164. Sally Albright and her Bernie attack bots and minions.

[BoneyardDem]

461. You call fellow Dems trolls?

I assume you are not one of those yammering about unity...right?

Serious question, since you don't give a shit about unity, you think of more than 50% of the regular posters as trolls, and you are a Bernie apologist, why are you here?

[dembotoz]

13. Some on du hate Bernie more than Trump. Trump is the bad guy

Sad we need to continue to point that put.
My question to them would be which other progressive got 1.7 million viewers this week...
We need an emoticon for crickets

[DownriverDem]

18. Don't hate Bernie

I hate that he just joined the Dem Party to run in their primaries. Then when he lost he quit. Can't you see that some of us had a problem with that?

[ProfessorGAC]

45. You Do Realize He Was Welcomed To Run In The Primaries, Right?

The dem leadership did not discourage it with the least amount of vigor.

[Me.]

56. And I Hope They Realize What A Massive Blunder That Was

never to be repeated

[NurseJackie]

62. Amen.

[Me.]

71. ...

[ProfessorGAC]

88. We All Have Our Opinions

And we are all entitled to those.

[Me.]

443. Yes

And I am unanimous in mine

[Demsrule86]

441. NEVER NEVER

[Me.]

445. Ever

or else....

[Demsrule86]

448. to the woodshed...post haste.

[Me.]

449. Exactly

am done with that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

204. Just like Democratic party members have welcomed Bernie to caucus with them.

[KPN]

106. So you'd rather be ran as an I?

Or maybe just not run at all and forgo getting the message that he has more effectively than anyone out?

[BoneyardDem]

146. Yes...either way he worked hard to misdirect votes in the GE away from Dems

So what difference would it have made if he ran as an I then or now? Except that if he had run as and I in 2016, he would have been soundly repudiated from all angles and maybe he would leave 2020 alone. As it is, he and his followers have a sense of deja vu, a sense of entitlement to do exactly what they did not finish in 2016 and fuck us all over again on 2020.

[KPN]

152. Soundly repudiated? Big assumption.

Do you have any substance to base that on? The fact is: we don't know and never will. However, I do think Sanders would have been supported by millions of Is and probably a fair number of registered Ds were he on the ballot as an I. He may have taken enough votes from Trump that HRC would have won? Or maybe he would have won himself. But we will never know will we.

[BoneyardDem]

167. I'm not interested in supporting or helping Bernie Rah Rah posts.

His documented clickety click poll votes from Komrade Putin et al is no longer in question. Bernie was and is being bolstered with the help of the Kremlin, and still lost. Would have happened whether he ran as an I or a D in 2016.

[KPN]

220. Oh ... so blame Bernie for Russia meddling.

Good logic.

[Demsrule86]

22. I don't hate anyone more than Trump. And I don't hate Sen. Sanders. I just don't think the stuff he

does is really pertinent to getting Democrats elected in 18 or 20...and some of his statements have hurt us.

[DemocracyMouse]

37. It's the economy, and how it's rigged to favor the rich. Let's keep focused!

[Demsrule86]

69. Again same old same old without fresh ideas to address this.

Income inequality has many components.

[Demsrule86]

70. We know the ACA and health care is why we won PA 18...so that is what should be discussed.

[Demsrule86]

171. That is not a winning issue in moderate districts where folks are more concerned with

jobs and healthcare. We have to be practical. I saw little we could use in those areas we are attempting to win. It doesn't mean we don't need to address it ...just we can't do it at the moment.

[DemocracyMouse]

239. Jobs and healthcare are EXACTLY what Bernie Sanders has been talking about.They are pyramid flippers

[Demsrule86]

274. We are talking about the Town Hall on income inequality...and we don't

need Medicare for all talk because we can't get it presently. We need to talk about saving the ACA and offering a public option to bring costs down..tax cuts ( GOP tax cut sucked and is for the rich).and jobs. First you did say inequality is what we talk about everywhere...it won't work everywhere...and there was nothing new at the Town Hall...fifty state strategy...tailor candidates for the district and vote for those can get elected. The house is on fire...we need to win. We are close to the 18 election, and I just don't see inequality Town Hall as particularly useful.

[JCanete]

123. It is pertinent to talking about what actually ails us. Any democrats not talking about it

are not going to be able to fix it when and IF they get into office, and may have no interest or awareness of these issues being the crux of the problem anyway. THIS IS how we get into office, if we can get our democrats to wake up and smell the dose of reality.

[DanTex]

52. It's not hatred, it's just wariness of a man who teamed up with people like Cornel West, who

went on to actively attack the Democratic Party nominee and thereby helped Trump become president.

It's great that Bernie's talking about economic inequality, and getting an audience. But for the most part, his audience is people who are already concerned about economic equality. The big problem is that some people in his audience aren't convinced that the best and only way to fight economic inequality is to vote for Democrats over Republicans. And IMO Bernie doesn't do enough to make that case.

[NurseJackie]

64. ⬆⬆⬆ THIS! ⬆⬆⬆

[R B Garr]

92. Note how he has to go back 16 years to the Iraq war, but he never talks about the real issues...

The biggest political story of a lifetime -- a hostile foreign power harvesting a friendly asset in the form of our U.S. President. It's odd that Russia is not a priority.

How can he have a credible message if he omits all the damage that helping to foist corrupt Republicans into the WH has done. Very out of touch.

[KPN]

108. So why do you think that is?

[JCanete]

142. Well that audience STILL matters. Our own leaders need to see how many people

care about these issues, and who they need to court with what issues...what they need to sound like. I do disagree to a degree about whether or not these town halls and Sanders presence on the public stage have not changed those numbers in a positive direction. There are certainly plenty of people who are new to this conversation who Sander's message has resonated with and inspired, and actually I would guess the number to be fairly impressive given just how little attention some of these issues get nationally from most purveyors of what is supposedly important in this nation.

I got to say, I'm not convinced that the best way is to simply vote Democrat. Why don't you tell me all about how this new banking deregulation is going to help ease that inequality? It isn't a matter of voting Democrat, it is a matter of voting for the best democrat, and getting into that fight early, at the primaries or before. It is a matter of never voting republican, and of being smart about your vote in the GE, which generally means, at that point take the D over some 3rd party spoiler so that you don't help to elect an R, but I think we're past giving Dems a pass on these issues and pretending Republicans are the only problem. Too often it takes two to tango, in between a little bit of theater. Too often, we are only as good as our worst Democrats, and that is not worth much if it continues to do the lasting damage it has done.

[DanTex]

169. Inspiring people is mostly useless unless the inspired people end up voting D.

If Bernie inspires people and those people end up booing at the convention, or supporting third parties, or protesting Hillary Clinton, or whatever, that's not a contribution to improving the state of the nation. If he inspires people to impose purity tests and not support Democrats (in general elections) who fail those purity tests, that worsens the state of the nation.

I would even argue that, by not emphasizing the importance of voting D, Bernie is unintentionally standing in the way of meaningful attempts to pull the Democratic party to the left. Because responsible criticism of Dems can only occur in an environment where people aren't going to do anything as stupid as voting Green or sitting out elections. As soon as that becomes a possibility, many people (like myself) who would actually like to the see the Democrats move left, are going to be very hesitant to support anyone attacking the Dems from the left.

For example, take Our Revolution. I agree with a lot of the issues they stand for, but they are headed by Nina Turner, who conspicuously failed to support Hillary against Trump. So because of that, I will be more likely to oppose candidates they support in primaries. Why? Because victories for Our Revolution heighten the influence of Nina Turner types who carry water for the GOP.

If, on the other hand, Bernie had called out Turner the moment she started Hillary-bashing in the fall of 2016, maybe someone else would be head of Our Revolution. It could be a group that supports progressive policies and primary candidates, but doesn't play around with the political suicide of third parties and purity tests. It would find much broader support among people like myself. And there are a lot of us: progressives who are sick of fringe-left idiots hijacking progressive causes to help Republicans win elections.

[JCanete]

175. its useless if all they do is vote D. If that is going to be your rationale over issues,

we are really in trouble, because you probably reflect enough other people's views, that you might actually vote against a politician promoting ideas you agree more strongly with in favor of somebody not speaking to them because of your distaste for Nina Turner.

Is it not carrying water for the GOP when we elect democrats who then help to deregulate the banks, or cave on fighting for dreamers in favor of an omnibus budget written by republicans? Oh right...their hands are simply tied....because they are in vulnerable districts and its the VOTERS who really want them to step up and deregulate.

How exactly do you intend for us to hold our own democrats accountable for their votes? Do you at all? Do you really think it was Nina Turner over a far bigger issue the democrats have that caused us to lose, not just this election but SO MANY elections over the last 30 years?

[DanTex]

221. No, it's certainly not useless. At all.

If more people had voted D in 2000, there would be no Iraq War. If more people had voted D in 2016, there would be no Trump, no tax cut for the rich, no climate denier gutting the EPA, etc. Voting for Ds might not be enough to get everything you want, but it's certainly not useless by any stretch.

I agree that it's unfortunate that people like me might end up not supporting primary candidates we agree with on issues because of their association with people like Nina Turner. Of course, I'd vote for any Dem in general elections, but in primaries, yes, association with Turner or people like that would cause me to think twice. And that's the fault of Turner and others on the far left. People who don't understand the paramount important of defeating the GOP shouldn't have any leadership roles in any progressive organizations. If they do, it's only going to hurt those organizations and causes, by alienating the millions of progressive Dems like me who really really don't want to see Republicans in government.

No, it's not carrying water for the GOP to support progressives in primaries. But it most certainly is carrying water for the GOP when prominent Bernie Sanders surrogates refused to endorse Hillary, some going as far as supporting Jill Stein. I don't think Nina Turner singlehandedly lost anything for us, but I definitely think the whole line of thinking that "both parties are corporatist/sellout/blahblah" has been extremely destructive. There's no doubt that Nader cost the 2000 election, and all the bad things that ensued. The case for 2016 is less clear-cut, but it was extremely close and having supposed progressives bashing the Democratic candidate in a race against Trump was certainly a factor in the outcome.

How do I think Democrats should be held accountable? By primaries. But like I said, the most important thing is that after the primaries end, everyone makes sure to vote D. That means the loser of the primary, and the surrogates and supporters of the loser, make every effort to ensure that criticism during primaries doesn't spill over into the general election. Nina Turner and others on the fringe left are obviously not on board with that, unfortunately.

[JCanete]

267. We agree, post primary vote D, assuming its still worth believing in something.

But sadly, you've already decided that groups criticizing democrats and running candidates against them within those primaries are passes for you on tools of that accountability.

I do agree with you that it was a horrible miscalculation(or if we're being cynical, a power grab-take your pick but so far I'm leaning the former) for people like West and Nina Turner and Sarandon, etc. to support the green candidate over Clinton, but ONLY because pressure from the left got the democrats and Clinton to listen and respond to them. That was a foot in the door. That was something to hold our democrats feet to the fire on. If on the other hand the party and Clinton had shown no interest whatsoever in issues that are truly killing us, on issues that make all of the other issues that they do talk an okayyy game about totally intractable, then no, voting for the D over third party may not have been the right decision. If they'd said, we hear you loud and clear progressive left, now shut up and do your job, fuck no we shouldn't have voted for them.

But this really comes down to a question of, and probably a disagreement on, what ails us. I grant to you, Republicans can do in 1 year, let alone 4, damage at a catastrophic scale, some of which there's not even coming back from. I grant you that enough years straight of republicans in every branch of government and we can kiss anything like a democracy goodbye along with the planet.

But I'm just as certain that when democrats shy away from some of these root issues, PARTICULARLY money's influence on politics and in direct relationship to that, any policies that may rile big donors or potentially stoke fierce(r) financial opposition, this first, affects the quality of the fight the democrats bring and affects whether or not the American people think they are being championed by democrats, and second, doesn't help to define for people the real things that ail them. It keeps them obscured, and this makes them far more susceptible to a narrative with a villain, namely democrats and immigrants and people of color and LGBQT, etc., and we lose elections...not because of the hold-outs on the left. but because of a fairly muddled and confusing performance. This is what relegates us to minority party status. The problem with it is that it seems to me,(and boy do I hope I'm wrong), some of our democrats are quite comfortable operating from this place, where their hands are tied and they just HAVE to compromise with the GOP, oddly enough, always by giving away all their leverage.

I've got to say, when it comes to some of our elected democrats, I'm still feeling damn confused, but I think I'm starting to settle on rage. You just can't tell me that some of the things they do is in the name of anything good. You cannot tell me the banking deregulation has an upside. That is utterly inexcusable in today's climate, but its the same shit enough of our own have been doing for decades.

right now I'll take somebody who correctly diagnoses and promises to fight for the right cure. Then when that person fails to do what that person promised, at least that is a clear breach of social contract and we can start looking for a primary challenger.

[DanTex]

278. Why the qualification? Why "assuming"?

No qualification. Vote D post-primary, period. All this talk of "assuming" is what convinces some people to go the Nader route, which has disastrous consequences. There is very clear history of a part of the far-left intentionally helping the GOP win elections to trigger a "revolution". This isn't theoretical. It's not something to toy with.

I actually agree with you that the Dems are too far right, and that is one of the things that ails us. You're also right that there is no upside whatsoever to deregulating banks. But, like anything else, replacing those Ds with Rs will make everything worse. Bad Ds are much better than Rs.

Also, rationally, has the Nader strategy actually succeeded in pulling the Dems left? Can anyone honestly argue that, well, sure Nader brought us W, the Iraq War, the Bush Tax cuts, the right-wing justices, the economic collapse, but it was worth it because after Nader the Dems truly embraced progressive policies, leading to a left-wing political revolution? Of course not. All he did was piss people like me off that would otherwise be allies in trying to move the Dems left.

This is why, as much as I don't like the Joe Manchins and the Third Way policies and all that, until I hear them advocating for voting Republican or third party (which does happen, e.g. Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller), I view them in a much more positive light than the Nina Turners.


What to do about corporate-friendly Dems? Primary them. Period. And if that doesn't work, then vote for them in general elections anyway, and try primarying them again. Particularly in blue states -- in some red states, moderate Dems is probably the best we can do. But blue state moderates like say Dianne Feinstein should be primaried. But here again the far-left stands in the way. Just look at DU sentiment on primarying Feinstein. I'm pretty sure that before the whole Bernie-or-Bust thing, people here (and Dems in the real world) would be much more favorable to the idea of getting someone more progressive than Feinstein out of a deep blue state. But now the concept of primarying moderate Dems has been tainted with association to Bernie-or-Busters, which causes people to react with revulsion. And I will concede that in some cases this revulsion is irrational. But it's also understandable: the people calling loudest for primarying Feinstein are the same ones that backstabbed Hillary in order to help Trump become president.

Which is why, as I said in my last post, the groups that want to use primaries to move Dems left need to be extra careful and explicitly and repeatedly emphasize the importance of voting D even where their primary challenges fail.

[progressoid]

191. Yeah, like that useless Obama and his inspirational speeches.

What a blowhard that guy was.

[DanTex]

210. Obama got people voting D. Like I said, that's what matters.

[progressoid]

241. How many Democrats do you interact with IRL?

Here in my puny town of 65 thousand people, the most active new Democrats are "Bernie Bros". Some of our brightest millenials joined the party because of Bernie. One now sits on the central committee of the county Dem party. She and her husband regularly participate in statewide Democratic functions. I know of at least two others who are running for local offices as Democrats.

Next week I will attend my third campaign kick-off party. A retired union worker (and Hillary supporter) is running for an office that hasn't had a Democratic candidate for 6 years. His campaign director was a Bernie supporter. Unlike DU, here in real life, both Hillary and Bernie supporters cooperate and aren't constantly picking at old scabs. We're getting shit done.

[KPN]

105. Sure seems that way.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

195. Sad, but true.

[Kurt V.]

14. I will say it again. .

the most important issue of our time.

[CousinIT]

29. and the most ignored. Climate Change is right up there too but even w/ all that, TRUMP

sucks all the air out of the media room and replaces it with toxic propaganda fumes - CA style.

[DemocracyMouse]

39. We HAVE to have something to vote FOR

Trump stole Bernie's message and squeaked out an undeserving win. The point here is that Americans are still fundamentally underpaid and doing multiple jobs to keep up. If the Democrats return to this fundamental anguish – shared by men, women, people of every stripe, etc – they will light a fire and take back the House, the Senate, and have the leverage again to address human rights, prison reform, gender equality and the environment.

Thank you to ALL progressives, including Bernie, Clinton and Warren for reminding us.

[MrsCoffee]

44. Sorry human rights should take a back seat to nothing.

[DemocracyMouse]

126. Human rights are totally at the mercy of the thieves pooling all the wealth + levers of power.

In fact, show me a human rights abuse and I'll find you a bully funded by concentrated wealth. Inequality is at the heart of the matter. Want to justify paying shit wages? Tell half your underpaid citizens they're better than the other half. The first half get to pat themselves on the back while they're being robbed of wages and pensions.

[Demsrule86]

72. Trump did not steal Bernie's message or voters...completely different.

[DemocracyMouse]

240. Trump talked about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Bernie talked about the same with a deeper perspective.

[Demsrule86]

273. All candidates talk about jobs in every election...to compare Trump with Sanders is a disservice to

Sanders...he is nothing like Trump even when he annoys the hell out of me. He is not evil. And this is a bad comparison.

[Kurt V.]

40. Climate change is right there.

but from what I've been reading it is too late to do much about it. only prepare as best we can. 40 or 50 years of global warming denial will do that.

[George II]

38. He partnered up with TYT? Didn't they get several million dollars from conservative republican....

....Buddy Roemer a while back?

[MrsCoffee]

46. Yes, "Our New Buddy" he called him.

Gotta love the flop sweat trying to explain that shit. Because partnering up with conservatives is going to help him save democracy. Of course calling his critics "pro-establishment" and doing some Hillary bashing was part of the deal for taking said conservative money.

[NurseJackie]

57. That's a LOT of money! At first glance it seems peculiar that it's coming from a Republican...

... but when I think about it some more, I guess it makes sense. (And I'll just leave it there... that's all I have to say about that.)

[JCanete]

133. wow....what a bad point. Come on George...fucking a. What does that even ammount to?

And dems never get money from institutions that have Republican CEO's and deregulatory and other destructive agendas?

Buddy Roemer didn't send that money on the sly. He came out and was very specific about where he thinks our political system is today. He invested in the network on those terms. Can money buy influence? Well of course. Or it can just amplify messaging that is favorable to a particular individual or industry, so it is absolutely always problematic. If you think his purpose was simply to help stoke division that may be. I have no reason to trust the man. That does not change the fact that everything being said on that stage NEEDS to get air-time...NEEDS a platform. What was lied about up there? What do you disagree with that the panel talked about? What do you think we the American people should not be made aware of that they were talking about?

This should not be divisive. This should be the message all democrats pick up and run with, because if we don't finally fight on this front, we are done as a country. The writing has been on the wall for a while. Politicians are only allowed to hold their seats by virtue of not riling any of the markets...not pissing off any of the real owners of this country, which means they can't govern...they can't lead, and we can continue to be led to the eventual ruin of this nation and, fuck...of the planet.

[Nanjeanne]

41. I watched and it was a really good discussion about an overlooked issue with many

interesting panelists and tons of information. Can’t imagine why that’s not a good thing to some people but glad to many Democrats and Independents it was something to participate in.

[Demsrule86]

73. None of the issues discussed will help in 9n my opinion.

[Nanjeanne]

84. You watched all 90 minutes and felt that nothing discussed will help. Interesting opinion. Thanks

for sharing.

[Demsrule86]

184. I read the transcripts...and I saw nothing I had not seen before or heard during the 16 primary.

I can't deal with 90 minutes. Who doesn't know about income inequality?

[Nanjeanne]

192. You read transcripts of the whole 90 minutes? Wow that's dedication.

[Demsrule86]

444. I read a great deal...I have ADD and could never sit though 90 minutes. I have been stessed about

my move,selling the house etc and went back on meds a couple days ago in fact...been worse than usual. I usually control it better and don't need meds.What was the audience reaction when reparations was discussed? You can't get that from reading the transcripts. I am curious.

[Nanjeanne]

466. There were about 450 in audience and about 100 in overflow so hard to judge audience

reaction while I’m watching on my iPad but there were cheers when Hamilton brought up reparations.

[Demsrule86]

470. My feeling is that income inequality is consequence of bad policies in terms of taxing, health

care, wages. There are many causes. Thus I would prefer to start with health care as it seems to be effective.

[Autumn]

48. Loved the town hall, and I love this thread

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2018, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

[Hortensis]

63. You and those who imagine they're opposing Sanders both.

[disillusioned73]

85. Yuppers..

?itemid=9853202

[Autumn]

102. It the smart way to reach people and get them informed and involved.

People should be happy about that.

[awesomerwb1]

60. Officially join the Dem party Bernie

Let's get the country back on track. Once the gop comrades don't control the House anymore you can then leave and run again as an independent, pink party, sun party, holes in pockets party, whatever the F you want to call it.

Right now we need to be united against the twitler machine. Syphoning votes from the opposition party will just help the gop comrades remain in power and further destroy the country/planet.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

75. Purity politics helps nobody

At least that's what I've been reading on DU lately.

He's a progressive. He's on our side. He has always caucused with the Dems. That's what we need at this point. He is united against the twitler machine. Just because there is no D after his name doesn't mean he isn't fighting Trump.

[awesomerwb1]

81. You took my comments to an extreme there

I have seen people like Nina Turner on TV and she might as well have had a tea party caucus description under her name. The comments I read on Twitter from "bernie bros" are stupidly counterproductive. I am neither a Bernie or Hillary superfan by the way.

I never said Sanders is "fighting for trump". That's just ridiculous.

Right now we have to be united to remove the gop from power. Right now we need to be anti-gop/trump. If you don't see it that way fine, but your "purity politics" statement applies more to you than it does to me at this point if that's the case.

[whathehell]

82. +10

Bernie is on our side.

[yurbud]

61. What if this is the way to make Citizens United irrelevant?

Still get rid of it, but this is a way to bypass the media filter, 30 second ads, and the like and get right to people.

I could see this being a way for primary candidates and third party candidates shut out from debates to be heard.

Maybe some enterprising news aggregator could put all such stuff in one place, and people could choose what to watch instead of cable's empty Trump podium.

[Demsrule86]

458. I have no interest in helping any third party candidate.

But it might be start to reduce if not eliminate big money...there is at least 60 million coming against Sherrod Brown this year.

[jalan48]

76. Income Inequality is an issue we can win on.

“It’s the economy stupid” helped sink Bush Sr. in 1992.

[backtoblue]

77. Agree

Income inequality reaches all other aspects in a broad sense as well.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

90. Bernie ought to stop spending so much time getting economic equality

& spend a little more time getting that gotdamn membership card.

[Wwcd]

94. As he sits in his new lakehouse with his million$$ bank acct.

He's lived off the public for 40 yrs.

What does he know about income inequality when he ignored minorities, women & those that live inequality every day of their life during his failed campaign.

He is looking more & more suspicious since being named as 1 of only 2 candidates to have benefitted from the massive Kremlin interferance in 2016.

Bernie Sanders & Donald Trump, and Robert Mueller isn't lying.

Suspicious as F.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

98. He's WORST than trump, AND

no gotdamn membership card!

[Wwcd]

107. He is an Independant. He has no loyalty to any particular Party.

His vote against Magnitsky reflects that point perfectly.

[Omaha Steve]

129. Then I wonder why the DU even has a Bernie Democrats Group?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1280

[Wwcd]

139. I wonder the same thing. When you clearly state that you joined the Dem Party for "Money & Media",

why should old protections be continued?
Robert Mueller named 2 people who benefitted from Election interference.

Bernie Sanders & Donald Trump.

And we Democrats are forced by an outdated DU rule that says be nice to him??

I will respect that rule until Mueller's investigation tells us more as to how those 2 people came to benefit.
Then I expect DU to rethink that rule of this board.

[Omaha Steve]

144. Kind of hanging him before the fair trial?

[Wwcd]

155. No one's "hanging" anyone. Mueller named Sanders for a reason.

I'll patiently wait till the truth is told.

I'll get back to you then.

[Omaha Steve]

158. Deal

[Cuthbert Allgood]

117. "lived off the public for 40 yrs"

Yeah, it's nice to see the Clintons living in poverty.

Seriously? This is the argument against him now for living a life dedicated to public service?

[lunamagica]

125. He never had a real job until he was 40 years old. That is a well known fact

I can only imagine if Obama or Hillary had tried to run on such a resume.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

130. Wow

So his work with SNCC et al is not important. His resume of working for civil rights is pretty damn impressive.

Additionally, he did a variety of odd jobs until landing in politics.

You make it sound like he was some trust fund baby that has since lived off the teat of society without making any contribution.

[lunamagica]

137. His resume and accomplishments are quite modest and unimpressive

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2018, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

especially when you compare them with others politicians.

Compare his resume to Hillary's

ETA: Or Martin O'Malley.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

148. Let's start with their college years.

Sanders at the University of Chicago: Student Organizer for CORE and SNCC
Clinton at Wellesley: Leader of the "Rockefeller Republicans" supporting the election of Republicans

[lunamagica]

160. Nice try, lol. She wore a button to please her dad. Now, let's see

some of her accomplishments:

First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College. Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic. Former civil litigation attorney. Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Former First Lady of Arkansas. Former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree. First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate. Elected by the… State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. Former US Secretary of State. GRAMMY Award Winner.

Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.

She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.

She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.

Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.

At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.

Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).

Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.

Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.

Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.

Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.

The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/

[Cuthbert Allgood]

224. OK. Couple things.

1. I am in NO WAY trying to say that Clinton isn't qualified and hasn't achieved a lot in her lifetime. Clearly she is talented and good at what she does.
2. It's not that hard to indicate that Sanders, too, has done a lot in his lifetime. Really. It won't kill you.
3. She did more than wear a damn button. And that's OK. She came around.
4. Addictinginfo does a list for Sanders, too, so...
Organized a sit-in against segregation when he was still a student in college. This was the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history. This led to the University of Chicago investigating the discrimination just a week afterward.

Mayor of Burlington
Defeated the 5-term mayor of Burlington, winning by just ten votes in his bid against Democratic mayor Gorden Paquette. Hey, a win is a win. The odds were stacked against him. (Guma, The People’s Republic, pg. 42.)

He won re-election three times, defeating Democratic and Republican contenders.

Caused voter turnout to double during his tenure.

Burlington became the first city in the country to fund community-trust housing under Sanders’ leadership.

He not only balanced the city budget, but undertook ambitious downtown revitalization projects. He even helped bring in a minor-league baseball team to the town, the Vermont Reds.

He sued the town’s local cable franchise and won reduced rates for customers.

Kept a developer from turning important waterfront property into condominiums, hotels, and offices to be used only by the wealthy and affluent. Instead, it was made into housing, parks, and public space. Even today, the area still has many parks and miles of public beach and bike baths, including a science center.

Provided new firms with seed funding, and helped businesses create trade associations. He funded training programs to give women access to nontraditional jobs and even gave special attention to women wanting to become entrepreneurs.

Voted as one of America’s best mayors by U.S. News & World Report in 1987.

Teaching days
Taught political science at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and Hamilton College.

U.S. House of Representatives
His 1990 victory was described by The Washington Post as being the “First Socialist Elected” to the United States House of Representatives in more than 40 years.

Served in the House from 1991 until the time he became a Senator in 2007. Over a span of 16 years, he continuously won re-election by large margins, with the only exception being 1994.

In his very first year in the House, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He led this group for its first eight years. Its primary devotion is to advance liberal causes and is currently the largest organization within the Democratic congressional caucus.

He sided with the minority in voting against the use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002. He also opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Voted against the Patriot Act despite the majority of Congress voting for it (357 to 66). He also sponsored several amendments trying to limit its effects, even getting a proposal passed through the House preventing the government from obtaining a record of the books people buy.

Was an open critic of Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan and took him head on insisting he only represented “large and wealthy corporations.” Greenspan later admitted to Congress that his economic ideology regarding risky mortgage loans was flawed.

He passed more amendments than any other member during his time in the House. It earned him the nickname “The Amendment King.” He did this despite being a “socialist” and Congress being controlled by Republicans from 1994 to 2006, in one of the most partisan right-wing Houses ever.

Passed an amendment to “require offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white collar crime to give appropriate notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”

Passed an amendment that improved Postsecondary Education. It administered a competitive grant program to institutions of higher education seeking to reduce costs through the purchase of goods and services. This saved colleges and taxpayers both money.

He amended the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003, stopping the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.”

He expanded free health care and won a $100 million increase in funding by using his amendment powers. This added community health centers that gave out a variety of free health care services.

Prevented child labor by passing an amendment to a general appropriations bill. This stated that the U.S. will not appropriate funds for the importation of goods made by the hands of minors.

Won a $22 million increase for low-income home energy assistance and a related weatherization assistance program. This helped heat homes for the poor.

Passed an amendment that formed a bipartisan coalition effectively prohibiting the Export-Import Bank from handing out loans for nuclear projects in China.

U.S. Senate
Defeated a wealthy businessman, Rich Tarrant, to win his U.S. Senate seat in 2006, in one of the most expensive campaigns in Vermont’s history.

Received the distinction of being named the third-most popular senator in the country, according to Public Policy Polling in August 2011.

Given a score of 100 percent by the NAACP and NHLA (National Hispanic Leadership Agenda) based on his record during his time in the Senate.

Named one of the top 5 American Jews of the Forward 50 in 2015.

Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in 2013-2014.

Became ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee in January 2015.

Became ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging.

Passed an amendment making sure that solar water heaters provide at least 30 percent of hot water for new federal buildings. This is forcing us to use green energy.

Made sure to it that bailout funds weren’t used to replace laid-off U.S. workers with exploited and poorly-paid foreign workers.

Helped ensure that child care was being offered to parents in the Armed Forces by requiring the Comptroller General to provide accurate reporting on what was being done.

Required a public database be made available showing the names of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors. This helped crack down on corruption.

Required that the TRICARE program provide treatment to veterans affected by certain types of autism. It wasn’t previously being done.

Won a battle requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the part that doesn’t interfere with monetary policy). This revealed the names of the recipients of over 2,000,000,000,000 in taxpayer assistance.

Was praised by John McCain(R-AZ) and Sen. Jack Reed(D-RI) for overhauling the Veterans Administration. Was said to have done such an excellent job of bringing all parties to a deal, that it wouldn’t have gotten done without Sanders’ work.

[lunamagica]

234. Did any of this (Other than the sit-in) happen before he was 40?

because that what was being discussed.Sanders earning a paycheck before he was 40.

And I noticed you didn't mention his voting in yes on the stand-alone amendment in favor of the Minute Men. Or the Bill he sponsored to use the land of the poorest Hispanics to dump Vermont's toxic waste. Or him voting 5 times against the Brady Bill. Or his vote against the Amber Alert. Or his vote against immigration reform

[EffieBlack]

299. Or voting for the Crime Bill

That he trashed Hillary over, even though she didn't vote for it.

[sheshe2]

235. This is copy and pasted from a site?

You are suppose to post a link to the site you are quoting and also there is a 4-5 paragraph minimum.

TIA

[George II]

236. "Couple things"?

Unless I missed it, I see that you don't list any legislation that he wrote that got passed in either the House or the Senate.

By the way, "lecturing" at Harvard for less than a year does not constitute "teaching" political science. You may want to research that one.

Have a great evening.

[lunamagica]

287. You may want to check your sources...

For example, regarding the sit-in:


Founded in 1942 in Chicago by James Farmer and other followers of Gandhian tactics, the Congress of Racial Equality staged sit-ins and other protests against discriminatory Chicago restaurants and recreational centers. In the late 1940s activists of the United Packinghouse Workers union also targeted segregated eateries. By the early 1960s, most public accommodations in the city were open to African Americans.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/293.html

[brer cat]

326. That is very interesting, luna.

Thanks for adding some facts to the thread.

[lunamagica]

327. Funny how no link to the source was added, huh?

[Wwcd]

161. He has pretty much zero foreign policy. Something that will be critical in 2020

He visited Russia, Cuba & S America .

What exactly was he fighting for on those visits?

[lunamagica]

162. Just some of the mysteries in Senator Transparecy's past

[progressoid]

194. R U kidding? Since when do people vote for president because of their foreign policy bonafides?

[comradebillyboy]

304. It's an impotant factor for me.

[Wwcd]

157. That's not at all what was stated.

[David__77]

201. SNCC may not hold a torch to corporate lawyering.

It’s all matter of perspective.

[lunamagica]

203. How about being the former director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic? It's all matter

of facts.

First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College. Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic. Former civil litigation attorney. Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Former First Lady of Arkansas. Former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree. First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate. Elected by the… State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. Former US Secretary of State. GRAMMY Award Winner.

Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.

She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.

She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.

Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.

At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.

Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).

Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.

Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.

Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.

Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.

The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/

[ehrnst]

335. Yes, let's conveniently forget the history here...

After graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, Hillary didn’t take the path of many of her classmates and join a large corporate firm. Instead, she followed her passion — and one of her idols. Marian Wright Edelman — a prominent activist in the civil rights community — had spoken to her law school class four years earlier. For Hillary, that speech was a turning point.

So after she graduated, Hillary got a job working with Marian at the Children’s Defense Fund. At the time, Marian’s organization was about to launch a ground-breaking project: figuring out why nearly 2 million U.S. children were not in school.

Under Marian’s leadership, Hillary worked alongside young lawyers and advocates to discover why so many young children weren’t getting a formal education. Hillary’s name is proudly displayed in the report, alongside the other staff of the Children’s Defense Fund.

https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/uncovered-the-42-year-old-report-from-hillary-clintons-work-at-the-children-s-defense-fund-e2bba4a17908

It's not like she left activism to live in the countryside far from where this kind of work was going on.

But sure, let's just dismiss this very accomplished progressives real contributions and real work, because reasons.

[EffieBlack]

211. He did this in college-and then high-tailed it out of there and ran to the whitest state in the US

Don't get me wrong. Bernie isn't bad on civil rights. But he's no great shakes either. Nothing wrong with that - unless you try to push him as some great civil rights crusader because he participated in some protests more than 55 years ago in college.

I'll ask you the same question I've asked others but have never gotten a decent response: Can you name anything Bernie has done in the past 50 years to advance the cause of civil rights for African Americans that involved any political or personal risk or required him to take a position contrary to the views of a significant portion of his Vermont constituency?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

227. Well, that's kind of a Catch-22, isn't it?

He is a Senator of a pretty liberal state elected as a progressive.

But he was already arguing for gay rights in the 70s. He fought for policies against selling arms to Central America (Nicaragua if I remember). I distinctly remember him calling out the Clintons and Republicans for their racist bullshit with welfare reform. He fought hard to make sure Pell Grants weren't pulled from prisoners (he was working with the Black Caucus before the "that's racist to assume prisoners are black" crowd responds). The ACLU and NAACP love him and give him high ratings. I'm sure there's more if I did some research and not just off the top of my head.

[EffieBlack]

230. Not at all

There's a difference between supporting and being good on civil rights and being a leader who takes risks, who used does more than the average liberal legislator would do.

Calling out the "Clintons" on welfare reform? Is Bernie in the habit of "calling out" unelected spouses for their husbands' or wives' policies? Oh, dumb question. He also attacked Hillary Clinton for the Crime Bill, even though she wasn't in office and didn't vote for it WHILE HE WAS AND HE DID. Profile in courage.

FYI "calling out" the Clintons and "working with the CBC" isn't an act of political courage that involved any risk.

Again, I'm not saying Bernie has a bad record on civil rights. But his record is no better than a lot of others and not nearly as impressive as some - and it certainly doesn't merit the slavish praise he gets from some as if he's the second coming of Marcus Garvey, WEB DuBois and Malcolm X. This unearned praise is particularly galling when it's juxtaposed against the castigation of real heroes like John Lewis as "sellouts" who "allowed themselves to be" manipulated because they don't worship at the Bernie Sanders Civil Rights Shrine.

[George II]

290. We have other Senators of pretty liberal states elected as "progressives", too.

Senators from MUCH larger, more diverse states than Vermont:

Kamala Harris was elected in California with 7.5M votes
Kirsten Gillibrand was elected in New York with 4.8M votes
Elizabeth Warren was elected in Massachusetts with 1.7M votes
Tammy Duckworth was elected in Illinois with 2.9M votes

Sanders was elected in Vermont with 0.2M votes

[Cuthbert Allgood]

305. Not sure what the number of people in his state have to do with it.

My point is that the question was what he did that ran the risk of making his voters unhappy. It's a progressive state. All of those you mention do come from progressive states and can do things, like Sanders, without having to worry about those that vote for them being unhappy.

[ehrnst]

336. 95.2% white. 61.1 % rural

A veritable hotbed of civil rights activity and opportunities for social justice service.

[EffieBlack]

340. Nothing wrong with what he did

But, given this background, coming down from on high to lecture the rest of us about how and when to do civil rights - and attacking (or remaining silent while his supporters attacked) real civil rights heroes who stayed in the fight while he did his thing in Vermont is just obnoxious.

He's like a third-string player who went in for one play, got hit once and then quit team and never showed up for practice or any games again. But when the team made playoffs, he turns up in his old uniform and insists on starting at quarterback and demands to call all of his own plays because he says the coach's gameplan stinks.

[JCanete]

122. hehe

[KPN]

110. Bernie doing outreach, energizing voters and new voters that resides

in our party's wheelhouse. What's not to like!

[Wwcd]

127. Who's Party? Which Party does an independent have loyalty to?

His vote against Magnitsky while every Democrat voted for it, tells us where his loyalty lies.
How far are Dems suppose to trust an Independent when a vote against the important Magnitsky Act, says he will go his own way before considering the Dem Party loyalty on a subject as important as Russia's Sanctions.
There was absolutely nothing Progressive about his no vote. Nothing.
Sanders' voting against sanctions placed on Putin's horrific record against human rights, interference in foreign elections & flat out murder of those who disagree was neither Democratic nor Progressive.
So who is to trust Sanders. He can talk all the good talk all day long, but when proof of where he stands is called upon, he fails that test.

Was Mueller wrong when he named only 2 people who benefitted from election interferance?
Trump & Sanders.

This is why I wonder why anyone still trusts what he says, at this point.

There are too many unanswered questions to simply act like nothing has happened.

We have an absolute right to question Sander's agenda. Its become all too suspicious in light of what we're dealing with today.

I will never trust his intentions until Mueller's investigation clears Sanders' name.

[KPN]

149. Magnitsky, Magnitsky. How many times

do we have to go over this here at DU. A broken record -- like Benghazi, Benghazi.

[Autumn]

154. What should be a broken record is about our Dems voting to gut Frank Dodd. I still haven't

received a reply to my Senator as to why he co signed and supported the bill.

[Wwcd]

163. That vote neither aligned with Democratic nor Progressive values

For a person who claims to be of both parties, its a very valid question to ask & expect an honest answer for.

Once again, walk the damned walk.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

187. What about the other 3 Democratic votes against?

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the trade bill.

[KPN]

209. An honest answer was given .. by Sanders himself.

Some choose to see otherwise. Oh well.

[Wwcd]

229. Oh ya, something something..oh ya Iran.. ya thats it.

He chose to look aside from the importance of RU Sanctions.


The atrocities committed by Putin just weren't important ..enough.

No excuse.

[CentralMass]

165. Here is some nice reading for you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210356632

[KPN]

213. Thx.

[Bluepinky]

302. I will never forget how Bernie Sanders spoke out against the Iraq War and voted against it.

He bucked most of the Democratics and Republicans to vote against what he knew would be a disastrous and prolonged war. He and the few others who voted against it were publicly shamed and called US traitors. I guess that is why he’s still an Independent.

[EffieBlack]

312. That's not true. Sanders was one of 133 Members who voted no

While he can be praised for his vote, he certainly wasn't some beacon of integrity standing alone in the darkness. A majority of Democrats - 126 - and 6 Republicans also voted against it.

If you want to highlight real courage, you should hold up Rep. Barbara Lee, the ONLY one of 435 House Members who voted against the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. SHE was brave and fearless and literally risked her life for that vote. Rep. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, was among the other 434 House Members who voted for that war.

Bernie deserves credit for his Iraq War vote, as do the other 133 Members he voted with. But exaggerating what he did by engaging in revisionist history only diminishes what he actually did.

[Bluepinky]

318. Bernie was one of 23 Senators who voted against the war.

I agree with you, Barbara Lee is very courageous and I applaud her vote.

A really shameful part of our history is during the Bush vs Gore debacle, when a group of (mostly) African American Congress people objected in open session to the appointment of George W. Bush as President, stating that the votes of their constituents weren’t being counted. I was appalled that not a single US Senator signed onto their initiative. And Bush was appointed President. I think the worst Supreme Court decision in my lifetime was Bush vs Gore. With Bush we got the Iraq War, Citizens United decision and so many horrible things. And look where we are now.

I’m supportive of all progressives, and I support Bernie partly because I’m tired of all the negativity about him. He has done a lot of good things and maybe some not so good things, but all in all, I see him as an advocate for progressive values. I don’t know why there’s so much hatred of him on DU.

[EffieBlack]

320. No, he wasn't. Sanders was a Congressman in 2001. He wasn't elected to the Senate until 2006

As I said, he was one of 133 House Members to vote No.

[Bluepinky]

322. OK, I was wrong.

[Nanjeanne]

193. Well apparently none of that matters. Or even that the Dems gave him that position. Good thing DU

isn't the real world!!!

[David__77]

200. Not everyone supports Sanders proposed policies.

...

[KPN]

216. Not all Democrats? Which proposed policies?

What's their position on those?

[JCanete]

330. ...you don't say? I can imagine that nobody in the top 1 percent of the top

one percent supports his policies, but that's probably just because they're all so talented and brilliant and they know failing policy when they see it...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

206. Love it! That's what Bernie does best! Showing, once again, why he's such a valuable asset.

[KPN]

260. Yep.

And the party's moving back to its roots despite the kicking and screaming resistance of some who prefer status quo. Oh well.

[sheshe2]

258. You mean at the Our Revolution rally in Texas?

I do not believe they are a wing of the Democratic Party.

[KPN]

259. You feel that way as well about the Working Families Party?

Geesh. Thumb you nose at 1.7 million potential democratic voters why don't you?

You know what though. It doesn't matter. The party's changing at long last, with or without some.

[sheshe2]

261. I hope they signed up voters for the Democratic party at the rally.

1.7M would be great if signed.

[KPN]

262. Sanders has always harped on the way to

to achieve goals is to vote. I'm sure many are already registered voters if not the vast majority. And yes, that would be good.

[sheshe2]

263. Aaah.

If you are sure, then I am good with that.

[KPN]

264. This was an online rally. It wasn't a huge love-fest

in an urban arena or stadium. People who participated did so because they are active, because they want to effect change. They are going to vote, of for no other reason but to counter and excise the current cancer occupying the WH.

[sheshe2]

265. Yes...on line.

FB. Alrighty then. They are going to vote. You assured me they would be voting.

I have to say, with all the news about CA I am very wary of FB. I have never liked the venue and only signed up because of a family emergency. I have never trusted them and seldom go on line with them. After the news I find their veracity to be suspect.

[mountain grammy]

134. It was excellent..

bringing up local issues of poverty and inequality largely ignored in America, and, even on a Democratic message board.

[disillusioned73]

281. You got that right..

makes one wonder what has happened...

[Blue_Tires]

147. How many times was the word "establishment" mentioned?

And were people of color brought up at all, or are we still married to the "working class = white" narrative?

[JCanete]

153. were we ever in the Sanders camp? I'd avoid conflating media bullshit with

Sanders talking about economic injustice. It doesn't sound like you have paid close enough attention to really know what has been said, and given your approach to this conversation, maybe its because you're content to get your information second hand.

[Blue_Tires]

156. Slow your roll my man, I voted for Sanders in the primary...

And yes, since Sanders has dropped out of the party (while still cashing in on his popularity to shape policy from outside) and since for all his talk he did Jack Fucking Shit to help us in Virginia last November, he has not been worthy of my attention. That is why I'm asking DUers for a recap.

EDIT: Nevermind, I now see we're back to the "KremlinGate is a distraction from the REAL issues" talking point, which is at least a year old.

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

185. +++++

[NurseJackie]

188. "not worthy" .... Perfect.

Well said.

[R B Garr]

228. +++yup, anyone not acknowledging current Russian interference

while flogging Democrats over a 16-year old war started by Republicans is not to be taken seriously.

[Cha]

247. Bernie Sanders: Russia and Stormy Daniels distract us from real problem of inequality

BS needs to get a clue.. Russia and CA helped get trump elected.. that's collusion with a Foreign Agent.. That is NOT a Distraction, sanders.

And, stormy is more trump breaking the LAW.. again NOT a Distraction for the potus to be held accountable for Breaking the LAW, sanders.

Link to tweet

Thanks for this, Blue_Tires

[MrsCoffee]

269. Always with the screaming angry face.

I used to think he was passionate. Now I think he is just an angry guy.

[Cha]

270. I never liked him.. since he thought it was

a good idea to primary President Obama in 2012.. only he didn't want to do it.

[MrsCoffee]

271. So many what the fuck moments for me.

[Cha]

272. I love it when people

can see that!

[mcar]

301. Oh FFS!

Not helpful, Senator, not helpful.

[David__77]

199. Perhaps the purists are opposed to Bernie Sanders.

...

[ucrdem]

202. ". . .during an online broadcast Monday night."

Why at this late juncture would anyone think that holding an online rally on Facebook was a good idea? And why would anyone want to spend 90 minutes on Facebook hearing the same speech Sanders has been giving since 1994? I am truly mystified at the continuing enthusiasm for this failed 2016 primary campaign.

[Cha]

249. Bernie Sanders: Russia and Stormy Daniels distract us from real problem of inequality

Link to tweet

Why, to get to hear him say that, ucr!

[ucrdem]

250. Inequality

can mean different things to different people. The fact that Sanders refuses to acknowledge that the ACA is a popular and successful program that runs rings around whatever it is he's proposing really bothers me.

p.s. aloha Cha!

[Cha]

252. I know.. Conor Lamb campaigned a lot on

Obamacare.. and he won on Health Issues.

Something BS might want to think about.. as well as calling Russia's collusion with trump in our USA election "a Distraction".. he's just wrong.

Aloha, ucr

[ucrdem]

469. Yes Lamb addressed these issues in an honest way it seems and won.

The problem with Sanders is that he really isn't addressing facts on the ground -- he's addressing his own made up version of the facts. Which is a problem when naive or misinformed FB-users make voting decisions based on his narrative. It's the FB-CA problem and the fact that Sanders continues to use the platform for events like this is disconcerting.

[Cha]

481. Yeah,

it's *********.

[ucrdem]

482. Exactamenudo.

[disillusioned73]

280. Interesting..

"online rally "
"hearing the same speech"

You obviously didn't watch it, because neither of those statements are accurate or you just chose to willfully mischaracterize the event..

"I am truly mystified at the continuing enthusiasm for this failed 2016 primary campaign."

People like to hear about the issues that affect them, and like to hear about a path forward.. there's nothing mystifying about it, core principles grounded since well before 1994 is a bit of a rare commodity amongst politicians and elected officials.. his popularity isn't going to wain, it's just going to grow..

[ucrdem]

288. LOL, people have been telling me that since 1994

when I was first informed of the "socialist" in Congress. Oh boy, I thought. I looked him up. I read about him in The Nation. I heard him speak on Pacifica. I heard him speak when he visited my town in May 2016. And I continue to be mystified why anyone would take this person seriously as a socialist or a progressive. His schtick is and was bashing Democrats and he hasn't changed his tune in 24 years.

[disillusioned73]

337. Socialist..

So scary..

[ucrdem]

356. Not very.

He's an Independent and I've frankly never heard him say much about socialism. Makes a great meme though doesn't it.

[saidsimplesimon]

205. Thank you, Donkees

and Senator Sanders. I have not read the comments. I detest divisions as they hinder our quest to turn the US from pink to blue.

[GaryCnf]

226. The panic is palpable

Thanks for the OP

[dlk]

277. Sanders Has Named the Problem -- Now Let's See Action

Coalition-building to enact meaningful legislation is the next logical step.

[EffieBlack]

296. Thank God

Because, until he named it, we didn't know it existed.

All hail St. Bernard for bringing us to the light!

[JCanete]

329. Hell, I'll just accept that you recognize that Sanders has the right

diagnosis for the sickness. I appreciate your acknowledgement of that.

[EffieBlack]

334. And I'll just accept that you don't know the difference between

Identifying a problem and coming up with actual solutions for it.

Bernie is very prolific at the former. The latter, not so much.

[JCanete]

347. I have no reason at all to argue with you on that point because we can't even get

on that page as a party. If we could, we could start debating about who had the best plans to solve it, but you cannot solve the problem if you don't even correctly point to what it is.

[awesomerwb1]

303. Wow still going on eh?

I'm a neutral. I'm not a Bernie superfan and not a Hillary superfan either.

We need to get the rep comrades out of power. Can we agree on that?

A lot of the comments sound like they're more fans of Bernie or Hilary than of the country. Not much different than the reps.

Stop it. Focus. We have to take over the House in November. VOTE DEM

[alarimer]

339. This is THE issue for our times that Democrats are not addressing effectively.

Especially now than 17 of them have voted to deregulate banks (again) to please their donors at the expense of their voters.

[Trumpocalypse]

342. 17 out of how many?

[alarimer]

346. Enough for the bill to pass so it doesn't fucking matter.

Enough to screw the rest of us over. I KNOW where their priorities lie and it is not with the people.

[Trumpocalypse]

376. 17 out of how many? nt

[alarimer]

378. ENOUGH FOR IT TO PASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

17 out of 49. THEY VOTED WITH REPUBLICANS.

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse here or not. That bill passed. It would have passed anyway, but they didn't have to work with Republicans to help destroy the economy. They signaled to ALL of us that their donors matter than their voters. Not one of the DECENT Democrats voted for it.

This is one more reason I do not automatically vote for someone with D after their name. This is more than team sports. It is about PRINCIPLE and doing the right thing. Their actual votes matter in determining whether I will ever vote for any of them for higher office, no matter who they run against.

[Trumpocalypse]

379. So a majority of Dems voted against the bill.

[alarimer]

380. So what?

They don't have to work with the fascist GOP BUT THEY DID ANYWAY. That is the message I am talking about. These are useless Dems who deserve to be primaried by people who won't work with the GOP to destroy everything.

I mean, what is your fucking point here? These are BAD Democrats. We all deserve better than these turncoats, is all I'm saying. And these turncoats will NEVER get my vote for anything.

The point is distinguishing between those who are interested in helping people and reducing income inequality in this country and those corporate tools who only care about reelection, which is what those 17 are.

[Trumpocalypse]

381. You seem to be focused on the 17 rather than the 32.

[alarimer]

382. Because they voted with the GOP.

I expect all Democrats to vote against GOP bills. Full stop.

[Trumpocalypse]

395. So if the GOP sponsored a bill for Single Payer

You'd want all Dems to vote against it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

428. You win today's Jumping the Shark Award.

[Trumpocalypse]

463. Why?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

467. I love hyperbole.

It's a compliment!

[Demsrule86]

402. Well they can't if they want to get elected. Have you looked at the Senate map? This was not a bad

bill either. It helped with the 'lockstep with Nancy Pelosi' meme, Democratic Senators in red states are facing.

[quartz007]

354. Bernie would have defeated Donnie in 2016

Bernie had better poll numbers and his crowds were bigger and had more energy.

[ucrdem]

355. Not hardly but if he'd run 3rd party like Perot he might have done us some good.

Basically he could have siphoned off enough anti-Clinton votes from Trump to assure a Clinton plurality if not a majority and delivered the victory we were expecting. But no.

[R B Garr]

369. This is EXACTLY the scenario!

I have thought that same thing, too. That exact phenom is the most plausible. He would have been way behind the media curve and needed to cling to a big name Democrat to get recognition. The fringe of both sides would even themselves out.

[ucrdem]

440. Yes I've thought all along that they should have called his bluff

and let him pay for his own primary instead of handing him the keys to house, car and safe deposit box. He did exactly what I thought he'd do but hoped he wouldn't -- demagogued Clinton into a defensive position and thus a loss. It was strange that the DNC couldn't also predict this. Where had they been the last 20 years?

[R B Garr]

473. Exactly right, again. We couldn't get through a second one of his spiels

without realizing exactly what was going on. You nailed it -- demagogued Clinton into a corner. Can't even say the rest. They should have called his bluff, big time. He really should be thankful for all that he was bestowed.

[quartz007]

374. 3rd parties are unpredictable nm

[JCanete]

405. That's a strange but interesting point. Now it would have damaged Sanders horribly and

his message, which wouldn't have, in my opinion been good for any of us. Those of us who do have respect for him would have lost a lot and might have, given that he was unlikely to win, gone for Clinton. But I'm pretty sure enough liberals would have still gone for Sanders and he would have been declared the spoiler of the 2016 election that gave us trump. On the other hand, he very well may have pulled enough votes from begrudging trump voters to win the election. The one thing making this less likely in that 3 way scenario is that he would have lost a lot of respect(as did Lieberman, not that it hurt him-wtf) for using the dem primary and then jumping off and running as a 3rd party candidate from a lot of the voters who voted for him in that primary, and they were not necessarily going to support him in the GE on those terms. (Oh, on edit, do you mean instead of in the primary? Under those circumstances he would have still been a relative unknown and would have only siphoned off liberal votes. I'm not sure his run could have generated as much energy from small donors, many of whom appreciate that 3rd party typically only plays spoiler, whereas going through the primary might actually get you elected).

As to whether he would have beaten Trump, "not hardly" is overly certain, and I'm not sure what you base that on. Clinton had an unfair amount of baggage she was carrying into the election from years of demonization, nor has she been, for entirely different reasons, a darling of the far left because of her policies and rhetoric post her single-payer effort. I'm far from convinced Sanders would have won myself, because honestly, and it pains me to say this, I think the democratic leadership and the machinery around it would have been recalcitrant to put its full energy behind getting him elected even then. Because he represents a shakeup of that leadership's modus operandi. And as to the financial backers of the democratic party? Well he literally put a target on their backs. They and their media wings would certainly not be kind to him.

Whereas a Trump Presidency puts the old democratic guard at the children's table, it also makes them the resistance to his draconian policies. It strengthens their fundraising and standing going into 2018 and 2020.

Sanders on the other hand, is bringing something they don't want, and don't believe in. They think he's wrong and horribly naïve about how politics must be done, and with what financing. Thus, they think he is bad for the party. In that way he is seen as far far worse for the democratic party(and I guess the world)than Trump is by those who think the party is doing it right, currently.

So, yeah, while I think just about anybody but Clinton could have beaten Trump(not a knock on Clinton because, first, she did beat him by the popular vote by 3 million votes, and second, we don't know details about actual hacking of election machines yet, and third, as I already stated, some of the damage that's been done to her over the years in the court of public opinion is the result of a 24 7 media machine that has spent millions on demonizing her), it is perhaps true that Sanders may have made my list as the other exception. There's nothing quite like a socialist to galvanize financial resistance should simple ignoring not suffice.

[Demsrule86]

408. I don't think so...he might have taken more votes from Hillary...in would have in my

opinion.

[Demsrule86]

404. Nope...the votes were not there to become the nominee so how could he win a general?

And we don't know how many supporters were genuine supporters and how many were Russian and GOP trolls. We will never know most likely.

[JCanete]

406. well, I don't know that he could have, but that logic doesn't hold, since

a primary is one set of voters, in which he did pretty damn well, and the GE adds two more sets of voters.

[Demsrule86]

415. Maybe, I am not an expert. But I keep thinking there is a reason, the GOP and it seems the Russians

also wanted Sen. Sanders as the nominee. They would have demonized him...and being from a small state, he has never faced scrutiny like that before. I have come to believe it would have been better for Democrats had he run as an independent. We might have still lost but it wouldn't have damage the party as much.

[JCanete]

421. It hasn't damaged the party. The damage done to the party is most significanlty

that money has come to rule, and it does...you know it does.

How can you tell me that Corey Booker and Gillibrand saying they will not take pac money is an example of damage to the party? How can you tell me that the recent democratic platform was damage to the party? How can you tell me that 15(?) senators signing on to Single Payer as a goal was damage to the party?

Damage is people leaving the party or tuning out and staying home because its message does not resonate. There is actual excitement in the primaries now.

[Demsrule86]

447. There is an entire group out there who thinks Sen.Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

This would not have happened if he ran as an independent. Our revolution showcases this viewpoint. And you need money to win. Democrats need to raise campaign money also. Look I hope you are right. That by 18 and 20, the 16 election is behind us as a party. You know that I feel running on the ACA in red states and districts helps more than running on single payer...we can get a public option in 20 if we take power back using reconciliation I think and that will undoubtedly lead to some form of single payer. no message is going to resonate with every Democrat in every election year...some candidates you like better than others. I adored Howard Dean but worked my ass off and voted for Kerry. no matter who the nominee is, we need to have the discipline to get out and vote. We need to understand that any Democrat is better than a Republican and we risk progressive policy dating back to Roosevelt when we don't vote Democratic in every election no matter what.

[Trumpocalypse]

464. So you have the ability

to see into alternate timelines.

[quartz007]

465. No, but my rate of prediction success is

north of 66.667%

[Trumpocalypse]

468. That high a rate is impression

Maybe you should get a job with the Home Psychics network. Can you give me today's lucky lotto numbers?

[quartz007]

474. Don't change the subject matter

I was obviously talking about presidential contests. May be after 50 years of observing politics, one gains a certain know-how.

[Trumpocalypse]

475. Trump observed politics for 50 years too

Is he right 66% of the time too?

[quartz007]

477. tRump had little time for politics

between 3 marriages, multiple affairs with porn stars and other young females in show biz, running a massive construction business in NYC, filing several bankruptcies, and playing golf all over the world.

Me on the other hand? Only 2 steady jobs in engineering for 38 years, no divorces, no affairs. Yeah a boring life compared to tRump, but I have lots of time to be a political junkie.

[Trumpocalypse]

478. You dont know that

Just as you can’t prove that Sanders could have won. If you’re such a political expert how many campaigns have won?

[quartz007]

479. Again 2/3 times my predictions were correct.

[Trumpocalypse]

483. And I am the czar of all the Russias

Great thing about the internet, you can claim anything about yourself and no one can disprove you.

[R B Garr]

370. We have been through this already. Isnt this the same

media platform where the video game players get counted as viewers simply because they are online? C’mom now...

[oberliner]

412. Has anyone watched the video?

It's pretty interesting.

[Demsrule86]

416. I read the transcript. I have ADD ...couldn't possibly have sat through that.

It makes me anxious to even consider it.

[oberliner]

417. Where did you read the transcript?

[Demsrule86]

456. My son sent it to me...he knows I have trouble with stuff like that...he loves Sen.Sanders.

[oberliner]

457. Does it include all the interviews with the guests or just the statements from Sanders, et al?

Because the interviews were really the best parts I thought. Weren't you at least moved by them?

[Demsrule86]

459. I don't know if it has all the statements or not since I didn't watch it but it was quite long...

I looked online to see if there was an official transcript but I couldn't find one. It was very interesting...I thought Sen. Warren was great too.I was shocked to read there were UN workers in Alabama. There were some surprises but mostly it is stuff I have heard for years...good things and I think it might resonate with voters. I just don't see how we can use much of this in 18 or 20 in mostly red districts. You need a few simple issues that can resonate with voters. Income inequality is complicated.

[oberliner]

462. That story about Selma really hit me as well

I think it would have an impact - especially on African-American voters, who are the base of our party.