But it has no chance of passing...

[Garrett78]

The "no chance of passing" argument doesn't work for me. Nothing Democrats propose has a chance of passing right now, but we still need to make a push. The last thing we want to do is feed into the narrative that Democrats don't stand for anything or that Democrats aren't doing anything.

By putting forth legislation (imperfect thought it may be), even with Republicans in control, we send a message to would-be-voters and put forth a blueprint for what we could follow once we (hopefully) take back control.

A knee-jerk reaction to anything with a certain Senator's name attached to it is both transparent and unhealthy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. nah, not if you have a very very long history of proposing things and never ever

getting them accomplished

Look at this pragmatically, with zero credit to personality, then think about it for a while.

[Garrett78]

2. The "no chance of passing" argument applies to anything put forth by any Democrat right now.

So, do nothing and feed into the narrative that Dems don't do or stand for anything?

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. That part of your point is correct, but you dont have a group of politicians with a history of

doing it, only one

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Well that's bullshit right there. "Only one"

Just a couple weeks ago we heard endless bleating about how John Conyers introduced Single Payer legislation every year for a decade. But that was different...

[Garrett78]

19. Putting forth legislation when it has no chance of passing is nothing new or exclusive to Sanders.

It signals to prospective voters that Republicans are opposed to beneficial legislation. It signals to prospective voters that Democrats are for beneficial legislation. There is value in that; there always has been. And, again, it's nothing new.

That people only have an issue with it when Sanders is involved plays right into the hands of Nina Turner and her ilk. People are unwittingly biting off their nose to spite their face.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. Yep.

Last edited Sat May 12, 2018, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Remember when Bernie was the clarion voice?

But now some want to ignore that history over some left over grudges.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Hortensis]

89. False premise, Garrett. We OFTEN present legislation

when there is no chance of it being passed by the majority party. How is it you don't know this and as a result are posting a premise that amounts to disinformation?

Almost all of our issues are longstanding, and the bills you so mistakenly think we don't introduce aren't only new ones but often 2nd, 3rd,...10th-generation reiterations of previous bills, changed a bit and reintroduced by new sponsors to take a Democratic stand, force Republicans to shamefully oppose what they should support, and get that in the news and out to the public. As you want.

This happens in every state legislature dominated by Republicans as well.

If you occasionally scan the legal sections of any major national or state newspaper, as appropriate, you'll see frequent mentions of bills thought to be of interest to their readers.

Of course, newspapers do NOT cover by far most legislation Republicans introduce and pass, much less all the bills we introduce which have no chance of passing. For that you'll have to go to websites that do. Here's one.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/democratic_party/1883#current_status[]=16&terms=__ALL__&terms2=__ALL__

I don't know if it covers all the bills that are never allowed to be brought to the floor, though, and those are most of what we're talking about. Nevertheless, learning what we've been doing starting with this information alone should keep you busy for several days.

[Sophia4]

30. The Democratic Party used to win big enough majorities to get laws passed.

We were the party that accomplished a lot.

LBJ even accomplished Medicare, signed Civil Rights legislation and much other groundbreaking law.

Even Nixon was more creative and productive thanks in part to a lot of the Democrats in Congress.

The problems started with the oil price rises during the Nixon era that made Americans fear change and economic distress.

Since then, we have as a society, tried to avoid the necessary changes we need to survive in our changing world. Reagan and Bush were symptoms. Trump -- the onset of the disease.

Looking at this pragmatically, we are slowly descending (maybe not so slowly) into fascism, and we Democrats need to lead America up and forward toward a much better future. Our new technologies and the size of the world's population REQUIRE that we learn to work together while maintaining the individualism that permits creative ideas to flourish.

It isn't going to be easy, but we have to be far more open to new ideas, new proposals and new political conversations.

Our labor law, our healthcare law, our corporation law, our education, all of it needs to change. We don't need more repression. We need, however, to share the benefits of new technologies and opportunities more widely. That is what we need. It is going to take a lot of good will and determination on the part of Democrats to create the new world in which America can thrive.

Those who hold on to past ideas, methods and most important, the fear of new ideas and methods and organizational practices, will fail and cause our entire nation to sink as have so many nations and civilizations before us.

It's either move forward with new ideas or fail and revert to being a primitive, angry society.

[R B Garr]

33. Uh, no. Al Gore had new ideas. He was a genius ahead of

his time on climate change, But he got labeled, abused and discarded by those who are still demonizing Democrats. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and left office with a surplus to hand off to Gore, although there was a price to pay for him politically for some of his decisions.

These are not “new ideas”. People are not stupid.

[bettyellen]

51. Revisionist history- conveniently ignoring the southern strategy

Color me shocked.

[Sophia4]

73. The Southern strategy does not explain why we lost so many

Northern statehouses. The Democratic Party does not control the Senate, the House, the presidency and a majority of statehouses. We are not doing well.

Color me disappointed and dismayed.

We have to start working together and listening to the rank and file working people of America.

President Obama's administration was the cleanest, least corrupt administration in many decades in my experience. We should be proud of that and brag about it. He showed our country where we can go when it comes to clean politics and many other issues.

One big issue as we move into the last half of the Trump era will be corruption, the money culture in politics in the US. That is going to be huge, and we need a very honest, clean candidate to represent the values of the Democratic Party in 2020.

That's what I think. I am interested in what people expect will be the big issues in 2020 and how we can win back Congress and the presidency. I'm really not interested in arguing about the past, but I am interested in seeing us all, regardless which side we were on in 2016 working together toward winning in 2020.

Arguing about the past goes nowhere. It will not win back statehouses, Congress or the White House. But ignoring the split in our Democratic Party will also fail to elect Democrats in 2020.

I'm not too worried about 2018. I think we will make progress this year because Democratic voters are really disgusted with Trump. But we have to keep up the momentum for 2020 and that is the challenge because our Party is very divided. The energy spent fighting amongst ourselves should be spent on getting back control of Congress and electing a Democratic president in 2020.

[bettyellen]

74. Obama got tarred with the socialist give away healthcare to POC brush.....

Which is the southern strategy that reaches all the way to the “anxious” rust belt “rank and file” voter. They’re selfish and scapegoat people of color instead of the military as the cause of their “high taxes”.

If you’re going to look back, do it accurately.

[Sophia4]

79. On the other hand, African-Americans came out to support Obama.

But they did not come out in the same numbers in the 2016 election and vote for Hillary.

I was at the polls doing election protection work in 2008. I remember an African-American man who was so proud to vote for Obama that he had his picture taken in front of the polling place with a ballot in his hand. That enthusiasm did not exist among African-Americans in the general election in 2016. Hillary needed their votes.

The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

Something to keep in mind when picking candidates for 2020.

[bettyellen]

80. What lesson are you learning from these stats?

[Sophia4]

81. We need a candidate that inspires African-Americans to vote.

[bettyellen]

82. We need to stop them from being denied their vote too.

[Sophia4]

84. Absolutely. I'm way retired now. But when I was younger, I did election-

protection work. It's very important to protect the right of each American to vote.

That includes Californians. Do the math. We in California only get the equivalent of a portion of the vote a voter in Montana gets in presidential elections. That is due to the electoral college.

If people are serious about making sure every person can vote and have his/her vote counted, then they will get rid of the electoral college and insure we have a paper record of every vote, a record that can be counted after an election.

[KPN]

31. Nah, a long history of expressing the obvious

and proposing fundamental concepts that address the obvious which most in office have conveniently avoided talking frankly and publicly about for decades now. Two drastically different things.

Who moved the cheese?

[NCTraveler]

3. It's blatant self-promotion.

I don’t trust a guy on labor when he vigorously fought against a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people because of his bullshit purist labor concerns. By the way, those ten plus million million people were left in limbo while over the next couple of years what happened to visas?

The man is not to be trusted.

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. And every time he speaks, goes somewhere, blows his nose he gets a NEW

GD forum thread all his own and evidently that is the way it is here at DEMOCRATIC underground

When will GD and this board be ONLY for Democrats?

[Sophia4]

32. Whether DU likes Sanders or not, he has a large following that should be respected.

Without Sanders' voters, mainstream Democratic candidates especially in presidential elections do not do well.

It's a reality that may be painful to some, but it has to be dealt with.

That's where pragmatism is useful.

We have to have harmony -- at least no insulting each other -- within the Democratic voter base and Party as well as with people in other parties that will vote with us when push comes to shove.

The constant criticism of Bernie and his voters does not help unify a movement that will win in future elections.

I am sorry to have to remind people of that, but we should have won in 2018. We didn't, in part because Bernie voters were angry at what they viewed as heavyhandedness especially at the Democratic Convention.

DUers may disagree with the feelings and perceptions of Bernie voters, but the Democratic Party needs the Bernie voters come election time. And all the criticism of them does not bring them to join the Democratic Party or vote Democratic in elections. So many of Bernie's supporters were very young, so as time passes, they will become an even more essential part of the Democratic Party voting base.

We all need to focus on the values, the proposals that we can support together. We all need to compromise. It isn't just one group in the Democratic Party or the liberal or progressive movement that is refusing to forgive and forget. It is quite a dominant factor that will cause a big problem in the next presidential election. It does not affect local elections so much. It's the presidential election that requires a lot of good will no matter how hard it is to find it.

Forgive and forget or lose elections. That is the choice. It is a difficult one, but it is difficult for both the Bernie and the Hillary camps, and forgiveness and forgetting and working together have to happen if we are to win in 2020.

Pragmatism. That's what it means -- finding the true center requires giving in on all or in this case, both, sides.

It will either happen, or we will fragment.

[R B Garr]

34. Respect works both ways. It's not a one way street

where fans of a lost campaign get to continually express sour grapes. It’s interesting how this unity thing is only preached one way. No one bends over backwards for me and I still manage to vote right.

I haven’t seen much outreach from the Vermont people.

[Sophia4]

43. The strong have to help the weak.

The majority has to reach out to minorities.

When we talk about race, we all recognize that a minority cannot without support from the majority, correct the wrongs of the present and the past.

But when it comes to the political divide among Democrats, we all want the other side (not this or that side but the other side) to take the lead.

I have been married for over 50 years. My husband and I did not stay married because I waited for him to apologize when an apology was needed or because he waited for me to apologize every time an apology was needed. We both had to and have to apologize after the inevitable quarrels or disagreements.

Both sides of the divide in the Democratic Party have to come together and work out the problems in our Party.

If we don't all find the courage and the peacefulness within ourselves as well as the communication skills to speak about and with each other without rancor and anger, we as a Party and as a movement, are doomed.

It's hard to make up after a fight sometimes, but if we are to keep our Party and our nation on a safe and prosperous track, we have to do it. It's a matter of courage and a matter of letting go of anger and pride. We all have to do it.

Whoever we are, we have to take the responsibility for reaching out to those with whom we have disagreed. We have to take the responsibility to think and talk peace rather than anger. It's up to each of us. We have to remember that each of is us the only one who can make the difference in our own lives. We are each responsible for our own behavior, our own attitude, our own success and future when it comes to living in harmony with others.

Even when we see behavior in others that is truly objectionable (and there is lot to see within both sides of the Bernie divide in the Democratic Party right now), we have to have the strength to resolve differences without resorting to finger-pointing and behavior and ATTITUDES that actually defeat working together in harmony.

Remember, the Bernie folks LOST. That hurt.

Then the HILLARY folks LOST. And that hurt.

So everyone LOST. Everyone hurts.

One of the signs of maturity and wisdom is being able to have empathy for others when they hurt, to be able to feel their hurt.

Anger prevents us from having that empathy.

So we have to work on resolving the anger that is within us and turn it into self-knowledge and empathy.

I know that is a lot of gibberish, but if we Democrats are to win a large enough majority in Congress and also the White House to make our dreams for America real, we are going to have to do a lot of work on ourselves and join together with people we may not always agree with. That's how the cookie crumbles. That is the pragmatism, the realism we need. That is what will lead us to unity and success.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but you asked.

We have to get over the depression and anger. It isn't easy, but we just have to do it if we are to make our country a better place for everyone. Anger can move us to action, but it needs to be tempered with a lot of love if we are to truly help our country.

Democrats need to win the majorities in the Senate and House plus the presidency. If we don't do that, we could be headed for dangerous times if we aren't already there. So we have to set aside the anger that is dividing our Party.

[R B Garr]

57. The thing is that I remember your posts and they were

very different and markedly anti-Hillary to the point of irrationality. Certainly untruths, and that kind of demonization is what we are up against. You could speak a little about how wrong that was...? I’m thinking that would be a great place to start—an apology tour to show that maligning Democrats was wrong and unproductive. I am certainly waiting for Sanders apologies—there is still time. This is mostly regarding the OP where it is asking to free float ideas and that came to mind.

Anyway, Your whole tune was different before, and working against electing Hillary in the GE is why we have Trump. Maybe you could provide some insights into how sorry you think that was and acknowledge how those destructive efforts were responsible for the GOP to gain an advantage by helping Trump and Bernie (in the Mueller infictments).

I only wish that I could indulge myself as you seem to with proclamations about how wrong it is to continue demonizing Democrats when the reality is that Democrats like Gore and Clinton were decades ahead of other Senators with these ideas. We have to move past the inclinations to disavow the many good Democrats who came before and apologize for maligning them.

[Sophia4]

64. Your post speaks for itself.

We have to move past anger on both sides of the party.

Forgiving and forgetting -- a key is to forget. Hillary and Obama had to do that in 2008.

Just as you feel angry at Democrats who supported Bernie and did not support Hillary, those who supported Hillary rather than Bernie (not speaking of myself) feel angry at Democrats who did not support Bernie.

There is no way to bring harmony between these points of view considering the bitterness other than simply letting bygones be bygones and seeking to work together in the future.

Otherwise, Democrats are likely to lose again.

It is very natural that individuals on both sides believe they are right. In fact, most people in politics and life believe they are right. If there is to be harmony and working forward together, then people have to be able to believe they are right without focusing on the wrong beliefs of others, without nurturing the anger they feel.

We have to focus on what we share in terms of values and ideas, not on what separates us.

Many Republican candidates were hurt, very hurt by Trump's ugly epithets and statements to them. But when the election came, they overcame their disagreements and many who had supported other candidates in the primaries voted for Trump.

This did not happen in the Democratic Party. One reason, of course, is that the release of the DNC and Podesta e-mails made Bernie supporters feel that they were victims of collusion on the part of people who had a lot of power in the Party. I did not think that the e-mails were that unusual. People simply deal with each other in the way that the party leadership did in those e-mails. But the e-mails hurt the feelings of a lot of Bernie supporters. Similarly, the fact that many -- at least enough to prevent Hillary from winning -- Bernie supporters did not support Hillary in the general election hurt many Hillary supporters.

That is why I say there was hurt, hurt that was justified, on both sides.

So both sides need to forgive and forget if we are to win in 2020 and also to win Congress (not as challenging to forgive and forget in local races for either side).

While each side believes the other to be at fault and in some cases absolutely reprehensible, and while each of us is entitled to our opinion (and in this case our hurt) in a democracy, we only win in the future if we are able to unite enough voters to make a majority in the important states.

I am always aware that, in California where I live, our votes are not worth a lot in presidential races. My opinion and how I vote is irrelevant in those races. California will vote Democratic. I can rely on that. And my vote certainly irrelevant was in 2016, a year in which Hillary won by a large margin in California as well as in general across the country.


The problem for Democrats is that states like Michigan, Ohio, and the swing states did not provide enough votes for Hillary to give her an electoral college victory.

As I said, my vote in presidential elections, because of the electoral college, is quite irrelevant. And while in some recent past presidential elections, I traveled out of state to help campaign toward the final week and days of the election and earlier and did election protection work at the polls (always for Democrats), I did not do that in 2016.

Whether we can bring together enough votes to win not only the majority of all voters, but the majority in the crucial states depends on whether our fragmented, angry, hurt Party can heal itself, come together and find mutual empathy.

If we can't do that, then all the complaining on both sides will just result in more disappointment and anger and we will lose again. That's how life is. Sorry. But I have a lot of experience in life, and we owe responsibility to our entire country to forgive and forget and move on to succeed this fall and in 2020. The alternative is pretty horrible as we see.

[R B Garr]

70. Your post also speaks for itself. You didn't vote for Hillary and I've

already seen your manifesto and excuses as to why. There is also more to it than you are saying, and that is unfortunate. I'll just say that I've read more of your reasons on the JPR website, and it's unfortunate that we cannot talk more openly about the groups who openly organized to work against Hillary.

Refusing to vote for Hillary is why we have Trump. If someone didn't vote for Hillary and worked against her, then returning to tell people how to get Democrats elected is rather absurd and certainly not credible.

Your post is just more sour grapes, like I was saying previously. It looks like the unity thing is really one way -- how utterly absurd to tell Democrats that they need to cater to and/or roll out the red carpet and baby people. We are all adults and can see that electing Republicans is disastrous. That's why I was expecting some sign of reciprocity. When do I get my catering to and when does the apology tour start?

[Sophia4]

72. Who can best tell Democrats how to elect a president?

Well, those who supported Hillary had a chance in 2016 and did not succeed.

Similarly, those who supported Bernie had a chance in 2016 and also did not succeed.

In my view, neither segment of the Democratic Party can win in 2020 by itself. We've been there and done that . . . . It didn't work. It won't work.

My idea is that those who supported Hillary and those who supported Bernie really work together and try to figure out together how to elect the next president.

I repeat. What we all did in 2016, dividing the Party and feeling self-righteous about it afterward, did not work. I'm ready to admit that for my part.

I'm listening to what other people have to say on this topic.

But one thing I know is that neither the totally 100% backer of either Hillary or Bernie have the answer all by themselves.

The answer is somewhere in between, some answer that involves both Hillary and Bernie people working together. That's how we can win in 2020 as well as in 2018.

I think we have a good chance to do well in 2018 no matter what because the Hillary v. Bernie conflict is not so important at the local and state levels. But we are in terrible shape on those levels right now. We have to get the Democratic vote out. That's the challenge this year. Democrats are really, really fed up with Trump, so the turn-out this year should be good for Democrats everywhere.

It's the national, presidential election in 2020 that we need to think about, look toward and plan for. That's where Bernie and Hillary people either work together to win for Democrats, for liberals, for progressives, whatever you want to call it or prepare to lose again. Because that is the choice.

Do we work together and listen to each other and pay attention to what the other part of the Party is saying and thinking or do we lose the presidency again in 2020.

Everything else for me is of no importance.

I have traveled distances I did not want to travel, sat in a hotel room all by myself studying data, etc. things I never thought I could or ,would do, like many Democrats, to help candidates win offices -- and I'm not paid for that, never was paid for it. I'm a volunteer.

So I want to see the values of Democrats prevail. That is what I am here for. And that is why I am saying what I am saying. We have to work together if we are to win in 2020, and when I read the hate talk against a liberal, a progressive, a Democrat, here and elsewhere on the internet, I will speak in favor of working together.

I want a decent person who is not intent on corruption and taking advantage of the American people to win in 2020 -- and that means the person has to be a Democrat. I want to see a Democrat win in 2020. But if we want to win a majority of votes in the electoral college, we need a candidate who has no appearance of corruption because that is going to be a big issue as the Trump/Pence years come to a close. A major issue.

[R B Garr]

75. Your concern over "liberals" being maligned is a bit dubious, as it

looks more like you care that people are finally putting up some data against Sanders and it is not favorable. So you obviously realize that attacks against politicians are not good and you don't want that to happen to Sanders. In that regard, attacking Hillary was also not good. Hillary was outright sabotaged. Sabotaging Democrats is why we have Trump. We are up against all manner of demonization and it needs to be addressed.

The immediate fix, then, is obvious. Don't attack Democrats. That is what most folks have been saying for YEARS now. I notice your posts are always void of the current news regarding the Mueller indictments. It is now common knowledge that Hillary was sabotaged. Please read the Mueller indictments. I don't see how Sanders or anyone can continue without including these dramatic revelations in their speeches. He needs to adopt the current news and apologize for any rhetoric he used that was inflammatory against our party and contributed to the GOP using him as a means to sow divisiveness. That is really essential at this point.

And I see you are ready to pounce to label someone "corrupt." You use that term very freely. Calling Democrats "corrupt" on any level is not helpful. I doubt you want to see Sanders labeled "corrupt".

Working together is a great idea, starting with not calling Democrats corrupt and then insisting that only one man can save Democrats. I think we need to be honest with voters. If your policies include endless wish lists, then say so. Don't imply that Democrats are against you because the wish list items are not produced immediately. That is just not realistic and is very damaging.

Our whole world would have been better with Gore as President. Same with Hillary. Instead we got Bush and Trump. We cannot afford the irrational attacks on our very qualified candidates anymore. This much should be obvious.

[Sophia4]

78. If Californians' votes counted equally with those in other states, Hillary and Gore

would be/have been president.

Basta.

But since we have the electoral college, we have to think strategically.

We have to choose candidates who speak to the problems of working people in a rapidly changing economy in the swing states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, etc.

Looking back at past elections is helpful depending on what lessons you draw from them.

I support the Mueller investigation. Can't even imagine that someone would doubt that I do. But the fact is that if the rest of the country had voted for Hillary in the relative numbers that California did, she would be president.

The problem was, Russians or not, that the people in the swing states in the Midwest, and I did not begin to name them all, did not vote for Hillary.

And in 2020 if Hillary and Bernie supporters have not made up by then, we will have a disastrous repeat of 2016.

I'm looking toward the future. Ethics and corruption will be huge issues in 2020. We need to choose a candidate, together, who is nearly above reproach and who is prepared to deal with the corruption smirches that will come about.
The candidate has to also be beyond reproach on race and economic issues. That's who we are looking for.

There is a lot of loyalty to this or that potential candidate. I am truly open. But the candidate who is nominated has to be nearly, as nearly as possible, above reproach and trustworthy when it comes to ethics (and every person who wants to run needs to question him- or herself on this because his or her opponents are going to ram him or her fully on these issues), race and the economy.

That person also has to have a public profile. And it is hard to be nearly above reproach on ethics and corruption and have a public profile.

I am not going to sink to the level of personal attacks. This is not about me -- or you -- or any other individual.

It isn't about Hillary or Bernie either.

It is about 2020. And it is to win the election in 2020 that we need to unite.

[Uncle Joe]

83. +1

[R B Garr]

85. It's absurd to try and influence people not to vote in California just because the

state is huge. That is what was going on and apparently part of your strategy, as you say often that it doesn't matter that you didn't vote for Hillary because you live in California. The problem is that the strategy also extended to other states, and some states like Michigan and the other states you reference. It was a disastrous policy and certainly self-serving. Anyone who participated in those strategies to influence people against our nominee certainly does not have a clue how to get people elected. There was a Buster's group -- you may recall them as I recall your posts about your participation. That was a very damaging strategy. I think those groups refused to vote for the Democrat in the GE if Bernie wasn't on the ballot. Do you recall the details of that group?? Those strategies don't help get Democrats elected, and from what you say -- electing Democrats is your number one goal, which is great to hear.

It's also absurd to think that the Midwest or some swing states are ever going to vote like a liberal/blue state like California. It's just a fool's errand to even begin to undermine a Democrat because they don't dominate some of those states as that is unlikely to happen consistently. Actually, the prolonged attacks on Hillary looked more like backhanded attacks against Bill C by stirring up hate and discontent over NAFTA. Some of those attacks weren't really useful or necessary or even honest. They certainly didn't help elect Democrats and that is your number one goal.

Changing the electoral college certainly is a distant and elusive conversation. It is the system we have right now. Reality.

Your musings about ethics are also very subjective and are more about personality. We've already seen that some candidates are held to different standards within our own party. For instance, some would say that not releasing tax returns is a sign of poor ethics, and we know the GOP will attack and just manufacture conspiracy theories like we see on that JPR site about Hillary. People can make up their own mind about ethics. We are not the church people and it isn't our place to impose some contrived ethics on others just because we like one candidate. Vetting is important -- vetting them completely, which is something not every candidate is subjected to. A huge mistake. The Russians used that against us to promote their preferred candidate, Trump. They used the divisive attacks on Democrats to help him.

Well, this thread was about talking about wish-list legislation, so my input remains that it shouldn't be used as wedge issues to turn people against Democrats. Conyers is a good example of proposing values legislation without demonizing Democrats. Discussing values is far different than accusing people of being out of touch for not working for The People.

So glad to see you are on board and focused on getting Democrats elected! Thank you.

[Garrett78]

86. This idea that there are 2 distinct wings within the Democratic Party is not helpful.

There are a lot of people, especially young people, who will buy into that narrative and not vote for Democratic candidates. We can't afford for that to happen.

I think the knee-jerk reaction to anything involving Sanders is unhealthy (it's gotten to a point where some Democrats are opposed to good ideas simply because Sanders agrees with those ideas), but so is the notion that there are 2 distinct wings within our party.

[Sophia4]

87. I don't like the thought of it either..

But when I read some of the posts . . . .

On the one hand, I understand the disappointment.

On the other, we need more than ever, in the face of the Trump movement which has a lot of support from maybe a third of the voters, to be united and to continue to be united.

We share the same values. We may disagree on details. But basically, all Democrats and members and voters of parties that are liberal or progressive have the same dream for America. We need to be unified. That does not mean we have to march in lock-step. But we shouldn't hate each other. And we should nominate candidates that we can all agree on (if at all possible).

Also, when one person wins a primary, that person needs to really reach out to the disappointed candidate and voters who lost in that primary. That is essential. It can't just be a superficial act. It has to really be believable to those who backed the losing candidate and feel disappointed. That is essential.

It's like winning anything. You have to be a good sport and reach out to comfort those who lost. It's part of living in a society that is healthy and does not resolve differences with war or hatred or anger. The winner is responsible for insuring that harmony is reinstated after a primary.

It's hard, but that is important. It is especially important for Democrats. Many, many Americans rely on our policies for their health, their education, their jobs, their welfare. We cannot let them down by sinking to infighting. That is beneath us.

[JNelson6563]

39. Really? lol

I'd like to see you wade into a cluster of the bros out on the tubes, swarming anyone not a bro and lecture them n pragmatism. Seriously. Toss out "pragmatism" and, maybe for shits and giggles, toss in "compromise" and see what happens.

[Autumn]

48. Here's the best place to ask that question, it's the best place for any question.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. With 14 unanswered questions on the first two pages of ATA, I have a feeling they know ....

... where those questions belong.

[Autumn]

62. 14? I'll remember to check before I bother to answer a question

again.

[Garrett78]

7. As long as people are consistent.

Oppose all things Sanders-related, or oppose anything put forth by a Democrat because it has "no chance of passing." Just be honest and consistent.

And what do we say about all of those Democrats who support legislation that has Sanders's name attached to it? Are we going to bash the likes of Kamala Harris as opportunists?

[NCTraveler]

8. I do appreciate the fact...

That some names with legislative experience are attached to it. Said names also bring a certain level of trust, almost making up for Sanders involvement.

[Demsrule86]

10. They don't want to get on the bad side of Sander's supporters.

[KPN]

35. Oh the immigration thing again. The same

exaggeration and caricature of Sanders as being vehemently anti-immigration/immigration as before -- with virtually no (heaven forbid) consideration of the details of Sanders' position or, for that matter, even the party's past, almost identical history re: positions on immigration. Bernie at least was interested genuinely in protecting American workers. Does anyone here remember HRC saying she was against illegal immigrants way back when? Only those who choose to.

So transparent.

[NCTraveler]

50. I included his main point of contention.

I promise he had others as well. They rose above the level of a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people, in his mind.

Again? Yes, again. Why would that point you make be a concern? Is the topic not important enough? How many votes away were we? How many Republicans joined Sanders?

[KPN]

61. They didn't rise above. Time we stopped

letting ourselves be placed in either or situations. In the big picture, that's one the reasons we are where we are today. And it isn't a pretty picture. They rose to the same level for Sanders. From a party perspective we would do well to take a they are equally important perspective. Not doing so amounts to ignoring frustrations; frustrations equal votes for or against us.

[NCTraveler]

88. Horibble justification you just gave...

As reasoning for acceptance of oppression.

The legislation was big picture. It was stopped by nationalistic racists unable to overcome their small minded passion for purity.

[Squinch]

5. OK. Go with that.

[Demsrule86]

9. It is pointless.

[Garrett78]

11. It isn't pointless for reasons mentioned in the OP.

If Democrats are to not put forth any legislation just because Republicans are in control, then don't complain about the resulting narrative.

[Tavarious Jackson]

54. Is this the idea you are talking about?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/

[Gothmog]

12. At least Sanders justified his unrealistic proposals with a promise of a magical voter revolution

I live in the real world. None of sanders proposals could be adopted in the real world without a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters rose up to force the GOP to be reasonable. Unrealistic proposals are silly in my opinion and I rejected Sanders early on because I knew that there would be no magical voter revolution. I was correct. Sanders got the same level of support as Dean did in 2004 and Bradley in 2000.

I saw the effect of selling unrealistic proposals to voters at the National Convention. i was a Clinton delegate. Sanders supporters at the convention staged a stunt where they booed Congressman John Lewis. The Clinton delegate warned its delegates of this stunt 20 or more minutes before it occurred. My youngest daughter was my guest at the convention and she was attacked by Sanders delegates and called the c-word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. Making proposals that have no chance of being adopted can backfire in the real world.

I like living in the real world and I do not believe in magic. Making proposals that have no chance of passing is a waste of time. There are real problems to focus on such as voter suppression. Instead of relying on unrealistic proposals, some of us believe that we need to work in the real world.

Have fun but remember that magic does not work in the real world.

[George II]

13. Where is that revolution? Reminds me of a song.

[NurseJackie]

14. I live in the Real World also...

... no magic for me. I've had quite enough of all those pie-in-the-sky unfunded promises.

None of sanders proposals could be adopted in the real world without a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters rose up to force the GOP to be reasonable.

But why would these billions of new voters want to join a party that is so derided? The fact is this: Only ONE party can force the GOP to be reasonable. Yet, that ONE party is the one that's smeared more often than any other party.

All I'm trying to say is that type of unrealistic behavior along with the attacks on on Democrats make no good sense at all. It makes me wonder what the ACTUAL goal may be.

[Garrett78]

16. I made no mention of specific legislation. Nothing Dems propose right now has a chance of passing.

Last edited Sat May 12, 2018, 04:03 PM - Edit history (2)

So, Dems shouldn't put forth any legislation, right? Not about voter suppression, not about gerrymandering, not about racial profiling, not about gun control, not about higher education, not about health insurance, not about jobs, not about infrastructure, not about protecting the natural environment. Nothing.

Have you said the same thing about John Conyers and other Democrats over the years repeatedly putting forth legislation that has no chance of passing?

Forget about Sanders. There's no value in signaling to prospective voters that Republicans oppose legislation that would benefit them? There's no value in signaling to prospective voters that Democrats will push for X, Y and Z if they take back control?

Let's just feed into the bullshit narrative that Democrats don't stand for anything and aren't doing anything. Yep, that's a brilliant strategy. Gee, I can't imagine why Republicans have the White House, US House, US Senate, a clear majority of state legislatures and a clear majority of governorships.

And I'm not sure why you mention being a delegate in nearly every post. It's just...weird. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Gothmog]

25. Democrats are indeed making proposals but they are proposals that can be adopted

Democratic candidates are making proposals that are realistic and Democratic voters in the primaries are voting for these democtratic candidate. That is why normal democratic candidates are winning over Our Revolution endorsed candidates.

I noticed that you are pushing one of sanders proposals on another thread https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210606273 Making proposals that can only be passed with the help of a magical revolution is not a good idea. Sanders tried this and it failed. Sanders campaigned solely on the concept that his proposals would be magically adopted due to a magical voter revolution. Without that magical voter revolution, even Sanders admitted that his platform could not be adopted https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

Magical thinking does not work in the real world. Sanders has failed to adopt any meaningful legislation in the real world including in his own state but sanders is willing to heckle the Democratic Party and claim that his magical proposals are realistic.

I am not the only one to note that Sanders would not be able to get his proposals adopted in the real world. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what Without a magical voter revolution, the premise of the OP is correct.

The real world is a nice place. I prefer candidates who live in the real world who propose programs that can be adopted. That is why I strongly disagree with the premise of your OP

[Sophia4]

36. The United States was formed based on what seemed at the time to the supporters

of the British king to be "magical" thinking.

Many of the policies that Sanders and other Democratic leaders are proposing have been working in other countries for years. Germany has been way ahead of us when it comes to universal healthcare since the 19th century (the 1800s).

When Democrats say that improvement is impossible, that we cannot as a nation join the community of nations that lives better and in more harmony than we do as a nation, it is a very, very sad day.

And it is that attitude of "we can't" -- we can't have fair labor laws, we can't have strong unions, we can't have universal healthcare (healthcare that is there for us when we are sick and most need it), we can't have good education, we can't provide really good pre-school for every American child who needs it, we can't do what other countries have been doing for decades if not for a century, we can't improve our lives and those of all Americans. We can't. We can't. We can't.

Oh, as President OBAMA always said, "Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can."

What kind of Party are we if losing one election makes us so depressed that we think we can't.

Of course, Democrats should propose new ideas and lead the way into the future.

All Democrats should do that. The naysaying will get us nowhere. Not all ideas will immediately come into fruition, but that is OK.

Think about a 10-month-old facing the terrifying, daunting, difficult task of standing up and taking his/her first steps. If that baby thinks, "I can't," it won't.

I had a very intelligent daughter who refused to walk until she was almost a year and a half. She was too smart to take the risk. Why walk if you can get where you want (no steps to climb) crawling?

Right now, a lot of Democrats are just afraid of change, afraid of new ideas. That is going to lead to defeat unless we all change and discuss the new ideas. We don't have to support all of them, but we need to think about them, about how we can place our country on a path of more harmony and more prosperity for everyone.

What is the right policy or group of policies for the people in coal-mining areas now that coal is losing its place as the fuel of many American areas? What about the challenges we face as fossil fuels in general need to be replaced?

How do we make sure that Americans can get the healthcare they need when they need it without falling into poverty?

What about the many homeless people among us? What are we going to do to make sure that people have housing?

What about immigration? What is the rational response? What duty if any do we have to refugees? How do we treat our fellow human beings around the world?

Do we need to make changes in our laws in order to protect the environment?

How do we prepare our young people for the jobs of today and tomorrow?

I could go on and on.

Why disparage anyone on the left who is trying to find solutions to these problems, answers to these questions.

In my view all the mean talk about this one or that one is a waste of time.

Let's focus on issues and leave the depression and anger about 2016 behind us when we post on line. Let's get together and win in 2020. (And this fall.)

[Garrett78]

40. Let's hope more affordable higher education is a Democratic proposal, and not a "Sanders" proposal.

This is what I'm talking about. More affordable higher education, universal health insurance and things of that nature have the support of an overwhelmingly high percentage of the population...with good reason. It has nothing to do with Sanders.

We also need to push for the broadening and strengthening of labor unions.

There is not a single proposal that Dems can make right now that will be adopted. Not one. That shouldn't stop us from putting forth proposals that are in line with our platform.

[R B Garr]

15. What is transparent and unhealthy is what you describe

is not what is happening. In the real world, Democrats are being demonized over these imposed purity tests. That is what is transparent and unhealthy. That is why we have Trump. That is why we got Bush.

[Garrett78]

17. I've been highly critical of Sanders, didn't vote for him and oppose purity tests. That said...

...the responses in this thread prove my point. The likes of Nina Turner want to sell this bullshit narrative that there are 2 distinct wings within the Democratic Party: progressive Dems and corporate Dems or progressive Dems and mainstream/establishment Dems.

Some of the very people who are rightfully critical of Turner are playing right into her hands.

There is now this knee-jerk reaction to proposals that Democrats should be getting behind (universal health care, broadening and strengthening labor unions, more affordable higher education, etc.). Proposals that some Democrats seem to think are just fine, so long as Sanders isn't involved in any way. That's not healthy, and it plays right into Turner's hands. It will not help our cause in 2018 and beyond, especially when it comes to young voters.

I don't want Sanders to run in 2020, and I suspect most DU posters are with me on that. So, it would be best to undermine the likes of Turner by not feeding into her narrative.

[R B Garr]

20. You referenced in another post a....

“bullshit narrative” that Democrats don’t stand for anything. That’s the exact kind of demonizing that is going on. It has really gotten out of hand. Your whole thread is yet another hostile attempt to categorize Democrats for demonization when or if it suits you. This whole episode is divisive.

Who gives a crap about a nobody like Nina Turner. She’s a hypocrite and Jill Stein wannabe. Look up who helped raise money for her Ohio campaign —Bill Clinton! So apparently the Clintons’ aren’t so bad when you want something out of them. Such sickening phoniness.

Seriously, this is really out of hand. Talking about whimsies meant to promote one man is not everyone’s bag. Why not talk about how half the people with health insurance have it through their employer and are happy with it. Why not start with getting a public option. Once you go all or nothing, you wind up with nothing and just turn people off .

It’s really absurd that people have to be subjected to an endless campaign and demonization. It’s why I don’t listen to get rich quick schemes or other time wasters. Real world focus is what we need. It’s not like anyone has any “progress” to point to show how it was done in his state....

[Garrett78]

21. What I want is for people to stop feeding that narrative.

My thread is about the need to put forth legislation even when it has no chance of passing, which is true for any legislation put forth by Democrats right now (on gun control, racial profiling, higher education, health insurance, you name it).

Doing so is nothing new, nor is it exclusive to Sanders. As another poster pointed out, John Conyers has repeatedly done so.

There is value in signaling to prospective voters what Democrats are for and what Republicans oppose.

A knee-jerk reaction to anything involving Sanders only plays into the hands of those who wish to demonize.

[R B Garr]

23. Again, that is NOT what is happening.

It is used as a purity test and good Democrats are being demonized. Just the fact that you are using that as a tactic here proved it.

John Conyers is a Democrat. He doesn’t demonize Democrats. Quit demonizing Democrats. Conyers doesn’t push “bullshit narratives” that Democrats don’t stand for anything.

[Garrett78]

41. I didn't say he does. Conyers has repeatedly put forth legislation that has no hope of being adopted

Yet nobody says boo when he and other Democrats do it. Again, I'm not a Sanders fan. The point is there is benefit to putting forth legislation even when it has no chance of passing.

What is used as a purity test? I would hope every Democrat wants to make higher education more affordable. I would hope every Democrat supports what's in our platform.

[R B Garr]

58. You continue to misrepresent what is happening.

Conyers doesn’t say that Democrats are out of touch or imply they are corrupt because they work for their constituents. I doubt you don’t know that these “ideas” are being used as a purity test.

[Garrett78]

71. Let go of the Sanders obsession. This isn't really about Sanders.

It's about the value in putting forth legislation even when it has no chance of being adopted.

[R B Garr]

76. AGAIN. That is NOT what is happening. What is happening is that

wish list legislation is being used as a wedge against Democrats to promote one man. That is the reality of it. That is what is happening. Conyers didn't do that to Democrats.

YOU are the one who brought up Conyers, and my reply was that Conyers doesn't demonize Democrats.

If you want to saturate people with policies that are far-fetched, then don't accuse Democrats or imply that they are not working hard enough for The People.

People are not stupid. This is really about Sanders.

[Gothmog]

27. I am active with the local Indivisible and some other grass root groups

People are worried about losing their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and are not concerned about proposals that have no chance of passing. At one town hall, I heard 20+ participants worry about losing the Affordable Care Act and not one mention of any of Sanders proposals.

I am busy working in the real world for real candidates. I do not care what Nina Turner or Our Revolution are proposing. I want candidates who can live in the real world

[jalan48]

24. We've evolved from issues based politics to cult of personality.

Deification of leaders won't be far down the road.

[KPN]

37. Oh, I think we've already gone there.

[Uncle Joe]

45. A direst result from decades of the corporate media conglomerates propaganda brainwashing.

Image, celebrity, style, the horse race, scandal and superficial fluff has been the order of the day with them, non-stop coverage.

Substantive in depth coverage of the critical issues of the day that can and does mean life and death to millions of Americans is sluffed off during election season as so much dead skin.

To the CMCs which make mega-bucks during campaign season, it's all one big reality T.V. show.

[jalan48]

47. I thought it really took off with Reagan. A mediocre (was he really President?) person elevated to

the point where there was talk of putting his face on the dime and possibly Mt Rushmore.

[Uncle Joe]

55. This is a good analysis of the early days in how the corporate media shaped America's mentality.

(snip)


The American news media connected the American diplomats held captive in Tehran to ordinary Americans, making the public very concerned and invested in the hostages’ well-being and rescue. Media networks worked to make ordinary Americans feel as though they too were the victims of acts of terrorism, by individualizing the hostages and focusing on the private sphere of their lives as citizens serving their country. Families of hostages became new figures in American public life, as they gave interviews for news networks, held their own press conferences, and attended commemorative events in local communities, effectively granting them “status as moral agents in the realm of politics.” The media successfully tied the hostages with domesticity and innocence, against a backdrop of terrifying angry Iranians who sought to taint the spirit of the United States, and that which it stood for. In the American media, “the hostages were identified with … emotions, and domesticity, rather than diplomacy, officialdom, or politics.” By depoliticizing the hostages, the media successfully identified the hostages as innocent private individuals under attack by radical militant Iranians, touching sympathy and inciting fury in Americans across the nation. Thus the media brought the hostage situation from thousands of miles away on the opposite side of the world into everyday life of Americans at home.

The American media portrayed the Iranian Hostage Crisis as a direct attack on the United States, and on Americans everywhere, successfully dramatizing the issue beyond its initial extent. By providing such a high pedestal for the crisis to be viewed by Americans through their television sets, the media played into the hands of the hostages’ captors by giving the Ayatollah, his followers, and indeed all of Iran, “a stage on which to air their grievances against the United States.” This action gave leverage to the Iranians as they not only controlled the lives of over fifty American hostages, but also knew they could directly influence public opinion within the United States itself. The hostages became symbols of the United States becoming too involved in governing the decisions of the Iranian people, and thus the captors set out to prove that Iran was capable of defying the United States.

The siege of the American embassy and the holding of the hostages represented more of an ideological than personal confrontation, and the influence of the American news media directly hurt the United States’ standing in the conflict with Iran. Quickly soon after the seizure of the embassy, ABC broadcasted a special called America Held Hostage, which would later air as the well-known Nightline.[ii] The title of the show itself showed the perception and the goals of networks such as ABC and NBC at the time; rather than titling the special Americans Held Hostage, ABC portrayed the entire nation as being held captive to radical anti-American Iranians, casting a shadow of fear and anxiety over the United States. The portrayal by the news media of the hostage crisis as a direct attack upon the United States was perhaps best put on display by Frank Reynolds, anchor for ABC. Following the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw, a failed rescue mission which resulted in the death of eight Americans, Reynolds opened his news broadcast with a summary of the operation: “We tried, we failed, and we have paid a price.” Reynolds, like the rest of the media at the time, successfully turned the Iranian Hostage Crisis into an issue affecting Americans at home. ABC’s early detailed coverage of the crisis riveted American audiences, who in turn, “watched the evening news in unprecedented numbers in the first weeks after the embassy takeover.” President Jimmy Carter elevated the hostage crisis further into the public eye by declaring that the hostages’ fate was the top priority of the President.[iii] However, neither the White House nor American media officials thought in the beginning that the hostage crisis would drag on for as long as it did. As the months passed, rather than receding from the public eye, the Iranian hostage crisis mushroomed in publicity over time, as Americans grew increasingly anxious about the situation in Tehran, and news media continued to extensively cover the situation with daily updates directly into American living room television sets.[iv]

American news media networks portrayed the Iranian Hostage Crisis in a manner that exaggerated the conflict and focused on immediate threats. At a time when most Americans had very little understanding of international politics, the media dramatized the hostage crisis in Tehran and broadcasted nightly updates with a greater sense of imminence and urgency than what was necessary.[v] On the sixth night of the conflict, ABC’s Nightline anchor Frank Reynolds said, “the crisis in Iran is more urgent than [domestic politics].” In its early days, the networks framed the issue in attempt to maximize viewership across the nation. In 1980, “coverage of the hostages in Iran took up more than 20 percent of all television news; on ABC, coverage averaged 4.1 minutes out of every 22 minute broadcast.” The news networks clearly jumped on the opportunity to cover the hostage crisis for Americans back home. It was the first opportunity for news networks to draw viewers from across the nation, and the great length and continual coverage of the crisis attracted the viewers necessary to establish a late night news show. At the time, local news sources were the dominant way Americans kept up with politics, but in 1972, television established itself as the main medium for discussing hostage crises, with its coverage of the captivity and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.[vi] ABC especially took advantage of the hostage situation, as the crisis began at a time when the network was losing in the competition for viewership to their main rival NBC and Johnny Carson.[vii] All of the American news networks had strong incentives to maximize their viewership, and thus dramatized the conflict in order to attain the most viewers throughout the country.

(snip)

http://vanderbilthistoricalreview.com/iranian-hostage-crisis/

[jalan48]

59. Thanks. This is good stuff. I remember every night on the news the networks announced this was day x

of the hostage crisis, updating it every night. It was a great boon for Reagan leading up to election day. Interestingly enough, the hostages were released within hours after Reagan was sworn in. Given that his Vice President was George Bush Sr., former head of the CIA, I've thought there was more to it than we were allowed to know.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Yes day 1 day 2 day 3 day 4 day 5 all the way up to 444 and they didn't call it

Americans held hostage it was America held hostage.

I believe that's when the corporate media soon to be corporate media conglomerates first realized the power they held in regards to emotional brainwashing propaganda.

[jalan48]

63. It makes a person wonder about the entire political set-up.

[Uncle Joe]

65. To understand it, all one has to do is be like Mueller

and "follow the money."

And we're talking about BIG money.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that fossil fuel corporations spending hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions on commercial purchases over the years hasn't influenced the corporate owners of the media in their short shrift coverage of global warming climate change.

The same holds true for universal healthcare, "we can't do it" it's "too expensive" "higher taxes" with virtually no in depth coverage of other nations' health care systems and how it could economically benefit the vast majority of Americans not mention improve health, reduce stress, eliminate bankruptcy due to medical bills. If anyone out there believes that Big Pharma spending hundreds of millions pushing their opiate drugs on televisions around the nation on a daily basis as if it were Certs didn't/doesn't have a major impact on corporate media conglomerate coverage, then I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

CNN had an article (I don't remember if it was a poll or not) a few years back wherein the most revolutionary creation/invention of the 20th century was the Internet.

So naturally one would expect the political leader that was on the leading edge of passing the legislation that opened the Internet for the American People would be given ample credit for his vision and persistence in democratizing information for all the people. However that wouldn't be taking into account the money and propaganda power lost by that same corporate centric media to the Internet, so they trashed him instead.

[jalan48]

67. I think you are right. Big money leads the way and our government/military helps grease the wheels.

Perhaps climate change will be the great equalizer.

[Uncle Joe]

68. I don't believe a sizable percentage of billionaire/oligarch types think of it that way,

more like culling of the herd.

Note the one potential example that CNN omits in this article is the potential catastrophic effects of global warming climate change.

"Say "doomsday bunker" and most people would imagine a concrete room filled with cots and canned goods.

The threat of global annihilation may feel as present as it did during the Cold War, but today's high-security shelters could not be more different from their 20th-century counterparts.

A number of companies around the world are meeting a growing demand for structures that protect from any risk, whether it's a global pandemic, an asteroid, or World War III -- while also delivering luxurious amenities.

"Your father or grandfather's bunker was not very comfortable," says Robert Vicino, a real estate entrepreneur and CEO of Vivos, a company he founded that builds and manages high-end shelters around the world.

(snip)


https://www.cnn.com/style/article/doomsday-luxury-bunkers/index.html

On the plus side those are some pretty looking bunkers on the link.

[jalan48]

69. I read about the boltholes that the super rich are creating in different parts of the world.

To me they are only creating their own jails. Can you imagine the constant worry and paranoia for those people who have everything to lose? When will the barbarians break through the defenses, much like the Romans holed up in Rome while the barbarians were literally at the gates.

[RandySF]

26. Context?

[Fresh_Start]

28. If Bernie truly wanted to have a more progressive USA

he would announce that he is NOT running for the 2020 Presidency
And he wants all of his supporters to vote for democrats in all primaries and elections.

He would apologize for misleading his supporters by claiming that the Democratic party is no different than the Republican party.

He would tell his bros to grow the f-up and use their brains.
He would explain like louis c did earlier today, how the numbers work.

He would become a team player.

I give it a 0% chance that he will do any of the above.

[TheSmarterDog]

29. +1000

Attacking Democrats & The Democratic Party never helps enact a liberal/progressive agenda.

[KPN]

38. But, but, but ... a million buts, a million

ways to stick a shiv in anything Bernie. Way more important than discussion of policy. Way more important, it seems, than economic justice.

[ismnotwasm]

42. That is not my issue

My issue is political grandstanding, especially when there are so many working so godamned hard on so many issues; labor for example. An issue that people have lost jobs over, lost everything over, lost lives. I have friends and co-workers dedicated to fair labor.

When I see any one person—I don’t care who the fuck it is, put forth as some kind of solitary soldier, when I know, I KNOW, it’s bullshit, I not only get pissed off, I question the source and motives. I refuse to waste my time on this shit. There is a Supreme Court case pending that could change labor as we know it in my state. Fuck the look at me crap.

[Garrett78]

44. Regarding the specific piece of legislation to which I think you're referring...

...many Democrats are behind it. Sanders just happens to be one of them. If Sanders wasn't one of them, I'm sure it would have more support...and that plays right into the hands of Nina Turner and her ilk.

Kamala Harris, who I'm hoping will be the next POTUS, is supporting the legislation. I don't give a rip if Sanders is involved or not. Good legislation is good legislation.

[ismnotwasm]

46. I know this

I still resent the criticism of the Democrats not jumping all over it—There is other shit going on. It pisses me off. Bernie Sanders does what Bernie Sanders does. He should get exactly the amount of credit he deserves. no more, no less.

[Cha]

56. Thank you for this, ism!

Totally agree with your assessment of the situation.

[Kaleva]

49. Dems have sponsored 5020 bills so far in the 115th Congress

So I'm rather baffled by your assertion that "The last thing we want to do is feed into the narrative that Democrats don't stand for anything or that Democrats aren't doing anything.".

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/democratic_party/1883#sponsor_party=Democrat&terms=__ALL__&terms2=__ALL__

[Tavarious Jackson]

53. Are you talking about Hillary union idea?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/

[treestar]

66. I have no problem with that; what I have a problem with

is when it indeed does not pass, calling the Democrats spineless and claiming they should have gotten it through somehow.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

77. Good idea.

Time to perfect the Bills and hone several. Then we can hit the ground running. One bill..."Reinstatment of The Obama Administration Achievements.", "Corporate Reform", and "Medicare for All." "De scheduling and Legalizing Marijuana.", for starters. Reinstate Bans on Mining and Drilling on Public lands.