One serious question for moderate Democrats.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

My premises: We have become an oligarchic system of government, according to more than one serious academic study. We endure historic wealth and income inequality. A growing number of scientists warn we are facing the end of civilization and/or extinction as a species.

My question: Do we live in desperate times?

[DanTex]

1. I'm a liberal Democrat, and because of the things you are describing: inequality, global warming,

as well a bunch of other problems, I think that we desperately need to elect a Democrat to the White House and also get Dems into congress. All the great progress we made under Obama could be at risk if not.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The best way.

By far the best way to elect a Democrat to the White House and create a sizable Democratic majority of Congress is to create a movement and in order accomplish that feat bold and clear distinctions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party must be presented to the American People.

No candidate is doing that better than Bernie Sanders.

Having similar or lukewarm differences with the Republicans on the most critical issues affecting the American People won't be enough to sway the masses to the major tipping required.

[NCTraveler]

2. I think we are in pretty serious times.

We have been for centuries. While the climate issue is huge, famine, war, religious fanaticism, and so on have historically been every bit as bad as today.

Climate change is one of the major reasons I'm supporting Hillary. She is in the best position to continue off the success of Obama. We must keep moving forward and not let the GOP remove solid regulations put in place. We must regulate more and more comprehensively. Hillary has the clout to do it.

Not sure if I'm a moderate. Damn near every position I hold polls over seventy percent when polled without political attachments. Guess that makes me moderate in itself. See reputable polling for single payer. Seems to confirm that it is a moderate position to hold in the U.S. Unless you are a politician.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

3. I must be frank about HRC's ethics.

Hillary has always been behind the curve on issues of inclusion, as well as others. We have seen her "evolve" on many issues only after the polls say to do so. Her willingness to throw PoC under the bus in the '90s is well documented. Her willingness to throw American and Iraqi lives away for political capital was clearly demonstrated by her IWR vote in 2002, imo. Her willingness to play an ugly race card in 2008 was evident, imo. Her sleazy campaign tactics in this cycle appear to be ramping up, predictably, imo.

I do not trust her because of her record of putting her political ambitions above the good of the people.

In contrast, Bernie does not lie. Full stop. Based on his record of fighting for the people all his life and not enriching himself, I trust him. I can't say that about very many politicians at all. He will follow through on what he says and the stakes are too high to trust a slippery candidate. "Only one white guy showed up. Hillary was MIA." He cares in a way she does not.

I don't mean to give offense. I simply believe we all have to be frank with each other. The reason is because I believe this election may determine whether our children, and their children, will be alive or dead.

[NCTraveler]

4. I understand your position.

When it comes to Sanders I just don't agree with you. Sanders has a career of being a politician and activist, not a leader. He just doesn't have it in him. I'm not sure how that is even debatable. I also think Sanders panders to his base just like any politician.

Facts: Sanders has repeatedly voted to increase the size of our military. Sanders has repeatedly voted to arm foreign armies. Sanders has made extremely limited progress on anything during his time in the senate. Sanders has almost zero formidable political relationships considering he is a lifetime politician. Sanders has distinctly qualified marriage as a states rights issue. Sanders believes that the problem with guns aren't a rural problem, but a gang problem in LA and Chicago. Please note that he didn't say the problems are different, he says that there is no gun problem in rural America. Sanders was far behind the eight ball not even recognizing one of our greatest problems of social injustice until it was forced upon him. Sanders portrays himself as something different than what he is. There is your honesty. I never in my life said Clinton was all around honest. I personally think both Clinton and Sanders supporters are short-sighted to the point they don't recognize we have one of the best choices in generations with O'Malley. I think that will be put to bed when Sanders has to stand next to O'Malley on a stage. But every day it is becoming more clear to me that the media is going to leave O'Malley out of it while tearing down Clinton. It is how they work.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

8. MOM is very good.

We are in agreement there. I even sent him money before Bernie got in the race. He is the only other candidate of either party I could enthusiastically support. He has a proven, progressive record for the people.

However I have questions and comments about your facts.

1) voting to increase the military-- all I am aware of is that while opposing most of the wars we have fought in the last 25 years, he does vote to fund American troops once they are deployed, which I am OK with. Are you referring to something different than that?

2) I am not sure what you mean by voting to arm foreign armies, so I guess I need clarification.

3) As to limited progress in the Senate, I understand he is known as "the king of the amendment" because of his ability to make bills more progressive. That was certainly the case in amending the ACA to get $2B for community health centers. Based on what I know, I disagree.

4) As to marriage, he has supported full LGBT rights since the early '70s. I know he applauds the recent SCOTUS decision. Do you have a source on the states rights issue? I've just never heard that.

5) I disagree about rural guns. All I have ever heard him say is that guns are a different issue in rural America than in urban America and I agree with that.

6) As to not recognizing one of our greatest problems of social injustice, I'm assuming you are referencing BLM. I disagree there. Bernie has a strong 50-year record of alliance on issues of social justice, imo. I agree that he didn't emphasize police homicide enough before the first incident at Netroots, but he has gone rapidly toward an excellent position with good proposals. All candidates were caught flat-footed on this issue, so I am grateful to BLM for highlighting it. The people of Burlington, Vermont got better police treatment in the '80s because of his emphasis on community policing as mayor. We desperately need community policing in all cities, imo. That's not a panacea, but it is one component of changing this ongoing American tragedy.

7) As to the press ignoring MOM and running down HRC, I fully agree. Our political press coverage is trivial and shameful.

[NCTraveler]

11. This is what I am alluding to.

I don't think many people have a clue as to Sanders.

1) His votes to increase military spending are well known. It's simply no secret. He is so shrewd that he has even fought to keep failed military programs alive.

2) Once again, he has yeah vote after yeah vote with hundreds of millions being sent to less than friendly militaries. It's simply public knowledge to anyone who wants to know the truth. Google Sanders foreign aid and click on the information directly related to legislation so you don't get any spin. Vote after vote after vote. The only people who aren't aware are his supporters. But let's be real, overall his supporters are obsessed with Hillary, not the truth about Sanders.

3) That is a made up phrase about Sanders. Even if that is what he is known as, which he isn't, it would back my argument that he has never been a leader. Compare that phrase to "The Lion of the Senate."

4) He as supported marriage rights. He is also clearly quoted as saying it is a state issue. He might have evolved on this over the last decade. A number of conservatives hold the view that it should be legal for same sex couples but is a right afforded to the states. As a progressive I believe it is under the direction of the federal government.

5) His views here are extremely well known and he doesn't hedge his comments with the word "different." He has been absolute with his comments.

6) Has nothing to do with BLM but that has become the talking point. He didn't mention social justice for a good while during his campaign. Until he was forced, not one single word. Once again, this was discussed and documented that I feel the only way to not know it is if one simply doesn't want to see it.

7) Really fucked up isn't it. And we all pay a price.

[Hortensis]

12. The ERA in which they worked must be considered in evaluating their

performances. We are still coming out of the strongly conservative Reaganism-to-Tea-Party-Economic Libertarian era that began in the late 1970s, a transition I suspect is being prolonged by the corrupting, directing influence of Big Money in politics.

In any case, one could not expect a democratic socialist to have risen to real prominence in either party in this era. The mood of the nation was all wrong. He gets points from most in being in Congress at all and now in having successfully raised the torch passed by Elizabeth Warren. Seems to me we can't really evaluate his ability to lead yet, depending as it does on the wish of Americans to be lead, still to be demonstrated, but it's clearly at least somewhat stronger than his obscurity suggested just a few months ago.

I'm another who really does not like Hillary's constant chasing survival positions right past the middle into the right during this era, but again, the positions she took would have been pretty consistently left-to-moderate in a more liberal era, which is the environment in which the next president governs looks like it will be

[beam me up scottie]

18. 4) He always supported LGBT marriage rights --- there, fixed that for you.

Last edited Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The comment that you're being disingenuous about was Bernie saying that he didn't want the feds to overturn states' same sex marriage laws.


You're welcome!


I'm just going to ignore the rest of your statements, the fact that you can't post links to prove your claims is proof enough that they're bullshit.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

28. Let me give you my research:

Sister, first let me say I appreciate your respect and civility. I am trying to reciprocate. I sense we will continue to disagree about many of these things but that will not undermine my admiration for your good will, depth of knowledge and fighting for the people.

1)

Part of Bernie’s concern over the ballooning defense budget stems from what he sees as a lack of accountability on defense spending. In a statement explaining his “no” vote on the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which set the military’s budget at $560 billion, Bernie expressed concern that “the military is unable to even account for how it spends all of its money.” Bernie also voted against the 2012 and 2013 defense authorization bills, voicing alarm at the size of the defense budget despite the United States having withdrawn all military members from Iraq at the end of 2011.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-military-and-veterans/

2) I can't research this without specifics. I found three strongly biased hit pieces with demonstrable distortions of his record. Following your advice, I googled your recommended phrase and found this very promising website:

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/89/foreign-aid#.VfsNLH0cPIw

But until I know what I am looking for, it is very hard to decipher. Perhaps you mean the Saudis and/or Israel. Is that it?

3) Apparent origin of "amendment king" phrase:

"Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word," McCain said. "But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

Sanders rose through the political system, rather than entering it late. He was a mayor for eight years and a congressman for 16, during which time he figured out that protest votes and purity could only get him so far. He pursued smaller priorities to attach to larger pieces of legislation that he invariably found less than ideal. A Rolling Stone article from 2005 called him "the amendment king of the current House of Representatives," as he'd passed more roll call amendments than any other member.

This pick-your-spots approach extends to the current day. Sanders has routinely flouted the Democratic Party's agenda on gun control. He got $12 billion for community health centers included in the final version of Obamacare, which he ultimately voted for despite being an unwavering single-payer advocate. He secured a provision for an audit of the Federal Reserve in the final version of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which he voted for despite worries that it didn't go far enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/bernie-sanders-2016_n_7514328.html

4) Bernie has advocated for federal action on equality in marriage:

He has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, voting against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress in 1996. In 2015, he said of that vote: “Back in 1996, that was a tough vote. Not too many people voted against it, but I did.” (In fact, he’s the only presidential candidate in the 2016 race who can say that.)

As both a congressman and later the junior senator from Vermont, he supported that state’s 2000 civil union law and 2009 law legalizing gay marriage. In 2011, he called on President Obama to “join in supporting marriage equality.”

In 2013, he co-sponsored the Uniting Families Act, which would have allowed partners of any legal U.S. citizen or resident to obtain lawful permanent residency. This bill was primarily intended to allow LGBTQ residents and citizens of the United States to bring their partners into America, just as members of opposite sex couples are able to do.

When the Supreme Court overturned DOMA in June 2015, he praised the historic ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the country.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-lgbtq-rights/

So without evidence, I don't believe your assertion.

5)

Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate, saying in a recent interview:

“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

I have heard him say something similar many times, but I have never heard him say what you assert. Without a direct quote backing your position, I have to disagree.

6) I disagree that BLM has nothing to do with it. Without the direct action and dedicated work of BLM, I don't believe we would be discussing social justice right now. I completely agree that he didn't mention it until he was confronted by BLM activists. He was caught flat-footed, as was every other candidate. But I also believe his response was rapid, robust and generally correct.

The reason he was challenged was because only he and MOM had the guts to go to Netroots. Not only has he responded, but he has done so with passion. He really believes in social justice, especially for AAs. As one more example, I believe believe the felony scrubbing in Florida in 2000 was a matter of social justice, because tens of thousands of innocent black voters were denied the right to vote by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. When Greg Palast was invited by the CBO to brief them on the theft of the 2000 election and felony scrubbing, "the only white guy who showed up" was Bernie. As a person who cares passionately about racial justice and the need for racial reconciliation, I am proud of Bernie's lifelong commitment to social justice, even when nobody was watching.

[roguevalley]

15. since when has hillary been a leader? She was a senator same as Bernie and then a team player

under the direction of the president. She has NEVER led. She has followed leaders. I also don't think anything that Bernie does and says is pandering because trace it in a straight line backwards and you have his career.

[NCTraveler]

16. Never said she was....

Even though I think there are many areas where it is easily provable. But let's get back to the point of your post. You know that Sanders has never been a strong leader as you inferred by the "Hillary isn't one either" tone. Your thoughts on Hillary are actually fine with me. That leaves us with the only leader and executive in the field. O'Malley. He is in a class of his own in leadership skills and policy positions. Out of the three most often discussed, Sanders is behind Clinton in comprehensive progressive policy positions and Hillary is behind O'Malley in this area. Seems we should be behind O'Malley if leadership and comprehensive policy positions are what we want.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Wait, wut? Bernie's record on marriage equality isn't good enough for you but Hillary's is???

Bernie Sanders never opposed same sex marriage, Hillary did.

Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.

[NCTraveler]

19. I never said his wasn't good enough but hers is.

You must have replied to the wrong post. I simply never said what you are claiming I did. Interestingly enough, I actually said the exact opposite of what you are attempting to say I said in one of your sentences. The exact opposite. Please point to where I said he didn't support marriage equality. When you can't do that, maybe you will quote where I said he did in the post you are replying to. Lol Can't make this stuff up.

[beam me up scottie]

20. You listed his lack of support for marriage equality as one of the reasons why you support Hillary

4) He as supported marriage rights. He is also clearly quoted as saying it is a state issue. He might have evolved on this over the last decade. A number of conservatives hold the view that it should be legal for same sex couples but is a right afforded to the states. As a progressive I believe it is under the direction of the federal government.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=601389

And then you posted this crap:

Sanders has distinctly qualified marriage as a states rights issue.

Your statements are disingenuous, there is no proof Bernie didn't support marriage equality on the federal level.

As a self-proclaimed "progressive" you should support the most progressive candidate, but you don't.

Funny how Hillary's supporters never want to admit she's a moderate even after she admitted it herself.

[NCTraveler]

21. i appreciate you backing down on your false claim directed at me.

That doesn't always happen around here. Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

22. LOL! Nice try, but read it again.

You're welcome!

I always appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

Bernie's the true progressive, not Hillary.

[NCTraveler]

23. I have zero issue with your thoughts there.

I'm really happy you have someone good to support. My only issue was with the blatant lie you directed at me. I do appreciate you backing down from that blatant "error".

Sanders is a good guy. Not a bad person to support at all.

[beam me up scottie]

24. The only blatant lie is claiming that Bernie doesn't support marriage equality at the federal level.

I'm glad Hillary finally evolved, too bad she waited until the rest of the country already got there first.

And the fact that Bernie was ahead of the curve on lgbt equality is just one more reason why I support him.

[NCTraveler]

25. Wait, wut? Bernie's record on marriage equality isn't good enough for you but Hillary's is???

There is your blatant dishonesty. I never said any such thing. I'm not even backing her in the primary. Yet what you are claiming I lied about you actually admitted to it being the truth. Well done. If you can't back up the claim you made that I put in the title of this post, have a good day. I won't be baited with dishonesty anymore.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Now you claim you're not backing Hillary in the primary???

I'm not even backing her in the primary.

I think we are in pretty serious times.

We have been for centuries. While the climate issue is huge, famine, war, religious fanaticism, and so on have historically been every bit as bad as today.

Climate change is one of the major reasons I'm supporting Hillary. She is in the best position to continue off the success of Obama. We must keep moving forward and not let the GOP remove solid regulations put in place. We must regulate more and more comprehensively. Hillary has the clout to do it.

Not sure if I'm a moderate. Damn near every position I hold polls over seventy percent when polled without political attachments. Guess that makes me moderate in itself. See reputable polling for single payer. Seems to confirm that it is a moderate position to hold in the U.S. Unless you are a politician.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=601041

Now who's being blatantly dishonest?

Sorry, posting your words and refuting them is not "baiting you with dishonesty".

But I can understand why doing so would make you angry enough to claim it is.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

5. Define Moderate Democrat first

i see zero difference between a moderate dem and a republican

What really is a moderate democrat?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

6. How about

someone who self-identifies as a moderate Democrat? That seems straight forward to me.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

7. Still did not define moderate democrat. I can call myself the king of England but that does not

necessiarly make me king

Ok how about this what do moderate democrats stand for?

Perhaps that is easier to answer

[Admiral Loinpresser]

9. As a progressive,

I honestly don't know what they stand for. That's not a pejorative, I really don't know. It's probably not a monolithic answer. That's why I'm asking the question. HRC self identifies as such. That is the upshot of my question-- do we go after incremental change or like FDR, do we think big because of the desperate times we live in?

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

10. I don't think they know themselves

[Hortensis]

13. Many studies have been done and books and articles written, Yaba. Look

up liberal, conservative, and libertarian personality to start -- those are the same around the world, hard-wired in all humans at birth and then affected by environment, and the differences are striking.

For instance, basic attitudes toward equality, change, and conformity are strikingly different between conservatives and liberals, and there are a bunch of other basic differences, such as levels of fear.

Once basic personality types are understood, what kind of person is behind the label, or what the label means at that moment, can usually be easily identified by the behavior of that group. These different attitudes toward change, equality, and people who are the same or different in some way are acted out every day in politics, everywhere.

[ShrimpPoboy]

14. I can't speak for anyone else

But for me it means agreeing with Democrats more than Republicans but holding some views that some would consider conservative or at least toned down liberal positions. Most americans fit this description (or the converse of it) but like most political labels "moderate" probably means something different to different people.

I would also agree that the difference between the moderates of both parties isn't that much. But the difference between moderates of one party and the ideological base of the other is still very big.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

29. +1 n/t

[delrem]

30. Why do you buy into the self-description of corporate Dems as "moderates"?

Is the Brookings Institution "moderate"? Is Robert Kagan a "moderate" now that he's on the team of a self-described "moderate Dem", or is Kagan still a neocon?

Downthread you admit that in this context the term "moderate" has lost all meaning - it doesn't mean *anything* that stands up to scrutiny. Yet you use it, even though use of the term is a political tactic that obscures truth and overlays thought with mindless purple syrup.

If you want to win against corporate Dems, you don't buy into and use their self-descriptive language, their core propoganda, you challenge them on it.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

32. I'm trying to emulate Bernie,

in the way he approached Liberty U. We need to unify as many people as possible. HRC now apparently self-identifies as moderate. I'm reaching out to others who self-identify as moderate and see if we can agree that this point in history is unique. Some people who don't realize we are in a unique crisis may be open to being educated about the scientific realities of out times.

If you disagree, comrade, so be it. Peace to you.

[delrem]

34. If you fundamentally disagree with my politics, but choose to use my language

and to describe my politics as being "moderate" and "centrist", then I've already won. I can go home with a solid sense that my politics, my politicians, are securely entrenched and are in no danger of being challenged.

Simple as that.
Bernie at Liberty U. did not allow the political opposition to prescribe the very language used to describe political policy.

There's a reason why pundits like Wolf Blitzer habitually use terms like "moderate" to describe corporatist and militarist political policies and politicians -- and there's an identical reason why Wolf and co. use opposing terms like "extreme" and "fringe" and "radical" to describe opposition policies and politicians. The reason is obvious: the terms are empty place holders which, in the one case, deliver a warm and welcoming feel good sense of belonging, and in the other case deliver a cold and dangerous and even hostile sense of an attack on one's security. And there's a reason why the corporatist/militarist faction of *both* parties self-describe as "centrist" and "moderate" - in fact the identical reason - and why they know enough to REFUSE to ever use the terms "corporatist" and "militarist" to self-describe, even when propping up and deregulating the banks and even when promoting and voting for wars of choice.

Gaining control of the language that we use is one of the FIRST STEPS required in the revolution that Bernie says has to take place from the ground up, and not from the top down. I strongly urge you to think about this some more, and not to take offense at my critique of this language.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

35. I appreciate your argument,

but our approach to retail politics is different. And I take no offense. Your passion may be well placed and I may be wrong.

[delrem]

38. Here you go.

This is just for you!

http://moderatevoters.org/

[Skidmore]

31. When is there going to be an acknowledgement

that sitting on votes kept an obstructionist teabagger congress in office? You suppose that might have something to do with it?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

33. I am happy to answer your question

if you clarify what you mean.

Are you willing to answer my simple question? Peace to you.

[Amishman]

36. yes, yes we do

Things seem to be coming apart at the seams on the social, economic, and environmental levels.

And I am not sure if there is anyone I trust to not be part of the problem. Bernie is the only candidate running that even gets a maybe.

I am a moderate in my views, but far from moderate in the level of change i think is needed to fix things.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

37. Thank you.

Perhaps we don't agree on every issue, but that's OK with me. Those who do not answer my question with a "yes," are probably underinformed about climate change and do not realize what a growing number of scientists are telling us in more and more urgent terms.