It's tragic that some people are fighting to get this party to nominate a status quo candidate

[Ken Burch]

a candidate who(having taken corporate money)can't be capable of caring about the poor and the powerless.

a candidate who doesn't want anything ever to change in the way this party is run.

a candidate who doesn't want this country to change.

a candidate who still harbors the delusion that war can help women or children.

a candidate who thinks we should all work for change solely "within the system&quot i.e., that we should STOP working for change).

a candidate who thinks that, because her generation failed to defeat the powers-that-be in the Sixties, no one else could ever do it and no one else should ever be given the chance to try.

Fine, she'll be not-as-bad as the knuckledraggers if nominated and elected. But why should we ever again, after 2000, have had to settle for "not as bad"?

[DanTex]

1. You're blinded by your hatred of Hillary. This OP is absurd.

"can't be capable of caring about the poor and the powerless."

Do you even read this stuff before you post it?

[Ken Burch]

2. I don't hate her as a person.

It's just that the much-less-progressive candidate in the primaries can never be a progressive president.

Voting for her in the primaries is voting to give up on anything ever really changing.

She's mundanely competent, but a person committed to hawkish policies can't be transformative in office.

No one anywhere is actually excited about HRC being elected. Even you don't can't think she'll ever stand for the people.

BTW, you have shown far more hate for Bernie, a candidate who has stood for nothing but good, than I have for HRC. I'll support her if nominated, but we both know she can't be anything but lesser-evil, that nothing she can do in office can ever liberate anyone.

[DanTex]

4. You said she "can't be capable of caring about the poor and the powerless."

That's absurd, and it comes from a place of irrational hatred. Bernie would never say anything like that, because he knows it's not true.

By the way, I know plenty of people who are excited about HRC being elected. So you're wrong about that too.

[Ken Burch]

9. Not hatred...realism about what taking Wall Street money means.

The only reason anyone in the corporate world would ever give money to a Democrat would be to buy that Democrat's support in the corporate fight to make life ever worse for workers and the poor.

If she had just always stayed the person she was in 1972, it would be different. It she had never helped found the DLC(at the very least, if she would admit there was no good reason ever to found the DLC), It might prove me wrong.

Wall Street doesn't give people money without expecting something massive in return.

[DanTex]

13. So in your view, everyone who works for a corporation wants to make life worse for

workers and the poor. No wonder y'all have such a hard time winning elections.

[Ken Burch]

18. Not the ones at the ground level, like bank clerks.

Or support staff. Or people in the call centers.

But nobody on the corporate boards still cares about anyone with less than them.

There is no such thing as a progressive, egalitarian investment banker, for example.

Getting corporate money has never strengthened us as a party. It did nothing for us when Coehlho started pushing us down that path in the Eighties, and it had the effect of turning us into a party that looked down on people who weren't on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley or among the tiny minority of people(most of whom are the sort of young white elitists who complain about having to see the homeless as their chauffeurs drive them to work) in the "knowledge industry".

The great majority of the population have been left out in the cold in the post-1980 economy. Why the hell don't we try standing up and fighting for them, for a change?

[DanTex]

19. OK, so anyone in management is evil. In your view, there should be no management.

And people who start at the ground level and then get promoted, they become evil. And people who go to college and study hard so that they can get a better job with higher pay, that's evil too.

There is no such thing as a progressive, egalitarian investment banker, for example.

How many investment bankers do you know? Because I live in NY, and I know plenty of progressives who work on Wall St and think there should be more redistribution of wealth, and higher taxes on the rich (which includes them).

Maybe you're so quick to judge so many people simply because you don't know any of them.

[choie]

39. Clinton is supposed to be working for we the people

Not for corporations, or do you think corporations are people too?

[DanTex]

41. And she is.

[choie]

42. How?

[DanTex]

44. Lots of ways.

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

[NorthCarolina]

48. I think it is referring tp "politicians" who take money from corporate interests in exchange

for allegiance to their cause. Like money coming in from the fossil fuel industry in exchange for supporting things like fracking, dirty oil pipelines over water aquifers, etc.

Don't really see how your take-away from the OP was that it concerns the average "workers" for such corporate interests being corrupt.

[redstateblues]

50. There is no proof of quid pro quo

[NorthCarolina]

59. So, you truly believe Hillary would support fracking even if she hadn't received

hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry?

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Why is that so hard to believe? ...

there are millions of people, across the political spectrum that support fracking, and don't receive a dime for their support.

[NorthCarolina]

73. Because politically it is a net negative. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. No it's not. Maybe, in terms of a segment of the left; but, again, ...

there a millions of people, across the political spectrum, that support, or are agnostic on, fracking.

[NorthCarolina]

84. I can'think of a single acquaintance of mine that has said they support fracking.

Obviously you and I travel in VERY different circles.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Apparently so ... and please know, there are far more people outside of our aquaintance than in ...

and most of them will have differing political opinions from us.

[DanTex]

60. Oh, well, neither Hillary nor Bernie take corporate campaign contributions, since

that's illegal. The contributions come from individuals, not corporations. Glad I could clear that up.

[Buddyblazon]

78. Purposely acting naive....

Oh yes...of course...corporate money has never found its way into the Clintons pockets.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. But not Bernie's? Come on ...

Talking about purposely acting naïve.

[Buddyblazon]

93. Certainly not...

even remotely close to what the Clintons have accepted...especially since Third Way democrats are all about the corporatocracy and always have been and don't even attempt to hide it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. So there are gradations of "sins"?

[Buddyblazon]

98. I don't answer questions...

from people being purposely obtuse. I'm not going to play in your little circular argument.

Good luck with some other schmuck, though.

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. "Purposefully obtuse"? The question is cogent and direct and if answered honestly ...

will reflect the fallaciousness of your accusation.

But I understand why you would avoid responding.

[Buddyblazon]

100. If you are asserting that...

Sanders and the Clintons take corporate donations at a like pace...yeah...there is not rational discussion to be had. If you'd like to goad over that...go right ahead. I think there's a whole section over on the Clinton sub forum for celebrations of made up victories. You can spike the football and everything. I hear they have one of those big wooden murals with the head cut out so you can pretend you're Billy.

[apcalc]

30. Tyler first sentence is false.

Helping to eliminate sexism is quite progressive.

[Ken Burch]

38. Electing a centrist black president didn't eliminate racism.

Electing a centrist woman as president won't eliminate sexism.

Identity can matter, but it isn't everything.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. That doesn't count.

[apcalc]

34. I'm excited!

And so are my friends. You must hang with a different type crowd.

[Armstead]

3. You are mistaking ideas and larger issues with Tiger Beat Personality Politics

[DanTex]

5. OP said "can't be capable of caring about the poor and the powerless."

You want to try and defend that?

[Ken Burch]

7. If you take corporate money, you lose your conscience.

You're either in the streets, or in the suites. Can't be be both places at the same time.

BTW, hatred is falsely accusing Bernie of treating racism as a secondary problem when everyone knew he never felt that way.

If you don't want people talking negatively about HRC, you'd do better to stop trying to delegitimize Bernie. Bernie's candidacy is the only reason anyone is talking about the poor, or about working people, or about the powerless in any sense at all.

It's even the only reason we're talking about race. If HRC didn't feel she needed to make POC hate Bernie by letting her surrogates slander him about race, no one would be discussing police violence(which Bernie has denounced just as clearly as HRC has) at all. She'd be back talking about "law and order"...and we all know what THAT is and will always be code for in this country.

[DanTex]

10. Anyone who works for a corporation loses their conscience, huh?

What about Ben and Jerry, the uber-rich capitalists that introduced Bernie in his campaign kickoff event. Do they have no conscience either?

This whole line of thinking -- that everyone wealthy is evil -- is silly.

[JoePhilly]

16. Some of these folks live in a black and white world.

So if you support Hillary, you must also not care about the poor and powerless.

They are "good", you are "bad".

[Ken Burch]

21. Ben and Jerry are among the handful of exceptions.

We're talking about the absolute united front that the corporate world displays in support of intrinsically anti-people concepts like trade deals on THEIR terms(obviously we need trade, but we don't need to let corporations ever have the means of getting out of obeying legislation passed by democratic governments like they get to in the tribunals...an institution in which corporations virtually never lose and democratic governments essentially never win).

"Socially responsible capitalism" will always be seen as a joke by the majority of the corporate world, a world incapable of acquiring humanity or ever taking the long-term greater-good view of life.

There will always be a million Martin Shrkelis for ever Ben or Jerry. I wish it could be different, it needs to be different, but candidates who take money from that class can never be the people to make it different. That's what beholden means.

Business is just one part of life. Democrats should never treat it as being more important than everything else.

[DanTex]

27. LOL. Well, I'm glad they get your seal of approval.

Here's the thing, there's no consistency and logic whatsoever to what you are saying. People taking corporate money are bad, unless you personally decide that they are good, in which case they are good. And of course, people who don't take corporate money can also be bad if you personally decide they are bad.

In other words, you like some people more than others.

[Buddyblazon]

79. Stop acting clueless...

for the sake of your argument. Passive aggressiveness should be left to our mothers.

[apcalc]

35. One little item

Internet says Bernie took 10 K from Hillpac in 2006. Oops!

[uponit7771]

69. The podium bird tell you that too?

[Armstead]

8. Because the more corporate money one takes....

the less inclined and able they are to actually care about and fight for the poor and the powerless.

The entire history of the nation and the Democratic Party of the last 35 years proves that.

[DanTex]

11. You know, most people with jobs take "corporate money".

[Armstead]

20. Most people with jobs do not necessarily share the overall goals of their bosses

It can't be oversimplified because the relationships between employers and employees are infinetly diverse.

But on an overall scale, most people (below the top echelon) have become increasingly alienated from their bosses because of the way corporations have come to devalue their workers.

That is part of the problem.

Di you really think the average underpaid Wal Mart worker is happy that they have to scrape by on crappy wages, while the family that owns the company is worth $150 among about five people?

http://walmart1percent.org/how-rich-are-the-waltons/
Walmart’s ruling family, the Waltons, has more wealth than 42% of American families combined.

The Walton family is the richest family in the United States, with more wealth than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. The Waltons’ wealth comes from their inherited, controlling stake in Walmart. While Walmart workers live in poverty, the Waltons rake in billions every year from the company.
And the Waltons just keep getting richer.

Since 2007, while millions of Americans were having their homes confiscated and jobs eliminated, the fortune of the six Waltons on the Forbes 400 list has more than doubled to an astounding $148.8 billion.
The Waltons have these riches thanks to the hard work of their own employees and all of us taxpayers. Based on recent estimates, taxpayers subsidize Walmart as much as $3 billion per year.[1] Instead of paying workers enough to survive, the Waltons take billions from Walmart every year, while driving their workers on to food stamps and other public assistance.
Unlike their employees, the Waltons reap billions from Walmart every year.

Three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (all children of Walmart founder Sam Walton)—own over 50% of outstanding Walmart shares. This fiscal year, Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control) will receive an estimated $3.16 billion in Walmart dividends on those shares.
If Sam Walton’s dependents actually worked for their Walmart dividend checks this year, they would be handed $1.5 million every hour. Meanwhile, Walmart workers get an average of $8.81 per hour and are routinely denied full-time work.[2]
Amid concerns about the fiscal cliff in December 2012, Walmart moved up the final dividend payout of its fiscal year from January 2013 to December 2012 to avoid a possible increase in the tax rate on dividends. As the company’s largest and wealthiest shareholders, the Waltons were the biggest beneficiaries of the move.
Most Walmart workers can only dream of making $25,000 in a year. Meanwhile, the Waltons get $25,000 per minute from their Walmart dividends alone.
The Waltons can certainly afford to do better by their workers and the American taxpayers who subsidize their profit-at-any-cost model, but they continue to choose not to.

The Waltons, using their their investment income alone, could fund a permanent $10,000 wage increase for the 1 million hourly store associates whose work generates Walmart’s profits.[3]

[DanTex]

23. Correct: people who work for corporations are not the same as the corporations themselves.

By the way, everyone who works for a corporation has a boss, except for the CEO. And the CEO still has a responsibility to shareholders and the board of directors.

The only people who truly have no bosses are people who own the company they work for. For example Bernie's supporters Ben and Jerry. Actually, now they do have bosses since they sold their company to the international conglomerate Unilever for a huge amount of money (I don't know if Ben and Jerry still work for the company or if they're just super-rich dudes having fun these days).

[Armstead]

29. And your point is?....

Aside from your cute little jab and ben & Jerry, I fail to see how your statement of the obvious is an actual response.

[DanTex]

31. That it's stupid to label anyone who "takes corporate money" as somehow a bad person.

People can interact with corporations without actually being a corporation or sharing the interests of a corporation.

And it's particularly stupid to accuse Hillary of taking corporate campaign contributions when her contributions all come from individuals, who as you have now acknowledged, are not the same as corporations.

[uponit7771]

70. Dan, they're not even half way listening to themselves talk. It's like they're reading a book and

... just repeating what chapter 1 line 3 says

[Armstead]

75. Naw, it's about paying attention to what has been happening since the 1970's

[Armstead]

74. You are not naive

If you don't agree with 90 percent of the public that campaign finance is broken and that big money has too much influence...


It is you who are personalizing this as a beauty content between two individuals. It is about much bigger things than which one has the nicest smile.

[Ken Burch]

22. Cashing a paycheck isn't "taking corporate money".

And most people in corporate jobs wouldn't take them if there was anything else out there.

We need to restructure the economy so that most people can have the chance to do meaningful work in a humanized workplace. We need to make sure that no one ever has to be at the mercy of anyone like the PHB in "Dilbert" again.

But the corporate world, on its own, has no interest in changing that.

[DanTex]

24. Yes, that's precisely what it is.

[choie]

37. And you have yet to provide any evidence

That Clinton does give a damn about the poor as represented by her policies.

[DanTex]

40. For example, she co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act.

She's in favor of raising the minimum wage. She pushed for CHIP as first lady. She wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Etc.

[randome]

61. As you stated, the hatred blinds too many on this site.

Their initial premise is that something must be WRONG with Clinton and then proceed to see everything in a negative light. Whereas the more objective, the more team-spirited position, to take is to look for areas where we can find agreement.

Instead of celebrating the fact that we have two great candidates for President, they wallow in misery and perceived sleights.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Buddyblazon]

83. Yeah...

And she came out vocally against a 15hr min wage...then when a 15hr min wage got passed somewhere...she hopped right in and took credit for it.

[Buddyblazon]

81. Seriously...

Stop being purposely obtuse.

Dear lord this is like trying to talk with my near 80 year old mother.

[Buddyblazon]

80. Stop already...

This acting stupid so your argument jibes with reality is old and moldy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. If I were to take millions from wall street, I would be prepared to work for them.

I'm a person of integrity in that way.

[RiverLover]

6. Lesser Evil! woot!!!!!!!

On the consequences of Lesser Evil voting~

http://socialistworker.org/2016/03/30/what-will-lesser-evilism-look-like

[oberliner]

12. You think Hillary is incapable of caring about the poor?

That seems a little ridiculous.

[RiverLover]

15. Has she done something for the poor? /nt

[Ken Burch]

33. She went undercover as a white woman in Alabama forty years ago.

That's supposed to be the answer to anyone who points out the conservatism of the project she has been involved with since the Eighties.

[pinebox]

17. She cares so much when she championed Bill's welfare reform, didn't she?

[Armstead]

25. She is incapable of breaking out of the frame that keeps people poor and stifles the middle class

She probably "cares" in an abstract sense.

But she has become so locked into the assumptions and values of the ruling elites who do not really care about the poor or average people enough to inconvenience themselves, or make some sacrifices and support actions and public policies that would lead to more broadly based wealth and power in the economy.

It's a bubble.

[Ken Burch]

28. Not after her continued defense of the welfare bill in '96.

That was a test of basic morality and decency.

That was a test of which side a person was on.

It was a test of whether anything Bobby Kennedy stood for still mattered to her.

And in the end, it was a choice that failed the test of utility.

Bill didn't need the votes of people who hated the poor to get re-elected in '96. All of those people ended up voting for "Bob Dole, Bob Dole" anyway.

[oberliner]

45. Most Senators voted in favor of that bill including Russ Feingold and John Kerry

Hillary didn't vote for it, obviously, as she held no political office at the time, but did speak in favor of the bill in support of her husband who was President at the time.

She (along with Feingold and Kerry and many other Democrats) were misguided in their support for the legislation, but that does not mean that she is incapable of caring about poor people.

[Gwhittey]

71. Turns out Bush was not bad guy either

He just was stupid and misguided by evil Cheney. So would you vote for him?

[Ken Burch]

120. If anyone voted for that bill and hasn't yet apologized for that, I'd have an issue with that person

It's not like anyone only holds it against HRC.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. She's, at best, conflicted.

She takes millions from wall street. She might "care about" the poor, but if it conflicts with the promises* she made in exchange for those millions, the money will win.

* those promises are secrets that she obviously considers a more secure form of information than the classified documents on her personal email server.

[seabeyond]

14. It is sad that lies, non truths and false allegations are being promoted on this board about our Dem

[Ken Burch]

32. There were no lies in that op.

And both candidates are equally Democratic. Neither has this won, yet.

BTW, you have never once explained why you were so sure Bernie would betray women and the cause of "social justice&quot a cause all supporters of economic justice back too, btw) as president. May I assume you never will?

[seabeyond]

51. "both candidates are equally Democratic." Factually, not true.

[TDale313]

64. Yeah, you have a point.

Bernie has fought far harder for the New Deal policies that made this party the one that used to fight for working people than the Clintons ever have. He actually fought for equality instead of fighting for policies that hurt PoC.

Oh, that's not what you meant, is it? You meant he's not part of the "club". He worked with Dems for decades, but pointed out the weren't perfect and chose to remain- as far as possible- outside the system.

Yeah, that works for me too.

[seabeyond]

68. He hasn't fought at all TDale, in his almost three decades in congress. Nt

[2banon]

94. She's YOUR Dem, not "OUR" Dem.

Bernie's MY Dem.

[seabeyond]

95. Clinton is our Democratic candidate running along with Sanders.

[Betty Karlson]

26. K&R for exposure. And for truth. eom

[Fumesucker]

36. I don't begrudge anyone a paycheck in these hard economic times

You do what you have to in order to survive, it's not like one candidate favored cutting the final safety net to support your welfare or anything like that.

We all serve a purpose in God's plan, even if it's as a bad example.

[DrDan]

43. with the DOW up 123% since Obama came to the WH, status quo is not all bad

[FreakinDJ]

52. and Millions of foreclosures

Love Obama but Wall Street did extract their pound of flesh for all their financial support

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. Yay, stock market. Yay, wall street. The poor?

Not so much.

[DrDan]

113. you do realize the DOW is a key indicator of the economy as a whole

you do care about the economy, don't you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. Fools believe this.

[center][font color="blue" size="6" face="courier"]EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO[/font][/center]

[DrDan]

119. a growing economy does put a damper on a keyboard-revolution, doesn't it

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. Growing for whom? I get that you, Dr Dan, are personally comfortable.

What you don't get is that a) I don't care because b) the average working class person isn't.

I work for Sanders because he works for the working class.

[DrDan]

123. If I was only worried about personal comfort, I would be on the other side, wouldn't I?

The economy is improving - but slowly. Obama has done an admirable job in it's repair, as I tried to point out in my post re the DOW. But we need to be consistent in our repair efforts. I think one candidate is capable of doing that.

Bernie has made some great campaign promises - but nothing that he can deliver on. The GOP will not cooperate with him and pass any of his large steps. He is not building a coalition among the Dems as he is doing nothing for down-ticket support. I know baby-steps do not soothe a lot of pain - but baby steps are better than no-steps that are a certainty if Bernie gets to the WH.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. The line of demarcation between "this side" and "the other" has become alarmingly gray. n/t

[DrDan]

125. only to those not paying attention

[RiverLover]

46. .........a candidate who is a tax cheat & currently under FBI investigation.

nt

[COLGATE4]

106. Could you please provide some proof

(with links, please) demonstrating that Hillary is, as you put it, "a tax cheat"?

[apcalc]

47. What's foolish

Is not supporting the eventual nominee , whoever it is.

[beaglelover]

49. Hillary is the most qualified person to ever run for POTUS. Your OP is ridiculous and you should be

embarrassed to post this on a democratic website.

[LondonReign2]

53. Plenty of qualifications, and shit ton of bad judgement and no integrity

[SmittynMo]

57. 1 and 2

First statement =

Second statement = It's called a democracy and free speech. Have you heard of this before?

[Lizzie Poppet]

63. ProTip: a lengthy resume's not a qualification when you sucked at your jobs.

Hillary has been mediocre at best in her various political roles. Not presidential material...and nowhere near as liberal as the nation needs right now.

[beaglelover]

107. ProTip, she didn't suck at her jobs. Ask her constituents in NY how much they liked their Senator.

Go ahead, I'll wait.........................

[Gwhittey]

72. Dick Cheney has a longer list of things make him more qualified

- United States Secretary of Defense
- 15th House Minority Whip
- Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
- White House Chief of Staff
- Vice President of the United States

So I guess you would vote for him?

[beaglelover]

104. He's not a democrat. What an idiotic thing to post. Geez!

[ibegurpard]

85. exhibit A

Of exactly what OP is talking about.

[Buddyblazon]

86. Dennis Hastert...

Is very qualified as a politician...

Doesn't mean id leave him in charge of my kids.

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. No one's EVER run for president with 8 years of experience as an elected official!!!

At least not until I do... because I have 12.

[redstateblues]

54. It's ridiculous to call someone in middle management

of a corporation that makes a good living "incapable of caring about the poor and powerless". More smears here

[Buddyblazon]

91. The only one that said..

Middle management was you.

Oh and DanTex who is purposely acting ignorant for the sake of his argument.

[Smarmie Doofus]

55. I'm not so sure even THIS is true:

>>>Fine, she'll be not-as-bad as the knuckledraggers if nominated and elected. But why should we ever again, after 2000, have had to settle for "not as bad"?>>>

If Trump or Cruz decide to start new wars in the middle east.... there will likely be organized resistance among ( some) congressional DEMS.

Not the case w. Clinton. And if we think she doesn't want more war in the ME... we haven't been paying attention to her illustrious pronouncements over the years.

[CrowCityDem]

56. It's tragic...

... that you want to nominate a candidate who thinks transparency only applies to others

a candidate who once believed criminals shouldn't have trouble buying guns legally

a candidate who can't explain the positions he's been reciting in his stump speech for nearly a year

a candidate who broke his promise to America to never go negative

a candidate who will raise taxes on lower and middle class Americans who can't afford to pay any more

etc, etc

Sure sounds like petty bashing when it's your candidate, huh?

[LondonReign2]

58. This is untrue. Clinton is not status quo

No, instead she will continue the march of the Democratic party further rightward, step by step.

[Gothmog]

62. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

I think that it is sad that someone would risk control of the SCOTUS on a candidate who is not electable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads and is not electable in my opinion. I do not want the GOP to get to control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation..

[Scuba]

67. Rec for the blind devotion of Hillary's fan club. Amazing.

[HughLefty1]

77. I don't get it either...

Why come onto a forum like this to fight for the status quo?

As someone who has been underemployed for 5+ years it really is frustrating to see.

As I look to the future for my teen and pre-teen son it seriously angers me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. What field do/did you work in? What are you qualified to do? ...

I'm not victim blaming; but, some previously booming and lucrative fields, currently suck ... That is the nature of the marketplace and no politician is going to change that.

[SidDithers]

82. Rec for comedy gold...

Sid

[Agschmid]

87. Yup.

[MineralMan]

88. And yet, voters are giving her more

pledged delegates. What about that is hard to accept?

[apcalc]

89. The first thing to note is

That there are a bunch of trolls here, stirring the pot.

[Arugula Latte]

101. Yep.... "She has a D by her name!"

Oh, well, okay then. That makes all her rightwing shit okay, I guess.

[TheProgressive]

102. It's really unbelievable... for the first time in a long time, we have a real progressive candidate.

Why would people vote for a center-right person like Clinton, when
we can have a progressive president with Senator Sanders.

I don't get it...

The polls suggest that 50% of Dems want third-way Clinton and
the other half represents real progressive democrats who want Sanders.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. In a nomination process that is this close, it should be clear that we don't have to settle.

Progressives can win this if we want to.

[Demsrule86]

111. It is not close...millions of votes separate the candidates

And...consider the delegate math...Obama who became the nominee did not have the lead that Hillary has now. The idea that (as Bernie has said) he can win if he loses New York is ridiculous...and he can't just win...he has to win overwhelmingly...I don't think it will happen.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. Either you support Sanders or you're not a progressive.

It's as simple as that.

[anigbrowl]

117. Math works whether or not you believe in it

It's really sad that your response to someone pointing out the objective facts about the numbers of voters/delegates etc. is to come back with a bite of ideological dogma. This exemplifies why I don't support Sanders - his campaign is based on ideology instead of being rooted in the real world, and that means I have little confidence in his ability to deal with real-world problems where his ideological stance won't make any difference.

You're looking for a prophet, but most people want to elect someone with management skills. Hillary doesn't inspire me but she's competent. Sanders is inspiring and exciting but that doesn't translate into executive ability.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. What's even sadder is that you didn't disagree with that "ideological dogma". n/t

[anigbrowl]

128. I couldn't be bothered

You don't get to set the agenda in every conversation you're in, although you've probably been relying on that particular conversational tactic for many years. I don't consider distraction posts worth addressing because they're not sincere attempts at debate, just an attempt to manipulate the reading audience.

[beaglelover]

116. Sure you can. #BernieMath

Just keep telling yourself that!!

[Demsrule86]

109. It's tragic

That some folks can't accept delegate math and move on...this would include Bernie Sanders and some of his supporters.

[chervilant]

129. Delegate Math?!?

What is that, a nod to the "bought and paid for" delegates who declared for Hi11ary before the primary started?

Yeah, those "delegates" represent the will of the people.




(Welcome to my IL.)

[noiretextatique]

118. Indeed. And the fact that she loves war and regime change

Is even sadder.

[elleng]

126. Yes.

[azmom]

127. Kick