General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums''Every seat in the theater in LA filled up so Bernie went outside to talk to the people ... ''
Link to tweet
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....what's he doing out in California speaking at a rally, in the words of the LA Times, "attended by hundreds"?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bernie-sanders-disneyland-20180602-story.html
If he were my Senator I'd be mighty concerned with him ignoring his own constituency.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Biggest Stretch to Nitpick and Find Some Picayune Reason for Criticizing Bernie... well done!!
George II
(67,782 posts)...when the Senate isn't in session, they both return to our state to meet with constituents and attend local events throughout the state.
That's what Senators who are dedicated to their constituents do. They are representing the people of our state.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)brooklynite
(94,624 posts)Neither Schumer nor (despite the wishes of some folks here) Gillibrand are at the slightest risk of losing a Primary or a GE. Gillibrand's only "oppenent" (Berniecrat Scott Nolen) failed to get on the ballot.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)and Gillibrand? I don't know one way or the other. But I think it is a good practice for Democratic politicians to make themselves available to give inspiring speeches.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Trump gets big crowds at his rallies, too. So what?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)white male candidates, doesn't it? Doesn't always predict performance at the polls, however...
George II
(67,782 posts)....addressing their own constituents in New York.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)interest in politics has likely met him at a town hall. He has done town halls across the state for years. Leahy, Welch and Sanders are all accessible.
George II
(67,782 posts)...with them as well as our Governor, and they have about six times the constituency than Vermont state-wide office holders.
Murphy did a walk across the state last Fall, met with hundreds (if not thousands) in the course of the walk AND held a Town Hall on each of the five nights during that walk.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)It isn't everywhere.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,403 posts)Maybe next time,
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)BTW, here's the coveted Bernie Bashers Golden Hammer Award trophy that you missed out on, which will be awarded to the lucky winners at this year's Award night dinner banquet:
Keep working on it though... you may still get an Award in one of the 11 other categories.
BannonsLiver
(16,403 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Please. (But do I have to go to the dinner?)
karynnj
(59,504 posts)We were in a restaurant and saw him walking to his car through the restaurant's window. A few people took photos, most just looked and smiled. It is common enough, no one ran out.
I appreciate your concern, but he has an approval rating over 70 percent. Not to mention, he has no strong opposition in the primary or general election.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)thought he could easily get reelected without us? Is it just for money or other resources?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Where the Democtats have a weak candidate. If there is s super popular Democrat, he or she can still defeat him on the Democratic ballot.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Plus the whole joining and quitting has gotten old. Its insulting, and only drains our resources. I dont know what we get out of it, to be honest, except for a stab on the back.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)If a Democrat beats Bernie in the primary, he or she IS the Democratic nominee. Only if Bernie is stronger does he run without a Democratic opponent in the general election.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I think its pretty weird and deceptive. I bet a lot of voters expect him to stay Dem if they choose him as the Dem nominee. If a third party isnt viable in a place like Vermont, why is Jane threatening Dems with one? None of it makes much sense to me.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In light of Jane's recent statements.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That candidate would be denied funding and access to marketing and strategy.
Why do you think that Bernie does this instead of primary as an independent?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The primary is to PICK the official Democratic nominee. The DSC, which would provide funds for Senate candidates, usually does not back anyone in a contested primary. They certainly would not award money for anyone to use in this primary where they (and all VT politicos) see Bernie as as a close to a sure thing as there is. You very likely remember that he got over 85% of the 2016 Presidential vote. Part of that was that a favorite son affect, but it also reflected that he is very respected here - even by the people who know him the best and know his flaws. How much money would you recommend that the DSC waste on any announced opponent to Bernie Sanders?
The process to get on the ballot and to set up a campaign is known. Because YOU, who are not a resident of Vermont, want Bernie out, you ignore that there is NO Democrat in the state who could beat Bernie Sanders. If Bernie had announced that he was NOT running, there would have been a set of serious candidates who would have run to get the position - just like in other states. The people who are running are not even of the caliber of the other primary challengers against powerful, well regarded Senators -- like Jonathan Tasini against Clinton in 2006.
PS In Vermont, being on the general election ballot as "independent" -- means that you are not representing a party. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of "primary as an independent".
Have you even spent a day in the state of Vermont?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the party chooses the candidate prior to the primary.
One doesn't need to spend a minute in Vermont to think that, does one?
And you are correct, I am not a resident of Vermont, so how could "wanting him out" be my perview or business? I find it interesting that you think it makes some sort of difference - enough to bring up.
I also find it interesting that if "no Democrat in the state could beat Bernie Sanders" it seems he wouldn't have to primary at all and simply announce his candidacy as an Independent while the Democratic Primary proceeds. Is that clearer?
But yet he primaries as a Democrat, with full plans to turn down the nomination and again run as the "anti-establishment" candidate once the establishment has prevented any Democratic challengers.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that someone who isn't from Vermont thinks their opinion of Vermont politics is more important than that of someone from Vermont. I am glad to think that nothing you carpetbaggers do or say will change the fact that Senator Sanders is going to remain Senator Sanders in the next Session.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You certainly have misrepresented what I wrote, which was point out how someone else was giving my opinion far more weight than I am. Here it is, in case you missed it the first time:
Is that clearer?
Also, you use the word "carpetbagger." I do not think it means what you think it does.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)because you have explained things you don't have to ask me again. You have spent at least two posts explaining to karynnj why their impression of Vermont politics is flawed and they need to understand as you do. I understand you have not made a bag from carpet scraps and gone to a different state in hopes of exploiting the local populous. In this case I use it to refer to someone with no local connection or interest trying to affect a local race.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I was defending my observations as being based in fact. Perhaps you are confusing me with Bettyellen? But you might want to try using smaller stones. That glass house looks pretty thin.
Sweetie, we all know what you meant by calling me a carpetbagger, and you clearly are doubling down since you've been called out on it. No one is marching to Vermont to hurt Bernie. And from what I'm told, he's unbeatable, even if some meanie did. Look up defiinitions of words before you use them - you'll be more credible.
a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.
historical
(in the US) a person from the northern states who went to the South after the Civil War to profit from the Reconstruction.
a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist.
"the organization is rife with carpetbaggers"
Like I said - that word doesn't mean what you think it does.
Still not any of the definitions of a "carpetbagger." I think you vastly overestimate the potential for my posts, or anyone else's on DU to affect a local race in Vermont.
However, are you talking about all the donations that come from outside Vermont to support his Senate campaign by people who have been convinced that Bernie will run for POTUS in 2020? Like the request for money that they sent to my sister in Pennsylvania, who never signed up for his mailing list? Can't imagine how his people would have gotten her email address...
If we are going to defeat right-wing Republicans in 2018 and 2020, we need to win in states that Trump won, like Pennsylvania. And, in my view, the only way we win in those states is by supporting progressive candidates who have the guts to defend working-class families - white, black, Latino, Asian American, Native American - and take on the power and greed of the billionaire class.
Here's some very good news. In Pennsylvania there are three strong progressive candidates who can win their primary fights and win the general election. But they need your help...
Split a $3 donation between John Fetterman, Greg Edwards and Jess King. This is our chance to elect three great progressives who will help lead the fight against Donald Trump and the dangerous Republican agenda. They need our help to win in Pennsylvania.
Here's the donation page:
NOTE: Your contribution will be divided evenly between Jess King, John Fetterman, and 2 other groups. Click here to allocate amounts differently or view all recipients:
secure.actblue.com/donate/bernie-pennsylvania?refcode=em180501-t1-c
Here are the "two other other groups":
John Fetterman (PA-Lt Gov)
Greg Edwards (PA-07)
Jess King (PA-11)
Bernie Sanders (VT-Sen)
And unsurprisingly, Our Revolution had no problems WHATSOEVER with huge $$$ donations for their preferred candidate for Virginia governor Tom Periello coming from out of state - you know, people with no local connections or interest trying to affect a local race.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-campaign-finance-governor-20170418-story.html
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the potential for your posts on DU to affect a local race in Vermont as it is impossible to underestimate your potential for affecting anything. With that in mind I am certain I have overestimated a lot about you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I see you have no actual response, so you go for the playground taunt.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that has been added to the "Senator Sanders is running in the Vermont Democratic Senate primary and won't accept the nomination" discussion in well over a month. You have added nothing new or unique to the discussion with this go around and frankly neither have I. There obviously has been no change of positions by either of us and no further understanding of where one and other stand. I still don't care that you find the Vermont Democratic Party and Senator Sanders to be wrong to pursue the strategy they have pursued together since 1991. It seems doubtful they care about your opinion either. I for one am glad to know that Senator Sanders will continue to be a Senator into the next session because of his actions and those of the Vermont Democratic Party.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And I'm hoping that you are getting the idea that by articulating what I've observed isn't some accusation that you are flawed or need to think like I do. That's your invention, not my intent. This is a discussion forum, and differences are part of that. If that bothers you, I suggest you take a look at why you are here, and consider the possibility of your accusations of me to be projection.
We're adults here... and I guess I should be flattered that you feel a need to continue to reply to my posts when you say that I have "added nothing to the discussion" and "don't care" about my opinion. It makes your insults almost endearing.
I'm just expressing the irony in what I see when Senator Sanders seems to require the services of the Democrat establishment in Vermont to restrict funding and other support for any Democratic primary opponents.
It's important to understand that when any politician expands their ambition, they also expand the scrutiny. You may feel a need to jump in to cover Bernie's back more as his ambitions expand.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)my Senator? I'm a Californian my Senators are Feinstein and Harris. I do admire Senator Sanders, but he is hardly mine and I'm not sure what you mean when you say I may feel a need to jump in to cover Bernie's more as his ambitions grow.
When I wrote you have added nothing to the discussion, I only meant that everything you expressed in this thread has been expressed during previous discussions of this issue. My not caring is based on my thinking your ramblings on DU amount to a hill of beans outside of here. Just to be sure mine don't amount to anything greater than yours.
I too am observing. What I observe is a lot of people here are arguing that the Vermont Democratic Party should not leave the nomination blank if Senator Sanders wins, but declines the nomination. None of those people who are arguing that live in Vermont. For my part I think it is the business of the Vermont Democratic Party and the voters of Vermont so I think those who are out-of-state and sticking their noses in to this have no legitimacy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I am not one of those people.
When you say, "sticking their noses in to this," you mean discussing it? Or just in a way that doesn't make you happy, or doesn't flatter Senator Sanders? You certainly seem to be "sticking your nose in this" with your posts....
When you say that those who are, "have no legitimacy," you mean that they have said something you don't like?
If differences in observations disturb you, then I suggest you use the ignore feature for anyone who disagrees with you.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I've never used the ignore feature it seems to me like it would be a sign of being a weak suck, YMMV.
I will admit you have confused me greatly with your answer to my observation that a lot of people are arguing that the Vermont Democratic Party should not leave the nomination blank if Senator Sanders wins, but declines the nomination. You say:
I am not one of those people.
Does this mean you are cool with the arrangement Senator Sanders and the Vermont Democratic Party have arrived at? I had not detected that in either your tone or content. Anybody can be part of the peanut gallery and shout out what ever they want, but in a state election only the people of that state have a legitimate place to decide who qualifies to run for political office and how they run. This does eliminate me from having any legitimacy in this matter, but I'm lucky the Vermont Democratic Party and Senator Sanders are doing things I am in favor of.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The ignore feature is not "a sign of being a weak suck, YMMV," nor does it bounce you "off this board." It's a helpful feature for those who get very upset when certain other members post things. Clearly you do.
No, it means I haven't argued one way or another about this. I pointed out that it's ironic after 2016. Is that clearer?
But after saying....
Your demand that I weigh in on that gives one whiplash...
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Anyone can file the paperwork and get on the ballot against Sanders. All they did was to ENCOURAGE Sanders to file the paperwork and to get on the Democratic primary ballot, because he caucuses with the Democrats and the Democratic party needs to defend 25 seats currently held by Democrats and to challenge 9 Republican held seats. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-horrible-2018-senate-map-couldnt-have-come-at-a-better-time/
We need to keep ALL our seats and flip two to get the majority in the Senate. Sanders very likely would win the Democratic nomination as a write in, but it is possible that not enough people would bother to write him in without a campaign for people to do just that. Then, we face a three way race -- again, it is likely Sanders wins. Two questions? Would you argue that the DSC should fund and support the Democrat - knowing that he/she is likely the weakest of the three and the effect is that it would pull more votes from Sanders than the Republican? That would 100% waste money needed elsewhere and have some potential for giving a safe Sanders seat to the Republicans.
If you spent even a short time in Vermont, you would know that ordinary, unconnected people have far more ability to - and do - get their concerns heard by their elected officials. Disclaimer - the only states my husband and I have lived in that we can compare are NY, NJ and Indiana. We have been active in grassroots politics in all three. Vermont - hands down - has a culture where people can and do meet their mayors, governors, Senators and Representative and local officials.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But in terms of reality, yes, it hamstrings any democratic challengers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/08/22/challenge-from-the-left-in-vermont/f10e03d5-0540-4c54-9c89-bd926503e5d7/
In 1993, Sandoval lamented the state partys coordination against her much in the same way that Sanders now blasts the Democratic establishment.
This lack of state party support even after the primary brings forth the question: were the voters deprived of their civil rights in not having their voice count when the Democratic party did not support the candidate of their Party and of their choice? Sandoval wrote in a response to a Federal Elections Commission complaint against her campaign.
In her complaint, Sandoval reported that the Vermont Democratic party did not even provide one dollar of financial support, nor did it attempt to align her campaign with any relevant Political Action Committees.
http://www.talkmedianews.com/featured/2016/05/30/when-bernie-was-the-man/
Why do you think Bernie feels a need to do this, repeatedly if indeed he is so unbeatable?
And no, I don't need to spend any time in Vermont to point this out, and that seems to be your main rebuttal to my posts...
You seem to think that unless you live in Vermont, you can't make any observations about anything that goes on there.
It sounds like you think that the Democrat establishment should choose who is the most viable candidate prior to the primary, and restrict funding from any challengers. Interesting to say the least...
karynnj
(59,504 posts)election. Here, the text in your copied block is from David Broder, essentially a Republican. (Note - Smith complains that Bernie Sanders was a celebrity and buttons just said Bernie. At that point, he had only been mayor of Burlington, where he did a great job. Miro Weinberger, the current mayor, has also done a very good job, but he is not known statewide. Bernie was known state wide because he went to town halls everywhere meeting with people all over the state. The fact that Smith made that comment showed that Sanders had created a following.
The second is from a person who comments on Fox News. As to Sandoval, maybe there was a reason - beyond money - that she got only 3% of the vote -- and was not endorsed by Madeline Kunin, an advocate for women in politics and a very nice person or Peter Welch or Pat Lashy.
The fact is the party almost always to some degree favors the incumbent -- and Bernie is the incumbent and he caucuses with the Democrats.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the Democratic candidate prior to the primary?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)IF someone else gets more votes than Bernie, he/she will be the nominee. It is up to Vermont Democrats. The only thing the party did was to ASK Bernie to get his name on the ballot. He agreed, but then said that if he won he would decline the designation. That was an honest thing to do, rather than running without saying that. The fact is - he is easily the most popular politician in the state. (Note Howard Dean got nowhere near 85% of the primary vote in 2004 - that number reflects how popular he is - though most people did not think he had a chance to win the nomination from Hillary.)
By the way, consider that in Massachusetts, a candidate needs 15% of the delegates at the party convention to get on the Democratic primary ballot at all -- Vermont does not do that. You just need a relatively small number of signatures by Vermont voters.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And hasn't every time he runs?
And that restricting funding and access to political action committees to any challenger isn't giving their chosen candidate a leg up?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/08/22/challenge-from-the-left-in-vermont/f10e03d5-0540-4c54-9c89-bd926503e5d7/
In 1993, Sandoval lamented the state partys coordination against her much in the same way that Sanders now blasts the Democratic establishment.
This lack of state party support even after the primary brings forth the question: were the voters deprived of their civil rights in not having their voice count when the Democratic party did not support the candidate of their Party and of their choice? Sandoval wrote in a response to a Federal Elections Commission complaint against her campaign.
In her complaint, Sandoval reported that the Vermont Democratic party did not even provide one dollar of financial support, nor did it attempt to align her campaign with any relevant Political Action Committees.
http://www.talkmedianews.com/featured/2016/05/30/when-bernie-was-the-man/
And if he is "easily the most popular politician in the state" why does he feel the need to use this manuever every time he runs? Why does he use the Democratic establishment machine to hamstring any Democratic challenger, instead of letting the Democratic primary play out, then run against the actual Democratic challenger in the General, and getting that easy victory?
He raises money for his Senate re-election campaign from out of state as well. Being as he is, the most popular politician in the state, I'm curious as to why he seeks that outside money to win - and why he solicits that kind of "outside involvement from people who don't live in Vermont."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10693163
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The Vermont state party does not fund people running in the primary. They also have no control over the DCCC and the DSC.
Your link is about a 1990 race and you are treating a losing candidate's comments as truth. Note that she complains that the state Democratic party did not give her money or "align her campaign with relevant Political Action Committees. The later is clearly something SHE and her campaign should have done.
Did you have a problem with Hillary Clinton having fund raisers ask for the maximum allowable in 2006 for both the primary (where her opponent was pretty unknown) and the general election against a very lame Republican -- mostly from outside the state? https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/politics/21donate.html Consider that in 2006, like now, we were struggling to take back Congress - which we very narrowly did. If it is wrong for Bernie to raise money this year - either to have money to give via a leadership PAC or to run in 2020 - wasn't it wrong of Clinton too?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)right to discuss Vermont.
However... you are happy to defend the soliticiation of donations of of those not living in Vermont to support his campaign.
The link is about a Democratic candidate that tried to run against Bernie in the primary, and I believe she is the last one that attempted it. The fact that the last one was in 1990 I think shows just how effective using the Democratic establishment to eliminate any other official primary candidates has been for him. I just find that ironic in 2018.
And we have Hillary Whataboutism for the win! The last vestige of a losing argument concerning Sanders - and not even an accurate one! I never said a word about Hillary's fundraising - let alone against raising it from PACs. I was talking about Bernie Sanders directly soliciting donations from Pennsylvania, from Democrats that never signed up for his mailing list, but have been getting emails from Sanders since December of 2015. Just imagine the hue and cry if people here on DU who had never signed up for Onward Together started getting fundraising emails...
And to answer your question, no, I don't think it's wrong for Bernie to solicit money from any legal sources or for Hillary to do the same, despite your strawman. I was pointing out that YOU change your tune on "people who have never set foot in Vermont should not be involved - even posting on DU - when I point out that Bernie is more than happy for out of state financial involvement.
But do go on about "taking back congress," and trying to imply that I am the one being inconsistent here.
Anything to deflect from directly addressing the elephant in the room.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Copy and paste this all you like, but one does not have to be in Vermont to note the irony of this arrangement, or to comment on Senator Sanders.
When a politicians ambitions expand so does the scrutiny in equal measure. Especially when one's ambitions expand to the oval office. Bernie is sending emails soliciting funds to Pennsylvania residents. Clearly one doesn't need to spend even a short time in Vermont to be considered a donor by Bernie, so perhaps your defensiveness towards anyone outside Vermont who comments on Sanders's activities should be informed by that.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The action has MORE to do with the Vermont party - Not Sanders - and I am sick of Hillary supporters not over the 2016 primary smearing a wonderful state. Incidentally, I do not think Bernie should be our 2020 nominee. I DO agree that it makes sense for the Democratic party here to encourage Sanders to be on their ballot. This is NOT a race that the party should have to waste money on. Yet, your posts seem to suggest that they should have wasted money in 1990. No amount of money would have made someone who got 3% of the vote the winner. 3% when she was listed as the Democrat, shows she had practically no grassroots support.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to the exclusion of being open to any others is what is best for the Vermont Democratic party. I don't doubt that at all.
I'm just saying that we should call it what it is, and not dance around the idea that many find it ironic.
If you call pointing out the facts are "a smear" then that's on you. It sounds like HRC supporters aren't the ones who are "not over the primary," as you put it.
Where do they suggest that? I simply posted what was written. Attacking straw men does not further your case.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #575)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)candidate prior to the primary is non-factual? Honey, if you want to ignore reality, sure, anyone can file paperwork. But those of us who don't ignore reality understand when a candidate is being prevented from accessing the resources that official candidates gets. You could file the paperwork - does that mean you have any kind of chance of being a viable candidate? Please.
No, it was about how the candidate was kept out of funding and connections with PACs. That was the reason. Is that clearer?
Can you specify how the "Clinton campaign considered it fair game to attack Vermont - in a way I have never seen a state attacked before in any primary."
And once again, the Whataboutism concerning Hillary whenever anyone points out an inconsistency in Senator Sanders is just amazing. And glass house cheap shots at Arkansas (so, have YOU ever stepped foot in Arkansas? Somehow I doubt that...) don't give your attempts to derail the discussion any more credibility than a seemingly endless supply of strawmen to attack...
George II
(67,782 posts)What would have been the point of doing that?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But a lot of malfeasance is attributed to HRC's campaign that didn't happen. Apparently the wilder the accusation, the more some people are willing to believe it.
The Russian and GOP propaganda machines found some very eager consumers on the left, didn't they?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)He is not using the Dem party to help him, he is helping the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party primary is this Tuesday in California. This is a "get out the Democratic vote," remind Democrats to vote campaign tour.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)With their cooperation.
Is that clearer?
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Sanders is running in the Democratic Primary and they will withdraw and keep the Vermont Democratic Party from having anyone on the ballot. In Texas, the Democratic Party could replace a candidate on the ballot who pulled this stunt
This stunt will hurt Democratic down ballot candidates
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)(and thus voters) as Bernie can?
Could it be his personality?
Or is it maybe his message?
Is he offering hope to working people while so many others offer silence on economic and justice issues?
Most Democrats probably agree with his stances on wages, our justice system and other issues, but who is willing to speak up and risk offending donors who may have "special interests"?
Anyone who draws crowds like Bernie?
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)This disgusting stunt has sanders running in the Democratic primary and then not running in the general election if he wins the primary. The result is that the Vermont Democratic Party does not have a candidate on the general election ballot.
In most states, the party could replace on the ballot a candidate who pulls this stunt.
Sanders can avoid any issue simply by either not running in the Democratic primary or running in the general election as a Democrat
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)by running in cooperation with the Vermont Democratic Party. He just isn't avoiding your dislike.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Call it whatever, but we need someone like Bill Clinton, Bernie or Obama who has charisma. The ability to draw and excite a large crowd for your ideas is one of the indications of charisma. No point in running and supporting a candidate if that candidate can't do that one, most basic political thing.
betsuni
(25,550 posts)Mondale ("Nobody who's been with me for the last few days and seen these crowds ... something's happening in this country" ), Dukakis ("It's something in the crowds. Something is happening" ), Kerry, Romney, all were sure they'd win because of large enthusiastic crowds.
So historically I guess size doesn't always matter in the end.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)then that always gets a turnout that will also make a lot of noise and applause. Good marketing.
However, some candidates are told that having large crowds makes them appear to expect to be "crowned with the nomination" so going to listening sessions is preferable.
Because really, how can one listen if one is lecturing? Listening is how one learns.
Oh, wait...
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)indicate the ability to win without a doubt, should be a fundamental requirement for any candidate for the presidency.
When people go to hear a speech by a politician, it suggests that they are more likely to get out and go to the polls and vote for that politician than if they don't bother to get out and go to a speech by him/her.
It's one of a number of key indicators -- the ability to inspire voters to come to see you speak.
It's no guarantee of a win, but it should be a prerequisite for a run for president.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Okay.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Our primary election is Tuesday.
Bernie is trying to get people to vote for Democrats.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Donkees
(31,428 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Quick work to build a stage add a podium, barricades and sound system after the theater filled up. Wow. I applaud the crew that built all that so quickly.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)...an outside sound system to handle the overflow crowds?
Such a saint.
Hekate!
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Cameras and people seem to be focused on something else. Look to the right side of the picture. Do you know who else appeared with Bernie?
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Did you even look at the picture?
oasis
(49,393 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Thanks Oasis.
George II
(67,782 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)oasis
(49,393 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I applaud them both.
George II
(67,782 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And I could probably count on one finger the percentage of Americans who could name John Dingell or any of his positions. Sanders is well-known with high approval ratings, and has been the most vocal proponent of Medicare for All. Glad to see Kamala and others on board.
George II
(67,782 posts)....revolutionary idea and he's a pioneer on the issue, despite the fact that John Dingell SENIOR first introduced the idea of "Medicare for All" way back in 1943 (two years after Sanders was born)
And despite the fact that John Dingell Jr. is now retired, his wife Debbie Dingell is now in that seat and SHE is promoting the concept of Medicare for All. Good to see that Sanders is on board with Kennedy's and the Dingells' decades-long proposal.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)...that they would want it for their kids, and then for themselves.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,175 posts)Did you want it to die along with the Dingells when they finally leave us?
What is it with this obsession with Bernie not getting any credit for anything. So he could put years, decades into a good cause but darn it he's just a usurper, hes a thief, because he didn't first speak about it (because he was a child at the time). Golly gee, I'll bet someone's also talked about higher minimum wages, maternity leave...
I'll bet even the idea of free college was one he didn't invent either so he should just drop that too.
What do you know? A bit of googling and I find out it was first proposed in Arizona in 1935!
https://www.edvisors.com/plan-for-college/money-saving-tips/colleges-with-free-tuition/history-of-free-college-tuition/
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If Bernie doesn't "give it a kick," it won't have any visibility and if he doesn't "take up the torch," the issue will "die along with the Dingells when they finally leave us?""
Because 65-year-old representative Debbie Dingell is the only person in Congress besides Bernie addressing the issue and when she "leaves us," thank God the currently-76-year-old Bernie to be there to keep the fight going?
Golly gee, indeed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)so I assume they were bored and easily distracted.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)and that's why we love him.. he never had to change or evolve on civil rights, gay rights, women's rights or human rights and neither have I, so I'm never bored or distracted by someone who has held most of the same beliefs as me as long as he's been a public figure. He never once said for political gain "marriage is between a man and a woman." He never, for political gain, demanded secrecy and silence from gays in the military.
Did you have to 'evolve' on any of the rights listed above? Many Democrats have you know.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Doing, not so much.
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)'don't ask don't tell' or DOMA. Bernie opposed both.. he's been doing plenty. If more representatives would speak up and speak out loud and often, maybe Congress would have restored the voting rights act, maybe Obama would have had his SCOTUS pick as he should have,maybe we'd have universal health care and, maybe, just maybe, we'd have a cleaner and fairer justice system. Yes, silence hasn't worked so well for us.
Would you be happier if he said nothing? Should he not speak out about injustice, about inequality, about racism? Do you not want public figures to speak out on these issues, or is it just Bernie Sanders?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)heavy lifting.
No one denies he speaks up loud and often - thats the problem. All he does is talk but he doesnt actually do anything - and all-too-often it would be better if he just stayed quiet.
For example, if Bernie had bothered to actually fight for President Obamas Supreme Court nominee instead of whining that the was too conservative and promising that, if elected president, he would withdraw Garlands nomination and replace him with someone else, that would have been helpful.
Speaking of more representatives needing to speak up like Bernie, youve heard of the Congressional Black Caucus, right? While Bernies off somewhere speaking out, theyre actually doing something. So are plenty of other representatives. But yall go ahead and keep telling us about how Bernies ideas are finally catching on.
Congressmen arrested for protesting over immigration outside Trump Tower
September 19, 2017
Three congressmen were among a group of protesters arrested outside Trump Tower on Tuesday, where they were participating in a demonstration in support of immigrants and protections recently ended by the Trump administration.
Democratic Reps. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Adriano Espaillat of New York were arrested on civil disobedience charges along with the speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, and six others, according to lawmakers' offices and Robin Levine, the spokeswoman with Mark-Viverito's office.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/congressmen-arrested-trump-tower-daca/index.html
July 26, 2011
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) was arrested during an immigration protest at the White House on Tuesday.
Gutierrez spokesman Douglas Rivlin confirmed the congressman was arrested outside the White House Tuesday afternoon, along with about 11 other people who were sitting on the sidewalk in front of the White House as part of an immigration protest.
?w=640&h=360&crop=1
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/26/congressman-gutierrez-arrested-at-white-house-protest/
October 8, 2013
At least eight Democratic members of the House were among about 200 people arrested Tuesday after they blocked a main street near the Capitol during a massive rally seeking to push Republicans to hold a vote on a stalled immigration reform bill.
Police would not identify those arrested. Representatives of the social policy organization Center for Community Change and The Associated Press witnessed the arrests of Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga.; Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill.; Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.; Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Joseph Crowley and Charles Rangel, both D-N.Y.; Al Green, D-Texas; and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.,
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/rep-john-lewis-arrested-during-washington-rally/
Link to tweet
April 27, 2006
Five Congress members were arrested and led away from the Sudanese Embassy in plastic handcuffs Friday in protest of the Sudanese government's role in atrocities in the Darfur region.
"The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a Holocaust survivor who founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said from the embassy steps before his arrest.
Four other Democratic Congress members James McGovern and John Olver of Massachusetts, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jim Moran of Virginia were among 11 protesters arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly, a misdemeanor subject to a fine.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5-lawmakers-arrested-in-darfur-protest/
betsuni
(25,550 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)what a look she gave them all. She's something else and still re-claiming her time.
I heard Bernie many times speaking out about GOP obstruction of Obama's choice. I never saw an interview where he didn't bring it up.
I proud of every Congressperson who puts themselves out there. There are far too few. I'm glad Sanders is one of them.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 11:00 PM - Edit history (1)
to withdraw the nomination?
I suspect President Obama would have preferred if the good Senator had just kept his mouth shut because, not helpful, Bernie.
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Huh? and what is justbkeotbhis? Never heard President Obama use that. I'm honestly curious as to what that means..
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The other Democrats aren't going around claiming they did more than anyone else.
But since you asked, here's one example. Many Democrats worked directly with civil rights organizations to strategize and push back on Republican obstruction of Garland. They sat down with them and worked hand-in-hand with them, helped them shape messages and to generate grassroots pushback in communities across the country through protests, letter writing, calls, emails. It ultimately proved unsuccessful, but they got in there and helped, as they often do on civil rights and social justice issues. Bernie never participated in any of this. And people in the civil rights community were pretty disgusted when he undermined their efforts by saying that if he was elected president, he would withdraw Garland's nomination and select someone more liberal.
In fact, Bernie rarely works with us on these issues. He's just not in the mix, and not because he hasn't been asked.
So the idea that his supporters are trying to convince people that he took the lead in fighting for Garland because he "spoke out" is laughable and counter-factual, to put it nicely. I know better.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Well I heard he wanted a sitting, very popular President primaried. Did you support that?
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)calimary
(81,350 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)doxyluv13
(247 posts)Is divisiveness your only goal?
Please remove the picture of Thurgood Marshall from your profile. He'd puke if he read your posts.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)...did he feel compelled to JOIN REPUBS in running down Merrick Garland at a crucial time? WHY?
Of course he didn't lead the GOP or anything of the sort. But he certainly made it easier for them to stall until the election was over and Hillary lost, then stall until Obama was gone and then get their own man into the SCOTUS so the SCOTUS now has a historic rightward tilt.
I fail to understand Bernie's motives.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)The only argument that made any of the Republicans have any second thoughts about stonewalling Garland was the possibility that they could lose the presidency in November and potentially be faced with a new nominee less centrist than Garland was then perceived to be. Without that threat it was a freebie for Republicans to block Garland. If they won the presidency they could get a rightist on the court. If they lost the presidency they still got the guy who was in part chosen to overcome their objections in the first place. Fear that a more liberal justice might be the next nominee instead was their only real incentive to seat Garland before the election.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)MountCleaners
(1,148 posts)For decades I've lived in a district represented by various Black Caucus members. They are the true progressive leadership in the Congress and Bernie supporters don't follow them or their activities, and give them NO credit. I've talked to some of them and they barely know who the Black Caucus is or what their positions are.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)I saw Bernie on Bill Maher's show on Friday and he made his usual stump speech points - all of which I agree with - but he didn't mention women or women's issues once and only mentioned Black Lives Matter one time (but didn't elaborate).
Didn't.Mention.Women.Once.
I really hope he doesn't run for president again. I think he is more suited to the Senate.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And his rants usually consist of a string of sentences beginning with We gotta ... to which his fans cheer and cheer because he named the problem.
We claim to have justice for all in this country. That would be naïve to believe. We have one system of justice for the wealthy and another system for the poor and people of color.
While I think, Well, duh. I already knew that. Knew that a long time ago. What are you gonna DO about it?
Nothing like hearing a U.S. Senator saying Somebody oughta do something!
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Heck Al Green was arrested back in 2012 with George Clooney before Clooney was married. He offered to raffle off Clooney's cell number at a fundraiser
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Congressman Al Green had fun being arrested https://www.click2houston.com/news/houston-congressman-arrested-with-george-clooney_20151124151855447
On Saturday, Green told Local 2 he thinks he made the right decision, even if it meant going to jail.
"You can arrest people, but you can't stop them from standing up for what they believe in for others," Green said. "And that arrest was a small price to pay if we can save one child's life, feed one child. What a small price to pay."
They were protesting a humanitarian crisis in Sudan that threatens to lead to the starvation and genocide of thousands of people.
"I have paid a fine. I've been released, and I'm proud to say I was arrested for a cause I will never be ashamed of," said Green.
I was at a fundraiser the day after this happened. People tried to get Al to auction off Clooney's phone number
Hekate
(90,727 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...he's 76 years old, he's been saying that since he was 16? How do we know?
He also said some strange things when he was 30, if he hasn't evolved in 60 years does he still believe those things?
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)95. He's been saying the same things for almost 60 years.
and that's why we love him.. he never had to change or evolve on civil rights, gay rights, women's rights or human rights and neither have I, so I'm never bored or distracted by someone who has held most of the same beliefs as me as long as he's been a public figure. He never once said for political gain "marriage is between a man and a woman." He never, for political gain, demanded secrecy and silence from gays in the military.
Did you have to 'evolve' on any of the rights listed above? Many Democrats have you know.
So change is not good? Evolving, growing, knowing, learning is a bad thing? 60 years? So he learned all he had to know about life was at 16 and has never grown past those years? These are your words, not mine. He knew life's intricate structures about women, human rights, civil rights, gays and their right of choice. Your words, he has been saying this for 60 years. He is 76. So he learned all he needed to know at 16 years old and has never changed his opinion. Are you serious?
And for most of those years a relative lone elected official voice. The man has a seemingly endless reserve of persistence, consistency, and unapologetic frankness to go along with his common sense view of the times and world we live in. He speaks and has been saying for decades exactly what is on the minds of many. He never triangulates. Which is all why millions are inspired by, admire and as you say, love and admire him.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)But there was a helluvalotta swooning over Obama. Nice projection, Eff!
betsuni
(25,550 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and avoided the BOG like the plague.
betsuni
(25,550 posts)It's your imagination.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)old threads, especially the one with pics of him in the ocean. The cowboy hat. The dark sunglasses. Etc.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)He campaigned as a leftie liberal but governed as a centrist. With a filibuster-proof (for approximately 60 days) congress, he and the corporate Democrats gave us right-wing think tank (Heritge Foundation) medical insurance reform. Why? Because of the corrupt, corporate Democrats we're told are the only ones that can win. What's the point if they reliably vote with the Republicans? He promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead he expanded our footprint to seven countries. But I digress. I wept in 2008 when Obama was elected.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)R B Garr
(16,955 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)As a straight man, even I find him attractive and if I were a woman I'd sure swoon over him!
Even if he wasn't physically attractive (DAMN I'm jealous of that smile!) just his demeanor, speech delivery, upbeat personality and of course ideology would make anyone "swoon" over him, man or woman. Not a combination one finds often in politicians these days.
On top of that, he won the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 (certainly swoon-worthy), won the election, and re-election in 2012.
If that doesn't make one admire him, i.e., "swoon", I don't know what would.
JI7
(89,254 posts)and enjoyed seeing the things he was doing and posting about it .
i wish we had him or another democrat as president now.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)damn proud of Bernie for that!! I know that's disappointing to some, who buy into "Third-Way" politics, but that's who Bernie is and, just ONE of the many reasons why we love and admire the guy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I would expect more than talk from a career politician after 30+ years on Capitol Hill.
However, I've also changed my opinions when I got new facts or data on a topic, because I respect expertise and scholarship. I would expect that from any person with intellectual curiosity, let alone after decades in leadership.
I think that rigidity of thought is often confused for constancy.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)he was on the right side from the beginning.
The entertainment value of those twisting for those who DID need to evolve is priceless.
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)when I heard Obama say. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" my heart just sank..but he changed and that's good. Clinton did too. Now, did they really believe in what they stated? If not, that means they were speaking strickly for political gain and not out of a deep seated religious belief, but let's not go there. The important thing is they changed, and if a few gays died for the cause along the way... meh.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)That's all I'm saying.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)is not always. Theres always so much fake news about his campaign, sucks the Russians latched on to him, isnt it?
George II
(67,782 posts)....more recently.
I could reiterate most of your post above with respect to Sanders but you get the point.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Bernie voted against DOMA in 1996 - get your smear game on point...
[link:http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/|
"On DOMA itself, Sanders was part of a smaller group of opponents, just 67. The bill passed and President Bill Clinton signed it in September."
George II
(67,782 posts).....IS on point (need you be insulting?)
Like many of his other votes (i.e., gun control, Russia sanctions, 1994 crime bill, etc.), he left himself an "out" - Sanders voted against DOMA because he felt the issue was one of states' rights, not that he was against the actual content of the bill. He felt each state should decide for itself. In fact, he WAS against same-sex marriage at the time, and remained so at least until 2006, perhaps even beyond 2006.
"In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was comfortable with civil unions, not full marriage equality."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)but wasn't REALLY against it... keep spinning
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He was only against DOMA for states rights reasons- which troubles me.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)For some reason ... because, I dont know, Bernie or something ...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)betsuni
(25,550 posts)Response to bettyellen (Reply #380)
Post removed
George II
(67,782 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Interesting.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)for some reason.
Pretty sad.
Now that the illegal SC has decided bigotry against gay people is legal, we are in for it big time.
I now who the allies are and ARE NOT.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)This is the case in Maryland already and a number of other states will be adopting ballot access laws that will require the release of tax returns to be on the ballot
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)happening in every state then someone can just ignore those states and if they are small enough... ... ...
Personally I am unable to understand why anybody would support a candidate who refused to do this.
betsuni
(25,550 posts)LOL.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)As long as we're talking about "almost 60 years." Women's rights, indeed.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)and all the things he has been saying for 60 years.
Once we get fair wages, etc., then maybe Bernie will think of some new answers to our problems.
The crowds love him.
Does any other Democrat draw crowds like that?
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)yes many DEMOCRATS draw bigger crowds. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris to name a few.
George II
(67,782 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)or something ...
George II
(67,782 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)R B Garr
(16,955 posts)now when I see these threads. Fake legislation, now crowds that were there to see a movie. You described it perfectly.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)When in truth the "huge crowd" was there to see a movie. Perhaps that is why the OP image shows many cameras facing away from the podium. Was this a movie premier and perhaps some celebs were present?
George II
(67,782 posts)betsuni
(25,550 posts)Sounds familiar, but I just can't put my finger on why. Oh well.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)It will come to me in the morning.
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Facts get in the way of talking about bernie's many accomplishments
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Nothing wrong with that..it is what it is.
Bernie's words are so awesome that a building can't contain them, safely. I am glad that he had the forethought (but, of course, he would have) to provide contingencies just in case his awesomeness flowed outside.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)outside the official venue.
Can you name another Democrat that draws crowds as large as that?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Obama tells adoring crowd in Berlin: We cant hide behind a wall
Former US president gets heros welcome as he reunites with Angela Merkel and urges crowd to fight those who divide us
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/barack-obama-draws-crowd-of-tens-of-thousands-in-berlin
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We need leaders who speak out right now.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)You asked someone to name "another" I gave you one and now your request more.
430. Yes. Bernie often draws such large crowds that he has to speak to many people
outside the official venue.
Can you name another Democrat that draws crowds as large as that
I could name another off the top of my head who had a massive crowd. Yet that would be refighting the primaries now wouldn't it. Am I to go back and check the size of the crowds of those no longer with us as well...to start, Martin, Bobby and John.
PS. Talking about it and actually doing something about our current situation makes the difference size does not matter, actions do. Hint, Russian sanctions and the vote.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,155 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Donkees
(31,428 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)BlueWI
(1,736 posts)What could be worse??
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But if people are going to rave on and on about how he used his privilege to lead sit-ins in the early 60s, it also bears mentioning that he then used his white privilege to, instead of staying in Chicago or returning to New York or going down South to fight for the cause, he made the choice that his privilege provided him to walk away and move to one of the whitest states in the country where he was unlikely to live near or regularly encounter people of color or encounter or engage in the civil rights struggle in any meaningful way for the next 50 years or so.
So, not mad at him, but a little tired of his fans holding him up as some kind of a civil rights icon. It's not only inaccurate, it's insulting to the people who really DID use/give up their privilege and those who didn't have any privilege to give up but sacrificed and fought in the trenches while Bernie was up in Vermont.
George II
(67,782 posts)...his hometown of Brooklyn, NY.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)He moved to a RURAL, predominantly white state.
Why is that legal???
lapucelle
(18,282 posts)Vermont has one of the worst track records when it comes to the criminal justice system. According to Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform (VCJR) white people are equally as likely to be involved with drugs as black people are, yet, on average, black and brown people are incarcerated in Vermont state prisons at a rate 5.1 times higher the imprisonment of whites. Vermont has a higher rate of incarceration of black and brown men than any other state. 1 in 14 black and brown men in the state of Vermont are incarcerated.
https://middleburycampus.com/37955/local/vermonts-criminal-justice-system-a-series-unveiling-challenges-practices/
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)I live in Wisconsin, which competes with Wisconsin for implicit bias and unequal justice in incarceration.
So what's my option here? Do I join you in your concern trolling with a focus on Tammy Baldwin, who's been in office for 6 years and is up for reelection this year in a predominantly white (86%) state, about why her presence hasn't moved the needle on equal treatment for people of color in Wisconsin?
Do I look up where other Wisconsin Democrats lived, just in case they moved here from a state with more POC, and speculate on whether they meet my self-imposed and unmeasurable standard of using your privilege properly to empower others?
Do I respond to the complicated and vexing problem of inequality with broad brush dismissals of entire political careers?
Or would these actions be a complete waste of time, solving nothing, contributing nothing except to pump up my own self-righteous attitudes toward other Democratic voters?
Here's my choice: I appreciate all sincere and consistent efforts by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, et al., to connect with core Democratic constituencies that have been underserved by many, many elected Democrats.
You get to choose your own option. I hope that whatever it is, it helps Democrats unify and win a CRITICAL midterm election in November.
George II
(67,782 posts)BlueWI
(1,736 posts)and now I know more about the moveable goal posts when it comes to being a pro-civil rights politician. It doesn't matter if the needle hasn't moved on equality in outcomes for POC, that doesn't affect your reputation as long as you were born in the state in question.
Or, do you also need satisfactory evidence that you've "used your privilege" to address inequality, or some equally fuzzy standard?
Bottom line: be a Sanders skeptic and enjoy it if you want. Just don't harbor the illusion that this obsession with a Vermont residence helps produce progressive legislation or defeat Trump.
George II
(67,782 posts)...city with minorities that were in dire need of advocacy to move to the sparsely (and mostly white) populated state of Vermont, where there are very few beleaguered minorities.
Seemingly by comparison you bring up Tammy Baldwin, who was born in Wisconsin, was raised and educated there, and remained there to help the people of her state. BIG difference, in this context there is absolutely no comparison between Sanders and Baldwin.
On the other hand, let's look a little closer at the facts - Sanders was a "civil rights advocate" in the 1960s. So what does he do to build on that? Shortly after he "marched on Washington" in his mid-20s he moved up to a state that is ~96% white and did virtually nothing to advance the cause of civil rights for decades.
Why did he do that?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)law was put in by GOP and progressives.
George II
(67,782 posts)lapucelle
(18,282 posts)BlueWI
(1,736 posts)not on this topic, and not on this thread. Usually I don't bother to repond, but the Sanders pile-on is so persistent that even when I stop by for news two years after the 2016 primary, the Sanders pile on is relentless.
As far as how I responded to you, concern trolling" isn't a name, it's a description of a behavior. I also used the phrase "self-righteous attitude toward other Democratic voters," which I think is fair given the way that the anti-Sanders crowd has piled on to even this news post about Sanders, but if you find the phrasing over the top, I can understand that and I apologize.
If you want to address my substantive points, feel free of course, otherwise, PEACE.
Cha
(297,365 posts)they lose.
Aloha, lapucelle
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)which was a response to my post. I'm not as deeply steeped in the network of reputations on this site that you seem to inhabit.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Hmmm, yeah I remember. It was about the word wypipo and how horrible and offensive and divisive to call other DUers names, when nobody called them such a thing. If you do not act that way you are not a wypipo. Then we have in this thread people calling DUers trolls. I have also read that we are accused of being Russian bots. None of that is offensive or divisive I guess. I have a thick skin and can take the attacks.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I mean, look at how much people disagree about him. Bernie threads are like Wypipo discussions on steroids.
No one should be allowed to talk about Bernie because, you know, divisive
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)He is divisive and his divisiveness divides. I am so tired of his attacks on Democrats. He is one man. One independent that time and again attacks our party. Yeah, I hear it said he caucuses with us and he does. Yet leaves us wanting on gun legislation and Russian sanctions, Yet here he is again running as a dem in VT and will refuse that honor and run once again as a indie. you are with us or you are not.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)From what I can tell myself and those who I identify with here have ONE main thing in common, we SUPPORT the party and it's leadership.
I can only dance around the nonsense so long and eventually someone is going to HAVE to come out and address the faction out to destroy our party who are not republicans.
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)out there as a national savior, which invites an examination of credibility. If you move out of an area where there is diversity into an area that is largely white, then that brings into question your credibility if you claim to be a civil rights leader. Like if your issue is child hunger, but you move to Beverly Hills, then you have inoculated yourself from actually doing anything about child hunger because that isnt an issue in rich areas.
Seriously, this isnt hard.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)and my take is different. What else is new? How long has this argument continue over where Bernie Sanders lives and what it signifies?? You don't like Bernie Sanders or don't think he has civil rights bona fides, more power to you, be an honest skeptic and free yourself from the endless justifications.
As obvious as your opinion seems to you, it equally obvious to me that to focus obsessively on where Bernie Sanders lives does nothing to elect Democrats or to get progressive legislation, and supposedly, that's what we're all seeking on this site.
Otherwise, I guess we all need to move to Georgia, or we're all posers.
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)Lots of inner city problems where he could roll up his sleeves and get truly involved. Instead, he chose to move to a small white state where he can critique others from afar while not actually doing anything himself.
That is hypocrisy, which brings credibility into question. You should think about that before accusing others of not being an honest skeptic. Moving away from problems you claim to care about is more the dishonest skeptic. Thats the point of bringing up the hypocrisy.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)And you actually think this is productive?
It's ok to agree to disagree about whether it's valid to criticize where Bernie Sanders chose to live. I don't see it as productive, and most of the time, I don't even bother to post in opposition to this exceedingly absurd obsession.
Here's my bottom line: I understand the critique of living outside of where the problem of inequality appears to be most prevalent. What I object to is why this critique is only applied to Bernie Sanders. The Clintons live in New York - and their home neighborhood is as exclusive as any other. Where does Chuck Schumer live - is he subject to the same critique? What about Pat Leahy? Did he run away to live in Vermont, like Bernie Sanders, or does he get a pass if he's from Vermont?
Once the opposing interpretations are stated, there's nothing else to say. That's my point. Why beat a dead horse two years running?
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)the name of helping when that is not what is happening. Talk about beating a dead horse. He puts himself out there as a savior of my party, so of course his consistency/credibility will be questioned.
Look around this front GD page and youll see the threats his wife just made yesterday about her/his visions for Democrats. She is saying they are going to dictate the changes or there will be a third party (Im on my phone, cant link, but look for the thread). No one else you mention denigrates Democrats, so there is no comparison. Its the hypocrisy.
edit-She is at Left Forum, Google and listen to the undermining of Democrats and threat of a third party.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)community and didn't spend their entire adult lives living in an all-white enclave - and, of all the place Bill Clinton could have located his post-presidency office, he chose Harlem - so their choice of homes at this point is completely irrelevant. And neither Chuck Schumer nor Pat Leahy don't go around touting their civil rights props and their supporters don't consistently hold them up as civil rights heroes because of a protest they participated in 55 years ago, so their choices of domicile are also irrelevant.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)You and many others have firmly decided their opinions on "the first black president" and former senator Clinton. I am sure there's an archive of DU posts from 2002-2016 that cover all sides of this topic, so like many recent food fights like this, there's not much to add. I will beat this dead horse deader for a minute, why not!
You'd think that New York and Arkansas have no racial equity gaps, with as much praise as is heaped on the Clintons. What about the straight up white collar robbery of black home equity in the 2000s that happened right under the noses of Clinton and Schumer during their Senate terms? In the midst of the endless Bernie bashing, are you implying that the Democratic leader of the Senate has no responsibility for pursuing racial equity with conviction? With as much leverage as the Clintons and Schumer have pursued in the banking and finance industries, I would think that such vigilant champions for black causes might have found their voice during the Great Black Depression, with the Wells Fargo of the world settling out of court after padding their fat pockets with equity stolen from black communities. Did they stand up for black homeowners against big finance and I missed it???
So, out of 47 members of the Democratic/Independent causus, not to mention 51 Republicans, the only person I hear you holding accountable for his racial record is Sanders. Your single-mindedness on this point is remarkable.
Obviously there's nuance here, and I will be canvassing and voting for Democrats as I always do, although Senator Baldwin definitely heard from me about the Franken debacle. My proposal is that as a progressive community, we hold all Democrats accountable for defeating Republicans as quickly and effectively as we defeated a senator from our own party. Then maybe we wouldn't be facing a corrupt autocrat in the White House and a Republican congressional majority THAT WE STILL NEED TO BEAT after achieving a supermajority in 2008.
Of course, nothing I say will lead to any rethinking of the Bernie bashing, so charge on. I am out.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/13/nyregion/criticized-on-office-rent-clinton-looks-to-harlem.html
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/10/1513624/-There-s-a-funny-story-about-Bill-Clinton-choosing-Harlem-for-his-office
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Jeez.
lapucelle
(18,282 posts)Personally, I'm still making phone calls for Democratic candidates in my state primary, and I've already started canvassing at train stations in my purple district for Democratic candidates running unopposed in the GE .
Options for engagement include "posing" or "doing". I choose to do. When I vote, I find it more useful to focus broadly on what a candidate has actually done to advance Democratic party core values rather than on what he/she merely talks about potentially doing.
Those bewildered by vexing hypotheticals would better serve the clarity of their own thinking by avoiding the broad dismissals based on unwarranted assumptions that they themselves purport to bemoan.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Your service is noted and appreciated. We all need to do more.
I am in a purple state, and we just had four big wins in April locally to flip a city council toward the more progressive side, and we have a ghost of a chance to beat Scott Walker and a likely opportunity to keep the U.S. Senate seat blue.
Given the state of things, no one is above criticism. It should be fair criticism, though, and that includes the whole Democratic party's record on civil rights and racial equality.
As far as "vexing hypotheticals" - I'm too simple to unpack that one, but I'm pretty confident in the clarity of my thinking, as you are.
Peace and all the best through the campaign season.
KPN
(15,646 posts)sentiments.
Cha
(297,365 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Of course any criticism of Sanders is "bashing" and pointing out the actual achievements of Democrats is "divisive."
Well, as you say, "I'm out."
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)and deserve credit for their achievements and criticism for their failures. Nothing more, nothing less. If you represent the public and work in public institutions, accept accountability or find a different profession. I have met and am on a first name basis with the majority of state legislators in my area, Republican and Democrat. My partner holds public office and I know several of our county commissioners and judges. I greatly respect what public officials do. But I also respect the importance of the offices enough that I am believe that accountability is critical for every officeholder, regardless of party affiliation. Don't you?
I take issue with the groupthink on this thread that does exactly what you accuse - that holds Sanders accountable for his record and his choice of residence, but no one else. The sacred cows in the Senate can't be criticized, even when they fail to act in a way that reduced inequality, such as during the Great Recession's ripoff of black equity, their culpability in black mass incarceration, etc. This thread talks about racial issues and the need to walk the talk. So here we are.
Do you dispute the notion of accountability for all senators, not just Sanders? Beyond the racial issues, we're all frustrated with the huge loss of seats among Democrats nationwide in 2016. Plenty of accountability to go around. Bill Clinton plays golf on a course built by Trump and attended his wedding. Lots of New York and New Jersey politicians looked the other way or profited from Trump's shady business actions long before his presidency. Why is it ok to mention the Trump- Sanders Russian trolling, but not to mention the lax regulatory environment that enabled Trump's rise in a mostly blue city?
So it goes.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)supposedly so unique and special - but when it's pointed out that he's not all that special, the response is "Why are you treating him different? What about the OTHER senators?! He's not doing anything THEY'RE not doing, so why are you singling BERNIE out?!"
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Yet you won't get an answer.
betsuni
(25,550 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)being ineffectual at best, and corrupt at worst, then that's not holding everyone to account.
George II
(67,782 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,175 posts)For whatever reason he chose to settle there after University. He first ran in Vermont in '72. He served as the mayor of Burlingham as well 19811989. How long does a politician have to make excuses for where he lives and runs in? And every white politican is not required to prove their commitment to things like black injustice by making what could be seen as a symbolic act of living in and running for a State with a greater populace of African Americans. He wins in Vermont, I don't blame him for staying and winning there again and again. Winning is the only way he can make a difference in Washington. Have his voice heard, one that stands up for minorities and disadvantaged, and not afraid of Wall Street. I like how he relied on small donations in his last run for P.
I don't know why some on here are hell bent on making him an enemy. I think even if you, for whatever reason, don't like him, at least appreciate any extra votes he brings along with his popularity, even if you are baffled about it.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)As I said, Not mad at him. Im just tired of people who obviously dont know jack squat about the civil rights movement and therefore think that Bernie Sanders participation was something unusual or special, trying to tell me that he deserves some kind of lifetime achievement award because he marched and sat in a few times 55 years ago.
Yes, Bernie did more 55 years ago than many white people did. But he did far less than many others. Compared to many white people who worked in the movement during that time, Bernies participation was very limited, minimal and temporary and came with very little risk. Thats not a criticism - its good that he participated - but thats just a fact. And in my experience, most white liberals who participated during that time - including those who worked harder, longer and at considerably greater risk to their education, careers, status, relationships, safety and lives than Bernie did and stayed in the fight long after Bernie moved on to other things - would never even think of milking their efforts the way Bernie supporters milk his brief time in the movement.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,175 posts)The OP was not about that either. He certainly isn't bragging about it.
It is just one of the many things to admire about him. Of course there were others that did more, many more did less. But even in the small amount of protest and organization he did do in his youth, it was probably more than most any other white representative. Why should someone thumb their noses at that? Sure he could have done more. You can say that about anyone. But as he matured he chose to direct his energies to more good causes with politics. Expanding his world to all of the country and including other issues affecting Americans too. Its not like he abandoned 'the movement', he fought it in a different way, a different arena instead of the streets. Why single him out as somehow being less than perfect for the road he chose? When he did a lot more than most. Isn't that enough to show you that he is a good person?
Every time anyone posts anything positive about him there is a barrage of hate posts. I'm just so tired of it.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Was it this? I think it's great that Bernie Sanders and tens of thousands of other young white college students participated in civil rights protests across the country during the 1960s. They truly made a difference, whatever their contribution.
Or this? Some, like Bernie, participated in protests at or near their schools ... But whatever the degree and depth of their participation, every one made a difference.
Or maybe this? Bernie Sanders' participation was admirable and laudable and appreciated.
How about this? For me, the bottom line is that Bernie Sanders did the right thing in 1963. I give him a lot of credit for that.
Or was it this coup de grace of Bernie hate? So, again, I say, Thank you, Senator Sanders for doing the right thing 55 years ago and joining with us to help bring America closer to the more perfect union that we ALL want it to be.
That's a whole lotta Bernielove in one post. If this post were any more laudatory toward him, I'd be nominated to be an honorary bruh...
So, please spare me the accusations about hating on Bernie.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,175 posts)When I said I was tired of it, I was talking more about some others that are much more transparent in their hate.
but you must admit you have been giving him backhanded compliments. As well as his supporters. Reducing us to "fans" and that we are holding him up as "a civil rights icon". As if we are dumb enough to use that as our only reason to support him. You are certainly more fair than others. Some here it seems their only job is to tear down Sanders. That is what I am tired of. and I'm sorry if I lump you in with the more extreme haters. Its always the same group. I think I need a nap now.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And I don't give backhanded compliments. When I compliment people, including Bernie, I mean it as a compliment. When I want to criticize, I come out and criticize.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,175 posts)Lets all work together with all of our friends and allies to take back the House this year!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)garybeck
(9,942 posts)" he made the choice that his privilege provided him to walk away and move to one of the whitest states in the country where he was unlikely to live near or regularly encounter people of color or encounter or engage in the civil rights struggle in any meaningful way for the next 50 years or so. "
excuse. me. his living in Vermont has not prevented him from doing anything and to say that he has not engage in civil rights struggle in the last 50 years is factually inaccurate. he has spent the last 50 years doing just that.
George II
(67,782 posts)...whenever it's pointed out that he couldn't even get his policies enacted in his own (current) state of Vermont it's said that "he isn't in state or local government".
So, please, WHAT specifically has he done in the "last 50 years"? Anything?
garybeck
(9,942 posts)Or the many rallies here in Vermont that I here personally seen him speak at.
He speaks publicly at rallies and on weekly radio shows.
He writes books about all these things
And he proposes legislation and votes on legislation
What else do you want him to do, get arrested for civil disobedience?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)garybeck
(9,942 posts)What else would you like him to do?
Again, he proposes legislation, he attends many many rallies and speaks publicly about civil rights and other important issues, he writes books about all of these things. What else would you like him to do?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And writes books about his speeches.
garybeck
(9,942 posts)first you said he has done nothing
then I listed several things that he does and you only acknowledged one of them and said that is the bare minimum that politicians are required to do.
then I pointed out that you neglected to acknowledge the other things he does.
now you say his books are just about his speeches, which is not correct.
in all this you have refused to answer my question.
what would you like him to do that he is not doing?
what are other politicians doing that he is not doing that make you feel so strongly motivated to criticize him and say he is doing nothing?
Is he doing less than Patrick Leahy, the other Senator from my state?
Is he doing less than your senators?
what exactly would you like him to do?
the fact is he does more for the common people than most politicians. he speaks the truth. I have learned a lot by just listening to his radio interviews and public speeches. and everything he says turns out to be true.
so if you are going to be so publicly critical of him and say that he does nothing I think you owe it to him and anyone reading this what you think he should be doing, and what every one else is doing besides him, that he is not.
because I think you will find that your claim is no substance and he is in fact doing as much or more than most other politicians.
have a nice day.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)lapucelle
(18,282 posts)There seem to be pronounced racial disparities in the criminal justice system in VT.
"Vermont has one of the worst track records when it comes to the criminal justice system. According to Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform (VCJR) white people are equally as likely to be involved with drugs as black people are, yet, 'on average, black and brown people are incarcerated in Vermont state prisons at a rate 5.1 times higher the imprisonment of whites. Vermont has a higher rate of incarceration of black and b
rown men than any other state. 1 in 14 black and brown men in the state of Vermont are incarcerated.'
https://middleburycampus.com/37955/local/vermonts-criminal-justice-system-a-series-unveiling-challenges-practices/
"Almost nowhere in the United States is the racial disparity in incarceration rates more pronounced than in Vermont, where a study by the Sentencing Project found that black people are jailed at a rate more than 10 times greater than those of whites."
http://digital.vpr.net/post/lawmakers-hope-sharpen-focus-racial-justice-vermont#stream/0
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Sure!! Who hasn't??
Is Bernie Sanders a civil rights icon like John Lewis? No, obviously. Does it make a difference that Sanders is a consistent voice for justice issues in the US Senate and in his appearances around the country? IMO, yes, but opinions vary. So be it.
Is that a reason pop in on Bernie threads religiously just in case some of his "fans" confuse Bernie Sanders for John Lewis? I guess for you and some others, it is. I would rather respect the differences in what people value in public servants by opting out of concern trolling of politicians that are part of the Democratic caucus, even though I'm not a particular "fan."
I do admire any citizen, elected official or not, who is as dedicated as Bernie is to speaking out on justice-related issues nationally to constituencies that, if their energy were tapped, would help Democrats win elections, including the couldn't be more critical 2018 midterms. As November gets closer, credit should be given where credit is due to anyone for reaching out to expand the base of the party and to help more voters connect justice issues with economic populism.
But, the default choice seems to be to nitpick about where Bernie Sanders resides and play this shell game with other Democratic voters while the current chief executive wrecks havoc in DC and beyond. It is what it is.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)had to have become part of the WWC class anywhere else.
Trump and Bernie have a whole lot in common.
George II
(67,782 posts)....in Vermont.
Demographics (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/VT ) :
Population: 623,000
White: 589,000 (96.6%)
Black: 8,100 (1.3%)
Hispanic: 11,800 (1.9%)
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Bernie Sanders today touted his near-unanimous support in the Vermont African-American community.
Or, as theyre known in Vermont: Neil. (Flashing a picture of the black guy named Neil)
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)beyond the borders of his state? How long has he been in politics?
But sure, I think Sanders should get credit for what he did do, but that it doesn't have to get blown out of proportion. His sentiments were apparently on the right side of history, but he absolutely had the luxury/privilege to allow other considerations to take him away from the epicenters of the civil rights movement.
Truly no reason to make it more than, nor less than, it was.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Vermont Population by Race
Population information, segmented by race, is displayed in the following table. The highest percentage of the population is White at 95.3%. 1.7% of the population is Two or more races, making that the second largest group.
See the chart http://www.usacityfacts.com/vt/population/
Hmmm.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)It's a thing.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-back-to-the-land-movement-paved-the-way-for-bernie-sanders-20160419
In your zeal to trash Sanders you're missing the reasons why so many across the country took part: Vietnam, pollution, transforming politics, "simple living" in homes in the woods rather than cramped apartments in noisy cities, etc.
'Hmmm,' nothing, but at least you gave it the ol' college try.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And in case you missed my other post, in 1970 New York state was almost 87% white. Be sure to let us know what ratio of white to non-white is acceptable before a person is allowed to move without thinly veiled charges of racism.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)veiled or not.
Strawmen dont work with me, so dont throw them over here.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)thinly veiled charges of racism.
And again, New York state was almost 87% white at the time, so do tell what the acceptable percentage is. What's the cutoff?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)What you choose to infer from my comments is on you. And that you chose to infer - even after I told you otherwise - that Im accusing Bernie of being a racist speaks volumes about YOUR mindset.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)is a thinly veiled charge of racism. Whether you -- one person -- says it or not is immaterial. But it's tossed around with abandon -- do tell what it's supposed to mean.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It means that Mr. Civil Rights moved to a part of the country where there were hardly any people of color and virtually no opportunity to be involved in the civil rights movement he was supppsedly so committed to.
That doesnt make him a racist. It just makes him not all that committed to the cause and certainly not committed enough for anyone to hold him up as some great civil rights champion. True civil rights champions stayed in the movement among the people in the movement. Thats not Vermont.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)know when will folks take off the blinders?
George II
(67,782 posts)...76% White, 21% Black (1.7M, about 3X the TOTAL population of Vermont, white/black/hispanic/asian!) and 16% Hispanic. I'm sure the numbers in Brooklyn would be more extreme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_York_City
As they say, "nice try".
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)to figures for NY state. #sloppy
George II
(67,782 posts)....of the State of New York knows that there are essentially "two" states - the NYC Metropolitan Area and most of the rest of the state.
Not sloppy, realistic.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)to one that was only 8% more white (since everyone is so fond of throwing around percentages). He was born and raised in the city and went to college in the city... it's unbelievably petty to begrudge a person's decision to get out of a cramped, noisy city to live in a more peaceful environment. You're also conveniently discounting Vietnam, the environmental movement (rivers on fire, anyone?), etc. It was a tumultuous time.
Activist Pete Seeger lived in a cabin in the woods. You trash him, too?
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2018, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)
If one were truly a civil rights advocate working for the poor and disadvantaged, which would be the best place to do so?
*Again, he's a native of Brooklyn, NYC.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NY the state is a very different place.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)...among my generation. For instance, it engendered a lot of communes, with or without tie-dye, and though most probably didn't know it, utopian communal living has a long long history in the US. Back to the land.
Going to live in a small town or rural state after the pressures of the Big City -- I do not fault anyone for that. Many of us made those choices, if we were able to.
I focus on Bernie's other choices -- like allowing his newfound followers to give him credit for the achievements of others from before they were born.
I fault him for being a lifelong scold to the Democratic Party without giving at least equal time to the GOP.
I fault him for his one-size-fits-all solution to all our problems -- classic Marxist economic theory -- that will magically make all our other problems (racism, misogyny, social inequality) go away.
I fault him for allowing his newfound followers to disrespect women like Dolores Huerta and Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi, whose lifetime of grinding work should be recognized and who should not be shouted down and physically shoved aside by men young enough to be their grandsons, who don't know and don't care what was done before they were born.
I'm not blaming you or arguing with you, dear she; this was the only place I could think of to insert my comment in a subthread that seems to be going down a rabbit hole. Moving to a very small state like Vermont allowed him to be elected to the US Senate, and be re-elected year after year. I get that part, and it's fine. What he's accomplished is another topic; and his rise to national prominence at an advanced age opens him to critiques he never had to endure before.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But it's hard to claim credit for extraordinary commitment to the civil rights struggle when you move that far away from where it's happening and who is engaging in it.
It doesn't discount what he actually did do - but it does make people roll their eyes whenever he or his supporters try to lecture people who actually stayed in the struggle about civil rights.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)Especially the bit about the ignorance of his young acolytes
George II
(67,782 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I wasn't aware of this, but the movement changed Vermont from a red state that for over a century had voted for Republican presidents (and almost always Republican governors) to a reliably blue state. A wonderful progressive state was formed. Go ahead, pooh-pooh. Optics! LOL
George II
(67,782 posts)...that "progressive" state has a republican governor.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The current governor was the or Governor and was on local public radio frequently giving him far greater name recognition than the excellent Democrat who ran in 2016.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)in spite of you working overtime to attempt to diminish it.
Tossing out "Republican governor" is like Sean Hannity frothing about record snowfall in an attempt to deny climate change.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Look up the bio of our It Governor, who still is an organic farmer. Alternatively, note that Burlington generates all its electricity from sustainable, green sources.
Some of good values of the 60s and 70s thrive in Vermont today - though they gained from taking on many old time Vermont values.
Response to SMC22307 (Reply #64)
BannonsLiver This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)...Brooklyn, NY.
Appears to be the inverse of Frank Sinatra's signature song!
I've only been there for skiing and leaf-peeping, but it seems like a great place to live. Especially for someone born and raised in the city looking to "get back to the land" as many did in the '60s and '70s. Some people like quiet. Woods. Rural. Henry David Thoreau.
It's curious why a certain segment of DUers can't seem to grasp that. And that a person can speak out from anywhere.
Or you just mad that Bernie and racist-outer Shaun King have paired up to fight the good fight?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Just tired of his acolytes holding him up as a civil rights icon because he protested during college.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Most of us just view Sanders as someone on the right side of history by participating in the civil rights movement, not that he's some sort of MLK. But you know that...
KPN
(15,646 posts)icon? Seems like an exaggeration. His record on civil rights gets defended by people from time to time when he is attacked on civil rights. His early civil rights record was part of the biographical pieces that were written and produced about him in 2015/16 when he ran in the primary. But "icon"? Seems a bit of a reach.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)since it began. He's been defended, not iconized.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I need some more room to with you
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Or you just mad that Bernie and racist-outer Shaun King have paired up to fight the good fight?
Shaun King
✔
@ShaunKing
Even as a teenager, Bernie Sanders understood that he had to use his white privilege to fight against bigotry. That's why Bernie helped lead the first known sit-in in the University of Chicago.
Bernie hates to tell these stories. So I'm going to tell them for him. #RealJusticeLA
https://
twitter.com/BernieSanders/
status/1003070623059304448
8:43 PM - Jun 2, 2018
1,165
323 people are talking about this
.............................
So after the 60's and had moved to a state that is 95% white. What exactly
has he done for black lives? Actions and laws that he initiated and passsed, , not just forceful speeches. This said actions speak louder than words.
George II
(67,782 posts)...of Blacks in our cities.
OH, but he voted against the war in Iraq yet voted for every single bill that funded that war.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)He left it behind.
Damn awesome gif, George. Thank you for that and your comment.
betsuni
(25,550 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I am so planning to steal it.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Tell us, what ratio of white to non-white is acceptable to you? It's kinda cute that you think you're proving something nefarious by tossing out "95% white," but you're really not. Trust me.
Hmm, just stumbled upon this:
List of landmark African-American legislation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_African-American_legislation
That's a fascinating list. No legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Forget Sanders who is just one man -- where are all the other members of our party, "initiating" and "passing" laws? Bernie just introduced The Workplace Democracy Act to fight poverty wages and income inequality and boost unions -- is the Democratic Party on board?
I know it really sticks in your craw that Shaun King and a BLM co-founder have embraced Sanders and his ideas, but seriously, let it go. Kamala Harris has embraced Sanders' Medicare for All and since you have shared personal information on this site, I KNOW you're not going to pooh-pooh that, right She?
George II
(67,782 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I meant what I said.
George II
(67,782 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and I used the term correctly.
George is American.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)His avatar and name.
We see you.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)back in the early Teabagger days?
Who is "we"? Do tell.
It was hardly a dig -- get out of micro-aggression mode.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Now you are having a sad.
Glenn Beck? You bring up Glen Beck
back in the early Teabagger days?
I would have no clue, never watched the ass. Did you?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Surely you remember. I imagine you even participated in such threads but don't care enough to dig up any. "We see you." OK, now what?
It's adorable that you're defending your lil' buddy George, but he was wrong and I corrected him. Tis George who missed. And you, for that matter.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)If what happened recently happens again in November I am going to get real angry and loud, REAL angry and REAL loud.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)pay it no mind.. very small segment of smear merchants here and elsewhere.. people are catching onto it.. I got the old "implied" treatment myself recently...
KPN
(15,646 posts)purity issue.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,319 posts)It is a classy move, only costs a little time, and means a whole lot to people who waited in line. Keeps them as motivated voters, and now they like you a little more.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)All I'm trying to say is that it seems that you and I have very different ideas about what qualifies as being "classy" and "appealing".
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)that when one side takes money its clearly evil and that they are doing the Koch brothers bidding, but that we are just immune to its influence when we put a D on our jersey.
That is not classy, nor trustworthy.
And, if his voters are any indication, being that they are the ones who I'd bet most cared about what he was saying, nothing he said about the Democratic part's direction appears to have taken away any votes from Clinton, given that they, we, came out for her in the GE by and large.
Sanders has not been among the voices saying that there's no difference between dems and Republicans, and infact, he has said quite clearly that Republicans(the leadership and the party) are beyond saving.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)WHEN
ARE
PEOPLE
GONNA
TAKE
OFF
THE
BLINDERS
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)I wonder if they'd've'd the gall back then to shit on Obama having done it. Or if Hillary did it during her campaigns (I know at least once she was out in the rain and shaking hands.).
shanny
(6,709 posts)I wonder why that is.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Unlike some posters who delight in chasing off others who are not bots or spammers or trolls, I prefer to look at everyone here as part of my chosen family. I can ignore for a time, but we'll speak again.
shanny
(6,709 posts)DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)But like I said, I choose to see them again.
shanny
(6,709 posts)my tolerance is lower.
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....in California in the midst of either their Illinois Senate Re-election (Obama) or New York Re-election (Clinton) campaigns.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Nice try, though. Wasn't clever, but... nice try.
George II
(67,782 posts)....how does she fit into the picture here?
BTW, I'm fully clothed.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Great come back. You are a hoot.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Clinton similarly did not stay in NY during her 2006 election. She campaigned for others as well as did fund raisers.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)He had a stage built with a sound system and podium with this plaque on the front, barricade's assembled in less than an hour after his theater was to full to handle the crowd. Wow. I knew he was good, yet that was awesome!!! Then Obama walked on water to the stage.
LOL...I love my President...to be clear I mean Obama...Love him. Best President ever, yet that never happened.
Qutzupalotl
(14,319 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)
but Im talking about the OP.
I made it inside the arena (barely), so I didnt witness it directly. There was a story about it in the local paper, though. Given your strange responses (yet that never happened?), I dont feel inclined to look it up for you. The article included a photo of Obama shaking hands outside before going in. I do not recall the configuration of barricades, and dont see how it is relevant to the discussion. They are not hard to set up, and if they anticipate large crowds they would have ample time to do so.
You seem more intent on tearing down Sanders at all costs, even if it means denying good behavior on Obamas part.
Donkees
(31,428 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)active politician today.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Damn right we don't..
Donkees
(31,428 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Now if only someone in a position of power, like, say, a U.S. senator, would come up with a plan to do something about it, that would be awesome!
Response to Donkees (Original post)
Post removed
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)jalan48
(13,873 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Donkees
(31,428 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,403 posts)That say a lot of neat things like this but are strangely unable to win elections. So not much, really.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)He always talks like he's an outside advocate yelling for someone to do something, not a U.S. Senator who is actually on the inside with some power to get something done.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...addressed to you about your OPs or other posts?
Do you have anything other than tweets to document any of this?
Thanks in advance!
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)that Bernie is talking about. Recently 12 District Attorney races Soros funded won. Seems to me Bernie is after Soros money. It's a good cause and I believe in what Soros is doing.. It's probably just a coincidence that Bernie is now speaking of justice reform..
Lucky Luciano
(11,257 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I'm OK with Soros taking up this cause.
rurallib
(62,431 posts)I've been listening to Sanders on the Thom Hartmann show for a long time.
Equal justice has been one of his central themes forever.
IIRC there were many stories of Sanders deeply involved in civil rights in the 60s.
That is quite a jump in logic you have made there.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)He went to a march once?
rurallib
(62,431 posts)Sorry dude, but you will be my first block.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Why "Bernie was arrested in '63" is an inappropriate answer to criticism of his civil rights record
Let me preface this by saying this is in no way an attack on - or even a criticism of - Bernie Sanders or a diminishment of his civil rights activism in the 1960s or an effort to "refight the primaries."
But all too frequently, any attempt to question or, God forbid, criticize, Sanders' record, attitudes or comments on civil rights today is met with a reminder that he was arrested while protesting for civil rights in 1963, often with an accompanying photograph and sarcastic comments such as "Here's a picture of Bernie hating black people," or similarly snide remarks.
So, let me explain why such responses to questions about Sanders' current record are not only completely beside the point, but show an ignorance about the civil rights movement, not to mention an arrogance and paternalism that is very galling to me and many other African Americans. Maybe, once folks understand this in a little more depth, they will be less likely to dismiss us in such a way.
First, I think it's great that Bernie Sanders and tens of thousands of other young white college students participated in civil rights protests across the country during the 1960s. They truly made a difference, whatever their contribution.
Some, like Bernie, participated in protests at or near their schools. Some traveled to other parts of the country to protest. Some went into the deep South to help organize and work on an ongoing basis. Some joined protests that put them in serious danger - such as the Freedom Riders who had no idea whether they would come back alive and, sadly, some did not. But whatever the degree and depth of their participation, every one made a difference.
Bernie Sanders' participation was admirable and laudable and appreciated. But he did not get involved or make the kinds of sacrifices that many other students made. Again - that's not a knock on him, just the reality. He participated in protests in which he knew that he would not face great harm or risk to his body, life or future. He joined a protest in which the students planned to be arrested, practiced for it (the movement trained protesters in non-violence and how to be arrested so as not to be injured or accused of resisting arrest). He also likely knew, going in, that, like most white students in these protests, he would not be physically abused, his rights would be protected, he would be released shortly thereafter and his penalty would be a small fine - in this case $25 - and the arrest would not have any negative impact on his education or future career.
The benefit of this type of protest did not come in the suffering or brutality that many black and white protesters endured elsewhere, but in showing the country the power and numbers behind the movement. And they were very important and very effective.
So, I have nothing but praise for what Bernie did in 1963. He was a small part of something very important. He did the right thing. He could have stayed in his comfy dorm room, but he went out, inconvenienced himself, and lent himself to the fight. He was on the right side of history.
But people should recognize that participating in a righteous fight in the past does not, in and of itself, completely define a person for all time. Charlton Heston marched with Dr. King. As a college student, Mitch McConnell participated in the March on Washington and worked for a senator who helped to break the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I'm certainly not comparing Bernie to these two men, but just noting that support for civil rights in 1964 does not, by itself, mean that someone's positions can't be and shouldn't be questioned. And it surely doesn't make those who participated in it civil rights experts or icons who must be revered by virtue of what they did 55 years ago.
But more important is this simple fact: The civil rights movement was not a gift to black people. It wasn't a movement in which white people GAVE something to or did something for us. It was a movement, led by black people, in which Americans of all races joined together, prayed together, fought together and died together not to save us but to save AMERICA.
So, in my view, the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was. And it reveals a shallow and paternalistic view of civil rights and social justice as a movement based on an erroneous assumption that YOU did something for US and we should be forever grateful - and if we aren't, we are somehow betraying YOU.
For me, the bottom line is that Bernie Sanders did the right thing in 1963. I give him a lot of credit for that. But that credit is not unlimited and it definitely isn't a bottomless store of goodwill that shields him from any responsibility for or scrutiny of his subsequent actions, positions, views, or comments today. I appreciate what he did, but I don't OWE him anything, including reverent acceptance of whatever he says or does, for it.
So, again, I say, Thank you, Senator Sanders for doing the right thing 55 years ago and joining with us to help bring America closer to the more perfect union that we ALL want it to be. Now, let's talk about how you can continue to walk on that path with us now.
There's another point I want to make today. Just as Dr. King predicted, the rise of black southerners to full citizenship also lifted their white neighbors. "It is history's wry paradox," he said, "that when Negroes win their struggle to be free, those who have held them down will themselves be free for the first time."
After Selma, free white and black southerners crossed the bridge to the new South, leaving hatred and isolation on the far sidebuilding vibrant cities, thriving economies, and great universities, a new South still enriched by the oldtime religion and rhythms and rituals we all love, now open to all things modern and people of all races and faiths from all over the world, a new South in which whites have gained at least as much as blacks from the march to freedom. Without Selma, Atlanta would never have had the Super Bowl or the Olympics. And without Selma, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would never have been elected President of the United States.
...
My fellow Americans, this day has a special meaning for me, for I, too, am a son of the South, the old, segregated South. And those of you who marched 35 years ago set me free, too, on Bloody Sunday, free to know you, to work with you, to love you, to raise my child to celebrate our differences and hallow our common humanity.
I thank you all for what you did here. Thank you, Andy and Jesse and Joe, for the lives you have lived since. Thank you, Coretta, for giving up your beloved husband and the blessings of a normal life. Thank you, Ethel Kennedy, for giving up your beloved husband and the blessings of a normal life.
And thank you, John Lewis, for the beatings you took and the heart you kept wide open. Thank you for walking with the wind, hand in hand with your brothers and sisters, to hold America's trembling house down. Thank you for your vision of the beloved community, an America at peace with itself.
I tell you all, as long as Americans are willing to hold hands, we can walk with any wind; we can cross any bridge. Deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome."
President Bill Clinton, Remarks on the 35th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March in Selma, Alabama
March 5, 2000
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58210
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)(This is another kick of the OP, btw)
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Thats how it works, my dear.
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)So, in my view, the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was. And it reveals a shallow and paternalistic view of civil rights and social justice as a movement based on an erroneous assumption that YOU did something for US and we should be forever grateful - and if we aren't, we are somehow betraying YOU.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210687499#post20
"So, in my view, the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was."
Thank you Effie.
Sorry, Hassin. You are wrong.
George II
(67,782 posts)...it DOES bear repeating.
Cha
(297,365 posts)betsuni
(25,550 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)The points you make are important ones, and you did so in a fair and gracious manner.
You closed your OP with some wonderful words from a man who for a long time was often jokingly referred to as America's "first Black President" by commentators across the racial spectrum. Words are important, all of us here repeatedly engage in their use towards ends that we believe in. When good words are spoken, ones that vividly frame the important choices before us, by people with high national visibility, than their positive effects are multiplied. Words matter, though I agree that actions matter most. It matters that a white man who was elected to the highest office in the nation paid sincere homage to the courage and moral leadership of the African Americans who risked their lives to move America closer to the noble vision of itself that it likes to proclaim. Bil Clinton made those remarks 18 years ago and rereading them now they still have the power to move me.
Above in this thread you note that those with positions of power, such as U.S. Senators, must do more than simply speak out for positive values, while noting that Bernie Sanders was a sitting member of the House of Representatives who voted FOR the crime bill. Bill Clinton was the sitting President of the United States who introduced the crime bill Sanders voted for, who signed it into law. I think it fair to say that on the whole our white elected Democratic and Progressive leaders at every level have worked to advance civil rights but, and this might be controversial to some, they have not always worked hard enough. Sometimes they are stymied by Republican opposition, other times they seem to make what they might think are unavoidable expedient concessions to prevailing political realities.
The Black Congressional Caucus (aligned with outside political forces mobilized by people of color) is the political vanguard in the fight for racial justice in America, period. Not Bernie Sanders, certainly, nor even a white President like Bill Clinton who worked first as a Southern Governor and later as our nation's leader to advance the cause of justice in America. I have no problem when you or anyone else points out that Bernie Sanders is not at the very forefront of the fight for racial justice in this country. Nor do I ever disagree that actions speak louder than words. Yet I know in my heart that words still do matter, because there have been many times in my life that the power of words has broken through my unconscious denial and entrenched inertia in the face of realities that must be changed. Words have moved me to action in the past, so I always give some credit to those who speak them toward a positive end.
So on the one hand yes, Bernie Sanders is often given more credit than he deserves for his role in fighting for racial justice in America. On the other hand he also is often denied the credit that he does deserve for doing so, especially when one considers how frequently he is lambasted on that front compared to how the record of most sitting white, Democratic, U.S. Senators is, or more importantly is not, scrutinized.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Words DO matter and they do have the power to inspire and move people. And I think that Sanders has been eloquent, that he inspires and he moves people.
The issue I have is that many people aren't content to just give him credit for that. Instead they take it up several notches and not only seem to think - and then try to convince others - that he is saying things that other people aren't saying and haven't been saying (often more consistently and eloquently), but that he is actually doing far more than he is.
So, when I see such comments as "His progressive ideas are finally taking hold" and "if only more representatives spoke up like he did" or rewriting of history, as was done in this thread related to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, I push back and remind people that Bernie is not the second coming of John Brown and he is certainly not standing alone at the forefront of the battle that, while he is not completely peripheral, he has hardly been anywhere close to the front or center of. I find that attitude not only misguided, it's insulting to the many, many people who HAVE been at the front and center - often at great personal and political risk (among other things, being accused of being "race baiters/race pimps," getting arrested not just once but repeatedly and to this day, being threatened, etc.) - and have done far more than dabble in it when it suits them.
You mentioned the Crime Bill, which is an interesting issue. As you said, Bernie voted for the bill (as did Joe Biden) and Bill Clinton signed it. But for some reason, Bill Clinton is the one who gets most of the blame and, very oddly, Hillary Clinton was blamed for it as well, even though she didn't even vote for it. Bernie and his supporters actually attacked both Clintons and whenever it was pointed out that Bernie signed it to, they give excuses about how there were aspects of the bill that were good and THAT's what he voted for - yet whenever anyone else tries to offer this kind of nuance for how and why they cast tough votes, they're just dismissed as sellouts.
But what many people don't seem to remember is that the Congressional Black Caucus overwhelmingly supported the Crime Bill and its members voter overwhelmingly for it. For years, CBC members saw how the crack crisis was decimating our communities and they pushed the President and their Congressional colleagues to stop ignoring it and do something. At the time, the Crime Bill was seen by many, including many black leaders and members of the black community, as the the kind of tough measure necessary to address the problem. For many reasons, the bill had many unintended consequences and ended up working out badly. And now, it's not surprising that some people Sunday morning quarterback it - but it's unacceptable in my book for the very people who supported it then to attack others fo voting exactly as they did.
And I am not one of those who denies Sanders for what he has done on racial justice. However, there is very little he can point to that he has done that involved any sacrifice or political risk. He often undermines any effort he wants to get credit for with tone-deaf and sometimes arrogant pronouncements and dismissals of the views and efforts of others who have fought much harder and more consistently and at greater risk for social justice than he has. And many of his supporters make it worse by trying to elevate him into a civil rights hero and attacking those who aren't as impressed with him as they are.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)I have no quarrel with anyone who believes that some other political leaders are or can be more effective at advancing civil rights than Sanders, I may or may not agree in any given instance, but that is an honest and yes important debate to have, especially during a presidential primary. In that instance voters are often asked to choose between two or more generally acceptable choices. View points as to which can be most effective at advancing specific causes are highly relevant in that context.
I will note that I did not raise the matter of the Crime Bill which, as you accurately point out, was a complicated matter. I commented on it only because you posted about it above in what I took to be a criticism of Sanders for voting for it: "No - he was voting for the crime bill and "speaking out" against things while others were doing the heavy lifting". If I misread your meaning there at least grant me that it was easy to reach that conclusion from your comment.
I've watched a lot of primary battles go down by now. I haven't seen any hotly contested one in which candidates and/or supporters of both sides haven't "spun" some issue to make one person look good and the other bad in a less than totally even handed manner. It happened a lot when Obama and Clinton ran against each other also. I accept your point about the attempts to use the "Crime Bill" against Hillary. For anyone who feels all of the people who backed it at the time were wrong to do so, it does not surprise me that Bill would get burdened most for doing so. He was the President of the United States at the time where "the buck" is said to stop. Hillary, however, wasn't.
I also agree with you that others (not Bernie) were doing the heavy lifting on civil rights during the time we speak of, although Sanders did consistently register one of the best voting records on civil rights of anyone in Congress. But I also read things on this thread, (not from you) that strike me as just plane foolish. It was said above that Bernie "fled to Vermont" from New York. No, but he did move there. It is a tiny percentage of those who stand strongly against racial discrimination, black or white, who make that fight the determining factor for where they choose to live their life (leaving aside those who may be forced to move for reasons of their own physical safety). But is is correct to note that some people do just that, go where the need is greatest and the fight is most dire, and those people, of any race, deserve to be considered true heroes for doing so. Granted, Sanders wasn't one of those heroes.
Three things bother me when I stumble upon threads that contain extensive criticism of Sanders. One is the fiction that repeatedly "speaking out" against "wrongs" in favor of positive alternatives is somehow inconsequential. We agree that words do matter so this is not addressed to you. High visibility on an issue is an essential precondition for moving public opinion regarding it. Republicans know this all to well, but unfortunately they practice the art for all the wrong reasons - most recently with constant hammering about "dangerous" immigrants, and attacks on the rule of law under the guise of countering a "deep state conspiracy". It moves the needle in their direction. Frozen out of the White House and out of leadership in both houses of Congress, Democrats need more not less barnstorming Senators carrying a progressive message. Sanders of course is not uniquely capable of doing so. Others do so also, be it Elizabeth Warren or more recently the emergence of Kamala Harris, it's all good - but Bernie Sanders seems to be almost uniquely targeted for so doing.
The corollary to the above complaint of mine is a fixation on whether or not Sanders has anything unique to offer. OK, this can be argued from both sides I suppose. Some Sanders fans get carried away in thinking that he invented progressive thought in America, which clearly he didn't. Nor are his ideas new under the sun. Nor is he always the first person in recent months or years to advocate for them. I doubt there are many issues of significance that anyone born since the turn of the 20th Century is radically breaking new ground on. Maybe internet privacy I suppose, but even that was foreshadowed by the Bill of Rights. FDR stole many of his policies from Socialist presidential candidates who preceded him. So what? FDR helped to successfully move those concepts into the mainstream of political debate at the time, the prerequisite for change. To deny that in some cases Bernie Sanders is effective in doing just that is petty. It does not take credit away from those who preceded him to acknowledge that. Others powerfully decried racial injustice in America long before MLK Jr was born. Thank God for the Giants who precede us all, and for all those who were first to introduce important pieces of legislation. It isn't a zero sum game.
What bothers me most though is a refusal on some people's part to acknowledge the effort some have made to paint Bernie Sanders as being more racist than your average Democratic bear, or at least to be overly dismissive of whatever actual contributions he has made. An OP with this subject line got 52 Recs here last week: "True Colors: Bernie Sanders, Our Revolution, and the Racist Left." True, it didn't literally say Bernie Sanders is a racist. But if someone recites two plus two equals ___, what number springs to mind? Remember when photographs first were published of Bernie Sanders leading a sit in against racism at the University of Chicago? Someone went to a great deal of trouble then to develop an alternate theory of that event, going so far as to convince the University to change the captions associated with those photos in the University archives to remove Bernie Sanders name from those photos and replace it with that of a different student. It took the public intervention of the subsequently famous photographer who took the actual photos, who retained the original photo negatives in their original photo sequencing, before the correct Bernie Sanders caption was restored. It's called politics and all sides practice it to some degree.
I accept that people in good faith have wildly divergent views of Bernie Sanders in some regards. i respect your opinion of him for what it is, an opinion with the same intellectual integrity as mine, just different - but with substantial areas of agreement.
mcar
(42,337 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)in the past and over the course of his life. The comparison to Charlton Heston and Mitch McConnell was particularly effective.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Since, had you done so, you would have seen that I made a special point of praising Bernie for what hes done and explicitly said I was NOT comparing him to McConnell and Heston.
Or perhaps you actually did read it, know that I didnt say or imply what youre claiming but you decided to misrepresent my comments anyway.
Either way, your failure to offer a cogent response to my post is noted.
KPN
(15,646 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)What has sanders actually accomplished in the real world? Can you point us to some actual accomplishments?
KPN
(15,646 posts)today over legislative accomplishments that have accompanied, on balance, a steady decline of the middle class and rocketing income inequality over the past 40 years, thank you. I'll take directly attacking the problem with a highly visible public outreach campaign over triangulating or more of the same old same old any day.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If giving "honest critiques of our economic-political system" is more important than trying to address it through legislation and government policy, why is Bernie wasting his precious time being a member of the country's most establishment legislative body, taking up a seat that could be held by someone who actually wants to accomplish something legislatively?
Why doesn't he walk away from the political part of the economic-political system he's so critical of and just travel the country "directly attacking the problem" by advancing his public outreach campaign?
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)I have yet to see any accomplishments listed for sanders. What has he accomplished in the real world?
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Just talking does not equal accomplishments
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)in marching or demonstrating for civil rights. I was actually alive at that time. I remember. Good people demonstrated, but it was not as easy or common as it would be today.
I can see the difference in my family. There was a poll on DU today about whether our families are racially mixed. In the 1960s, a racially mixed family was rare. Neither I nor any of my siblings married people of other races. But it is quite different for our children. And one of my nephews adopted two African-American children although he and his wife are white. Several of the children of my generation are married to people of color including one of my own daughters and two other sister's daughters.
Times have changed. Bernie was ahead of most people of his time when it comes to civil rights.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Where is Thom Hartmann broadcasting from these days?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Picture_with_Thom_Hartmann
The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann is an American TV talk/news show owned, hosted and produced by political commentator and radio host Thom Hartmann, and Hartmann's production company (which also produces his radio show), Mythical Research, Inc., and is represented by WYD Media, Inc.
SNIP
The show is now recorded and broadcast live by RT America, the Washington, D.C.-based affiliate of RT with a presence on both over-the-air and cable TV systems in many major American cities, also continues to be syndicated by Free Speech TV and carried nationwide on both Dish Network channel 9415, DirecTV Channel 348, and on local Public-access television stations across the country.[1] From January 17, 2012 RT's international English-language channel started to broadcast it worldwide in over 100 countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/20/rt-wants-to-spread-moscows-propaganda-here-lets-treat-it-that-way/?utm_term=.de678bb8ae89
RT is not a news service in any meaningful sense of the term. Reputable news services dont employ Illuminati correspondents. RT has no regard whatsoever for basic journalistic values like objectivity or the pursuit of truth; Ofcom, the British government media regulatory body, has repeatedly rebuked the network for breaching basic broadcasting standards, far more than any other network. That Dmitri Kiselyov, a bombastic Russian television host who oversees RTs parent organization, is included on a list of Russian officials sanctioned by the European Union for the annexation of Crimea, indicates that our E.U. allies rightly view the networks employees not as journalists but functionaries in a regime. At a May news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron defended his successful campaigns decision to deny access to RT and Sputnik, calling them agents of influence and propaganda. When I wanted to protest the Russian governments anti-gay campaign in the summer of 2013, it made sense to do so during a live broadcast on RT, as the network is widely understood to be a mouthpiece for the Russian government.
SNIP
As best we can tell, RTs content is shaped in close consultation with the Kremlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin himself admitted in 2013 that RT cannot help but reflect the Russian governments official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. RTs utterly opaque governance structure, as well as testimony from former employees and the Russian leader himself, suggest that those who work for it do so at the direction or control of the Kremlin.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)Or not
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)perhaps the poster was referring to a broadcast from prior to September, when he was on RT.
Nanjeanne
(4,962 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Town hall thing on Ferguson. He was shocked. I was shocked he hadnt done his homework and didnt know Mike Brown was on his way to furthering his education and not spending his life hanging around. I always thought that sounded weird coming from someone with such a very sketchy employment history.
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Kim Ogg has done an amazing job in Harris county. She was supported by Soros.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Recommended.
Response to Donkees (Original post)
Post removed
jalan48
(13,873 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)trying to figure out which way the political winds are blowing like so many politicians these days... Bernie has been creating his on political movements forcing the winds of change for over half a century. It started back in the day with the civil rights movement, leading non-violent campus protests, and he hasn't stopped yet speaking out for the under-priveleged, under-represented, and under-funded masses of people who lack power and a voice in our society. Bernie's long history of speaking truth to power on their behalf is what truly sets Bernie apart.
jalan48
(13,873 posts)Yes he has, starting as a young man in the civil rights movement as you stated
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)I heard him many times speaking out about the GOP refusing to hold hearings on the President's choice for the Supreme Court. It was loud and often. Every show he appeared on he ranted about it. . Maybe if all Democratic reps had done that we wouldn't have puke Gorsuch for the next fucking half a century..
I love that Sanders has rallies.. get people fired up. More Dems should do it. Raise your voices! Be heard. Americans citizens are rotting in prisons. Children are being separated from their parents.. Start screaming!
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)The best President in my lifetime, Bernie wanted Obama primaried. A beloved sitting President and BS wanted him primaried.
127. During the last year of Obama's presidency
I heard him many times speaking out about the GOP refusing to hold hearings on the President's choice for the Supreme Court. It was loud and often. Every show he appeared on he ranted about it. . Maybe if all Democratic reps had done that we wouldn't have puke Gorsuch for the next fucking half a century..
I love that Sanders has rallies.. get people fired up. More Dems should do it. Raise your voices! Be heard. Americans citizens are rotting in prisons. Children are being separated from their parents.. Start screaming!
SMH
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)to withdraw the nomination if he were elected and replace him with a more liberal nominee.
Where I come from, we call that talking out of both sides of your mouth - when were being polite.
Yeah, that was really helpful.
You might want to pick a different example.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)His rallies are legendary - have attended several - most always well attended and boisterous!! People leave feeling energized and eager to make a difference... exactly what you look for in a presidential candidate capable of calling out and defeating that corrupt, racist Dotard currently occupying the White House.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)What has he done to actually change anything, besides talk about it?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)let's start with getting many, soon to be all, of the top presidential hopefuls for 2020 to swear off taking dirty corporate PAC money and, when Bernie did that all by his lonesome, he still was able to come from 3% in the polls and 60+ points down to put a real scare in those greedy corporations... that's what a true leader does... set the example, even though not popular at the time, that others then follow. (Also known as real change)
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)First of all giving Sanders credit for potential candidates committing not to take pac money is rather ridiculous. But even if, for arguments sake, we say that Bernie set the example, this is hardly groundbreaking or life-changing stuff. Hes been in the House or Senate for nearly 30 years and his biggest accomplishment that you can point to is that, 26 years in, he ran for president and didnt take PAC money which led other potential candidates to say they wont take PAC money in 2020? Thats it? Thats hardly a record of a Profile in Courage who is getting things done in the Senate.
That said, Sanders is not Caesars wife here - not even close. While he doesnt take direct contributions from PACs, he has gladly accepted PAC spending on his behalf. In fact, outside PACs spent more to support Bernies campaign than for any Democratic candidate in 2016.
So not only is Bernies pledge undone by a huuuuge loophole,it is hardly proof that he is getting much done.
Bernie Sanders Tops His Rivals in Use of Outside MoneyThe unions super PAC has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Mr. Sanders unlikely rise to super PAC pre-eminence is, in part, the story of an unusual alignment of strategies by different outside groups, including Republican ones eager to bloody Mrs. Clinton and lift Mr. Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election. While the nurses super PAC is the biggest left-leaning outside spender in the Democratic primary, conservative organizations have also spent at least $4.3 million attacking Mrs. Clinton in recent months.
One recent online ad from the Republican super PAC American Crossroads has assailed Mrs. Clinton for her Wall Street speaking fees echoing an argument Mr. Sanders often makes against her. Another conservative group, Ending Spending, bankrolled by the Wyoming billionaire Joe Ricketts, has begun a $600,000 campaign in Iowa highlighting Mr. Sanderss promises to raise taxes on the rich and provide free public college tuition, calling him too liberal for Iowa. But the ads language and imagery, including a contented-looking superrich couple hugging in front of a mansion and expensive cars, has led some Democrats to believe it is actually meant to bolster Mr. Sanders.
...
The groups campaigning advocacy for Mr. Sanders has drawn charges of hypocrisy from Mrs. Clintons supporters. While Mr. Sanders frequently declares that he has no super PAC of his own, he has not publicly called on the nurses to refrain from their efforts on his behalf. He has welcomed their help, thanking the nurses by name in campaign speeches and referring to the union in one recent appearance as a one of the sponsors of his campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)You say advocating for change is great, but ask what has Bernie actually done to change anything... I gave you just one of the more recent examples of Bernie's leadership and advocacy during his time in office that has changed the way the Democratic Party through it's top 2020 presidential hopefuls have come around to Bernie's way of thinking in terms of swearing off tainted corporate cash contributions, after seeing what he actually accomplished by taking that tact - just one of the many ways Bernie endeared himself with voters - coming out of nowhere, from 3% in the polls and 60+ points down... and then, not only do you belittle what can only be described as a MAJOR policy change - not just "anything" - but you also twist it in such a way as to create yet another basis to bash Bernie. Now THERE'S a stretch!! (Good try though!)
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Thanks to Bernie's popularity and success, more and more candidates are publicly refusing corporate cash. Right there is just one of his many contributions to a discourse about the government representing people instead of corporations. Everything he said at that rally and all his rallies and appearances are the truth, and we all know it, and people are demanding change.
This isn't a rational conversation. It's flat out hate for Bernie Sanders and his supporters. He moved to Vermont.. how dare he? How can he possilbly advocate for all Americans as a Vermont resident? That's how absurd this has become; the demonizing and ridicule of Sanders and, by extension, those of us who support him, is just wrong.
"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." Martin Luther King, Jr.
But not the "good people" of Vermont and certainly not Bernie Sanders.. they better just shut up. Too many fine contributors to this board have chosen to leave over this. Bernie doesn't deserve it and neither do we.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)the outright hate some here have for all things Bernie and his supporters... no wonder, like you say, so many fine contributors have left DU over this. I too have thought of ditching this place over this onslaught of hate, but, thanks to good folks like you, I've stuck with it to stand up for what's right.
It's tough though and I understand people's frustrations. No matter how much Bernie contributes to change for the betterment of society, no matter his many accomplishments in moving people to see the benefits of, and thereby adopt, a more progressive agenda, no matter how big his rallies, no matter how many new voters he brings to the Democratic Party, no matter how many times he votes with the Democrats, more than any Democrat, no matter how much he leads the resistance against BLOTUS... I could keep going... it will NEVER be enough!!
It's getting almost comical the stretching and contortions of some have to do to feign rightious outrage at this great man. BTW, regarding your list of ridiculous criticisms by the Bernie Bashers, you forgot to mention that Bernie took time off from campaigning in Vermont to go represent Disney workers in California - the horror of it all!!!! - to the utter dismay of Vermont voters.
Oh, and you forgot to mention Bernie's not a Democrat... in case people forgot!
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)I find it much easier to stay off these threads and will in the future, but damn, just listen to what he said at this rally. It's the truth and it's not being said enough by enough representatives.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)You will receive the honor of an exclusive invitation to this year's "Bernie Basher" Golden Hammer Awards dinner, as a distinguished guest and esteemed judge for this coveted prize that will be handed out on Award night:
And, just for your contributions to the "good fight," you will also receive an all new, complimentary pair of "Bernie All Star" edition Chuck Taylors... because "if the shoe fits, wear it"... on the other hand, the sneaks should help with this, "if the foo's shit, bear it".
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)love it.
Response to mountain grammy (Reply #252)
InAbLuEsTaTe This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Best post on this thread. I'm with you!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But then never miss an opportunity to run him down for not changing the world single handedly. The whole point of energizing people and advocating for change is to convince enough people to make those things actually possible. One senator can not achieve everything alone, but when he convinces many millions of Americans that the country can be a better place, and its not just some pipe dream, then real change becomes possible. If all you do is talk that down, then youre doing the opposite of working for positive change.
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Positive energy.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)80. He's been doing the right thing for 50+ years. No need to "evolve" like some politicians.
Yup. Solidify all you need to know in life 27 years old. Never change. That statement is frightening. Never change, as life changes around you, never, ever change. Stay the course.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)And so many of them are young voters.
I would like to see some other Democratic politicians doing what Bernie does.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)rgbecker
(4,832 posts)Two guys for the people.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and it appears that the "crowd" is over estimated, unless it was a tiny theater:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bernie-sanders-disneyland-20180602-story.html
"At a rally attended by hundreds of Disneyland Resort workers, Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke out Saturday..."
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Ari Rabin-Havt
Verified account
@AriRabinHavt
Senior Adviser @SenSanders Author of Lies Incorporated and The Fox Effect.
George II
(67,782 posts)Ari Rabin-Havt
Senior Advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders
Current - U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders
Previous - Sirius XM Radio Inc., Media Matters for America, American Independent
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It's not easy to pay to rent a theater here.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Our Democratic primary is this coming Tuesday. He was trying to get Democrats out to vote.
Please list the Democrats that draw crowds larger than Bernies -- or even as large as Bernies and with so many young people in the crowds.
Bernie was speaking about three issues: wages at Disneyland (and Disneyland raised those wages apparently in response to his visit), the problems of people on the docks and driving trucks who are paid as independent contractors than as people earning fair and predictable wages, and, third, the Black Lives Matter prison issues.
We are happy to have Bernie help the get out the Democratic vote effort in California. His presence reminds Democrats to vote.
Owl
(3,642 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,995 posts)So its well that he is using he voice for speaking more to social justice and not dismissing it as identity politics
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,995 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,403 posts)Thats absolutely true. Someone should get that memo to Bernie, and preferably before 2020.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)They didn't vote for Our Revolution candidates; they voted for Democrats. But his appearances helped remind people to vote. That's great.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Sanders and Our Revolution are not being taken seriously by most real democrats
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)voters, especially young voters, to get out and vote. The news reports I saw did not differentiate between "Revolution" and other candidates for the Democratic nomination. Bernie is well known and popular. Our Revolution is not so well known or popular.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Sanders did not do well https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2018/06/06/analysis-how-did-bernie-sanders-democrats-do-primaries/676864002/
As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates endorsed by Our Revolution -- a political group affiliated with Vermonts independent senator -- had been declared winners. Another two races were undecided.
At best, fewer than one-third of the endorsed candidates won.
The endorsement and support of Our Revolution is not very valuable
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I imagine that would really draw a crowd.
shanny
(6,709 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... but refused to release his tax returns.
Doesn't that tell you something?
shanny
(6,709 posts)since traditionally the candidate releases tax returns.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... of those tax returns that I find troubling.
It's the fact that he blamed their unavailability on his wife, because she was the "family accountant" and, as he insisted, had simply "misplaced them".
It's the fact that everyone knows that he could have gotten copies of tax returns from the IRS - but never endeavoured to do so.
It's the fact that as a seasoned politician, he KNEW those tax returns would be expected - and yet he never bothered to ensure they were available before throwing his hat in the ring.
It's just one thing among many that Bernie never had a reasonable explanation for.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)R B Garr
(16,955 posts)When one candidate makes accusations of financial wrongdoing of others, but then refuses to be transparent about his own finances, that is hypocrisy. Thats hilarious you want to claim he wasnt a candidate.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Where are his tax returns?
Cha
(297,365 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....yes, April 2016! Still waiting.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)no there there.
Bernie needs to release his tax returns and if therers no there, we wont give a shit about them, either.
But until he does we have to wonder what hes hiding. There must be something in them he doesnt want us to see or else why not just release them and be done with it?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... a lot of people give a shit.
If they didn't, they wouldn't post about it.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)And of course to denegrate Republicans!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus
And Bernie Sanders is considered one of the People we support!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)He hasn't changed much over time... never timid about speaking truth to power. With Bernie, it's always WYSIWYG!!
sheshe2
(83,804 posts)According to Mountain Grammie above post...the man has stuck to principles for 60 long years and has never wavered nor has she. Hm, he solidified all he believes in then and today at 16 years old?
and that's why we love him.. he never had to change or evolve on civil rights, gay rights, women's rights or human rights and neither have I, so I'm never bored or distracted by someone who has held most of the same beliefs as me as long as he's been a public figure. He never once said for political gain "marriage is between a man and a woman." He never, for political gain, demanded secrecy and silence from gays in the military.
Did you have to 'evolve' on any of the rights listed above? Many Democrats have you know.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210687499#post9
Say what. 16 and never waivered from thier ideals for 60 frigging years???? WHAT! That is terrifying.
FirstLight
(13,362 posts)I watched him on Bill Maher this week and the thing that gets me is that he will ALWAYS be that person who speaks Truth to Power and he never wavers on his message for the 99%
As someone said upthread, you won't see HIM standing with his finger up to see which way the wind is blowing...! I'm proud to say we have a progressive Dem in my district who is really aligned with the whole movement, can't wait to vote for her Tuesday!!!
(...I'm wondering why so many people on a Democratic board are being so snarky about him? Kinda rude IMO, they really had no need to try and hijack the OP by being that way...whatever. Guess it's just the usual suspects who like to shit on others anyway)
mountain grammy
(26,629 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Voters know when a candidate is trying hard to say the "right" thing without really believing it. Voters also know when a candidate is sincere. It can make the difference between winning and losing an election. That sincerity that voters can sense.
Raine
(30,540 posts)nini
(16,672 posts)Kinda like his support in the black community in general. And yes, I am fully aware this event was with BLM leaders which makes it even more obvious to me.
Sanders still has a problem with black folks it appears.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Kinda like his support in the black community in general. And yes, I am fully aware this event was with BLM leaders which makes it even more obvious to me.
I'll I'm trying to say is that if his "appeal" was as universal as his loudest followers would have us believe, then we should expect that the photos of these "rally" events would show a greater mix of individuals that better represent the area and our nation.
nini
(16,672 posts)But what do I know?
progressoid
(49,992 posts)catbyte
(34,412 posts)minute the election was over. I know he caucuses with the Democrats, but it seems like he wants it both ways. I just sort of got over him the minute he dumped the Democratic party. And besides, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground.
George II
(67,782 posts)...at a church at 201 East Broadway in Anaheim. According to Rabin-Havt he "went outside" to talk to them.
There isn't a Subway Restaurant even CLOSE to 201 East Broadway in Anaheim!!!!
Why do that?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....was in the evening:
"The event is part of a packed day for the progressive senator, with Sanders going on to host a town hall in Carson around wage theft for Los Angeles and Long Beach port truck drivers and warehouse workers and a rally that evening at the Million Dollar Theater in downtown Los Angeles"
https://commercialobserver.com/2018/06/bernie-sanders-takes-on-disneyland-for-poverty-wages-at-anaheim-rally/
"Back to the drawing board"!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)174. NEWS FLASH! That photograph posted by Mr. Rabin-Havt appears to be FAKE!!! Sanders appeared...
...at a church at 201 East Broadway in Anaheim. According to Rabin-Havt he "went outside" to talk to them.
There isn't a Subway Restaurant even CLOSE to 201 East Broadway in Anaheim!!!!
Why do that?
"Why do that?" is the question I'd be asking too. It's the question that everyone should be asking.
Aside from the DISHONEST nature of the photograph, I had noticed that the photo was a TRICKY extra w-i-d-e angle "wrap around" shots that present the viewer with a rather DECEPTIVE illusion.
All I'm trying to say here is that the nature of the photo (when viewed as a single shot) is NOT and accurate representation of the REALITY of the moment. That's not what the human eye would have seen, and the DISTORTED IMAGE is not how a human would have perceived it.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)If someone is going to go off on some Secret Squirrel google mission and claim the photo and tweet are fake, they should at least get the facts straight. And also learn the difference between Anaheim California and Los Angeles California.
The church rally took place in the morning in a church.
The theater rally took place in Los Angeles at The Million Dollar Theater. Notice the Subway across the street from The Million Dollar Theater.
nini
(16,672 posts)That Guadalupe Wedding chapel in the back of the photo is in the same area.
What I do wonder though.. the event was scheduled for 5PM That pic was tweeted around 5:15 so he went out that early? Or left the people inside waiting? Like someone else said they got that platform up pretty fast if it was supposed to be inside.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Plus, I got a free lunch! Looking forward to free college (so I can finish that pesky masters degree), and free medical care! Bernie will really stick it to those millionayahs and billionayahs, boy, will they be sorry. Fox News will give him a pass, because hes so pure, even Trump likes him! Paradise is just a Bernie away, folks! If you cant see it, youre blind! Who needs Democrats, anyway? ¡BERNIE!
- - - - - -
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Response to VOX (Reply #177)
Post removed
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... or even if they didn't notice right away, now that you've brought it to our attention, it's difficult to deny the truth of your astute observations.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)democrank
(11,098 posts)There are reasons around 70% of Vermonters supported Bernie's last senate race and I guarantee being "mostly white" isn't one of them. Bernie's decades-long support for social and economic justice, the environment, and veterans rights sits well with a majority of Vermonters and millions of people across the country.
The Democratic Party will need Bernie supporters (and Independents) in the next election, so I'm not certain this constant bashing of him....or them....is helpful.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)Everyone else has moved on and is trying to work together to stop Dump. But the Russia moles want us to keep fighting and refighting the primaries and tear apart every voice for liberalism. They took down Hillary and now it is time to take down Sanders.
We know them by their work. They won't even let the most innocent of posts go without trying to start a fight. That is not the actions of people trying to beat Trump...it is the actions of those TRYING to create discord among liberals so Trump will get a second term.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Primaries? Who is discussing primaries. What he says and does in 2018 is not about the primaries and we are all liberals here.
Seems to me that you are talking about DUers here. Are you really calling those that disagree with Bernie, trolls?
So. If I understand your post. Anyone that disagrees with Bernie is a troll TRYING to create discord and pumping up Trump. You also claim what he is quoted as saying in 2018 is us refighting a 2016 primary? What? Oh wait, you accuse us of being Russian as well.
Here is a fact. I am an American citizen. I am a Democrat who votes solely for Democrats across the board. I have never wavered with my vote or sat out an election because of a candidate not being 100% of what I wished them to be.
Vinca
(50,285 posts)positive things about Bernie. If not for Bernie, veterans in that town would have to travel more than an hour for medical care. Bernie got them a local clinic. He's done a great job representing Vermonters. Pat Leahy has, too.
tavernier
(12,393 posts)Mildred, hold my glasses, I have to get in there and kick some ass!
(Meanwhile, the republicans are gathered in the coat room, picking all the pockets)
Same old, same old.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He seemed very interested in our elections two years ago. Now he appears to have forgotten about them.
Civic Justice
(870 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)
He has been around long enough to know that we won't do it in leaps and jumps.. it will still be step by step. Therefore, he should not lead his followers to think that he or anyone else can create a system that Leaps and Jumps, and his followers should know better than to expect this nation to suddenly become one that Leaps and Jumps... Therefore, he would do himself, his followers and our system far more benefit, to accord himself to work with a framework of more Democratically centered positions, that in principle can aspire to the long term aspirations of some of his ideals, but be wise enough to know... the only way to achieve them, is STEP BY STEP.... Not Long Leaps and High Jumps...
I think what he needs to do is "embrace the Democrats, who have the like ideals about "equality" in the voting process, and various other things he speaks of that are in line with Democrats. Some of the more far fetched things, he could do much better to work with Democrats and Streamline those things to fit the framework of a more Democratically centered position.
He is not going to be President, and when he realize that, IF the things he cares about is truly cared about, then he'll have no choice in a true reasonable awareness, but to come to the conclusion; it is necessary to work with the Democrats in ways that support whom ever becomes the Front Running Democrat to proceed with a Step by Step process, and get past the thoughts of Leaps and Jumps.
Sadly, his ego won't allow him to think in such terms. He might even be a considered one for Vice President, with a Democratic President whom they can work on reasonable Democratically Centered Objectives. Then he likely could be effective in that role, in ways that could be beneficial. Granted, his manner is far better than the asshole we have in office now, but He is not the Presidential Character Type and Dispositional Manner, that we need in the office of the President.
I read the positions he has of the elements of this nation, and some of them are good, but they need to be more centralized in the framework of Democratic Platform Expectations. For one, the Nation will not move that Far too the Left on some issues that Sanders speak of. But... with the Right President, and Sanders maybe in a VP role, tasked with a select set of objectives, then he could be effective, without going out of bounds in the ways that a Nations Moves forward.
We as a nation "have never been one that Leaps like a Frog jumping, we take steps by steps in moving forward.
As said, on some select items and issues, he may be capable to make multiple steps, but there is not going to be any massive leaps...
The $20+ Trillion and Rising Debt is not going to maliciously vanish. Although his idea of 1 Trillion in Industrial Building is good, but its no good if it is targeted to give it to "existing industry" !!! IF he thinks in Terms of 1 Trillion for Small Business Start Up's all across America, then we can see growth and development in the small towns, rural areas as well as inner cities, as a core focus, it is evident lesser focus and lesser investment in needed in much of suburbia, because of the resources that have already been moved into suburbia, so they would be initially salted for a lesser amount, beause the bulk in needed in small towns, rural areas and inner cities.
I'd say, Sander's followers and their passion is not a bad thing, but they need not look to him with the same type of "Blind devotion that is exactly like the blind followers of Trump" continue to demonstrate. It's fine to listen, but it is not fine to "stop thinking, and fall in some devotional clique as if he is some master guru", because he is not, and he will never be, the Pied Piper of American people. We see the damage of a Pied Piper mentality and the damage it is with the Trump zombies.
All this stuff of wanting to Ride on the Democratic Ticket, but not wanting to "meld" ideas with the Democratic Centered Positions, will do nothing but result to split votes and give Republican yet, another edge.
We are a Nation that moves forward in Time which has brought us to this day and age, but we don't leap and jump... as long as Sanders has been around he should know that, and not mislead his followers to to think that America will suddenly become a nation that leaps and jumps. In 25 yrs, Sander likely won't even be on earth, but the future generation making people will be, and they will be in charge of what and how the future moves forward... and they won't do it in leaps and jumps.. it will still be step by step.
Part 1
Civic Justice
(870 posts)There are other players in the game, with Democratic Concerns and Ideals...that are intricate to what is to be the future of America and how it gets there.
We first have to get back the Congress and the Presidency, and that is not going to happen based on the platform of Sanders, because its based on some Long Leaps and High Jumps... which is not feasible... when there is an entire nation of people that must be brought along.
We have segments of massive volumes of under-educated people, and we have segments of people who have been driven on a misdirection pathway for a very long time by Republican Agenda, and with that, not only is there a mass of under-educated, there is a mass of obstinate uneducated people... Sad to say, without the Democrat and Independent ranks, truth is we too have a mass of under-educated people, as well as uneducated people.
Therefore, we are bound to move only in a "Step by Step" basis. Within those Steps, we MUST concern ourselves with rudimentary things, such as "RE INVIGORATING CIVICS EDUCATION'S" within our Educational system and it must be done through out the entire system of education from K-12 to and through the system of higher education.
We have to ensure in our Professions, that Sociology and the true focus on and of "Ethics", is front in center in what is to be taught to any potential graduate from our Institutions which confer the label of professional by Degree upon individuals.
There is no room for Leaps and Jumps... but there is a determined need for a "Step by Step" procession into the future.
When I express frustration at Sanders, its not that some of his ideas are not good for long term future aspiration, its because he leads people to think... that we will "magically Leap and Jump", as a nation into a system of change as if some stroke of magic will happen, or as if he thinks he's Merlin the Magician. That is the dis-service he does unto his followers, to make them think he can pull of some Magic Trick. He has solid followers, but tell them the truth in realistic terms, and what a long term Ideal is and that it is only achieved by STEP by STEP.... and stop trying to convince them that he can do a "magic trick". He can't even do any of such Magic Tricks in Vermont !!!!! Certainly he could not do it across an Entire Nation. That's what Reality is, is to Realize what is Real....
Ideals of what a nation can become, is what this nation was founded upon, and it has been a Step by Step process. It takes "Faith in Steps" to bring Change to a nation.
Learn from Black peoples march over Centuries and Decades, never did the long history of black people give up on Freedom, even under the vile harshness of white society upon and against black people, but the march continued, and in doing so, it not only achieved the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but in doing so, it brought America to legally respect its own Constitution and legally to Respect the Dignity it had long claimed, but refused to live and support. Legally, the laws support "Equality", but now its a matter of continual steps to move it forward to support equality in the social sphere, and the economic and opportunity sphere. Every day we move closer, but its always "Step by Step".... At some stages the steps may quicken, and other times its like Stepping in Mud that slows the pace, but its still "Step by Step".
Why can't Sander's explain this simplicity to his followers, rather than trying to be the pied piper to make them think they can leap and jump and take wide skips to change something as massive and as diverse in many ways as is the Nation of America.
GO back and look at the work of LBJ, and the way he had to make Step by Step progress in how Civil Rights Acts were moved forward... First the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and THEN ... the Voting Rights Act of 1965... then look at the time line of Civil Right Acts...and the stages and steps of Social/Civic Justice of Civil Rights Moves.
We may well quicken our steps with the aid and usage of technology, but it still will not be done in Leaps and Jumps, it will be done in "Step by Step".
Radicalism of expecting leaps and jumps is an unstable means of movement, but Step by Step is surefooted movenments forward for a nation and its people.
As much as we detest the Madness of Trump trying to move us backwards and invoke processes that mirror the Confederacy's System of wealth domination and people subjugation's.... the benefit we get, at a high cost, is the exposure of the bigotry and racism, and demonstrations of ignorance and lack of education by a mass of people; which shows us, how much of a volume we have of backwards minded citizens in this nation. One can't Leap nor Jump past that. This exposure tells us the true need for greater Civics Education, as well as Sociological Educations to educated these types on what is the value and benefit of the Diversity, which has always been the integral part of American's greatness. The other benefit of Trump and Republican Vile that we are witnessing, is the level and extent of damage these types will invoke to try and recreate a madness of white dominance and control by the wealthy of the nation and its people.
Once its been exposed, it cannot hide itself in the future of where we are to work to move forward. It simply tells us, that the levels of "ignorance" that must be "educated is vast"... and the respect for the civil regard for the humanity of others, must be taught, and the social value of respect of and for diversity, must be focused upon and worked on to bring these people out of the vile of a 100 yrs of Jim Crow Groomed in Madness, that once dominated across this nation. That is done by a "Step by Step" process. It involves much, and that much includes all aspects of America Society and How it Functions.
Heck, this being a site claimed to be of and about Democrats, one can't even get the bulk of members here to talk about 'race", "racism" and the elements within it. One can't even get white members in bulk to step back and "self review" the nature and true realism's of white privilege, and certainly not to acknowledge the damages it has done over many centuries.
they run like one is being chased by a lion, when such subjects come up, or they get silent as if they are trying to hide from the sunlight of truths.
So, if its that difficult among people who claim themselves Democrats and race and racism as being something the Democratic Platform stands against, then one get only a glimpse of what it will take to get Right Wingers to deal with the subject in honest terms. This tells us, that we can only move in a "Step by Step" process, and not by Leaps and Jumps. because Racism was INTERWOVEN into EVERYTHING in America's Society for 100's of yrs, and during the 100 yrs of Jim Crow groomed white America, it was a part of the ideology of both Democrats and Republican White People, as well as Independent and certainly within the White Evangelical System, and this expanded to be a base of mentality in community, business and industrial mentality, as well as within the social nature of the generalized dissensions within our social system of life in America..
In this site, if one speaks of race and racism, and the need for white society to look at and review themselves in relation to what is white privilege, how it works and how to see it when its exhibited... people balk at it, and get anguished at the writer rather than to look at the point being discussed, and acts of deflection and denial and aims to spin and twist logic to avoid addressing the rawness of truths about what is "white privilege" and how it has damaged America, and certainly many have a groomed in cultural history that has taught them, not to review it, and in not to review, means also do all one can not to relinquish the want and embrace of white privilege. Such grooming has instilled in a great many, that any act of discarding the want and expectation of white privilege is to be considered as discrimination against them. Thus so, to embrace full circle equality, is then turned into a fiction of white people claiming they are discriminated against, because they have never seen equality as being anything but a ideals among white people with white people.
Now if all such things do not tell people... that our way forward is "Step by Step" and not Leaps and Jumps...then that will tell that Sanders need not lead his people with ideals that things will Leap and Jump.....
aikoaiko
(34,174 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Things like abloshing slavery, womens suffrage, civil rights act, getting out of the Vietnam War, and even our first black came after long term pressure to change now. Change seemed impossible until there was a leap and a jump due to constant pressure and tragic incidents.
And as far as discussions of race on DU, our discussion are great. People are conversing and learning.
Civic Justice
(870 posts)"Things like abloshing slavery, womens suffrage, civil rights act, getting out of the Vietnam War, and even our first black came after long term pressure to change now"
key word you said is "long term pressure"... which means... it happened in "steps by steps"...not leaps... one certainly can't claim the abolition slavery was a leap... not when it took 100's of years for it to happen.
shanny
(6,709 posts)for universal healthCare. Think FDR.
Civic Justice
(870 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)
Nothing Republican Can Do can change that, they may try to suspend as much as they can, but its only a temporary block, because THE PEOPLE now understand that National Health Care IS Needed, and they also understand that it must not be provided at an outrageous cost to Citizens, therefore this leads us to a Government Driven Program for National Health Care. .
We can not only expect to see National Health Care, we will also see a big change in what is an Insurance Company, and we will see a BIG change in what has been Hospital Networks. (Most of these Hospitals eat up vast amounts of Government Money, and when a system is designed that will diminish the Insurance Company roles, Then we will not only get a system that set cost to what medical services should truly be, what we pay into will be more than sufficient and not burdensome to the individual. PEOPLE are America's GREATEST National Security Element !!!!
We may even come to pay higher taxes with no additional expense for Medical, and the Medical system of Doctors in Hospitals charging 10's of thousands of dollars for a few hours of work, will have to change. The generations of the future will focus on the ethnics of the profession, not the "pomp and pageantry of over exaggerated popularity of title". The duty and responsibility in and of the profession of medicine has to be restored.
No doctor will ever go hungry, but the professions is not about who can become the most wealthy, it is one about who can dedicated themselves to do the good they proclaimed their aims and oath states.
We are no to be treated like disposable beings, and Medicine was designed to care for people, not as a "get rich quick" and deny services if it does not contribute to getting richer.
We are making the Steps and the pace may well quicken, but for stability it will be step by step,even it at times those steps are at a running pace, and for some things it may be slowly measured steps, but always steps forward.
It won't be 2050 before we make these changes, it will come much sooner and when the wave of progress in many things get past this gridlock on now, we will flourish greatly, as technology is and will expand to areas it has long been delayed.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)What they're not mentioning is that 'the theater' was showing 'Avengers: Infinity War'.
Seems a little misleading to me.
R B Garr
(16,955 posts)not about Bernie. Fake. Thanks for the confirmation.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)and shouldn't be discussed on DU?
Asking for a friend.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)However, discussing Bernie does seem to expose some divides here, so it's probably best that Bernie never, ever, be discussed here at all. After all, how can we all be on the same side, when we disagree about something, or even if we aren't all on the same page about exactly what it is that we're discussing? No...that just won't do. I'm afraid that you'll have to tell your friend that Bernie is divisive.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Clearly, it went over the heads of some. And to that point, I was going to also add "how sad", but... now that I think about it, in a way, the fact that some don't get it (or that some choose to pretend they don't get it) helps to make your post even BETTER and more illustrative.
still_one
(92,265 posts)katmondoo
(6,457 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)Donkees
(31,428 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)Bernie is growing the economic justice message in leaps and bounds, including its relationship to social and civil justice.
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Has sanders got any bills passed yet?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Is there like a website or something? Most politicians have a "yay-me" page to brag about their legislative accomplishments (even if it's modest and discreet) but I'll be darned if I can find anything about his major legislative accomplishments.
George II
(67,782 posts)sheshe2
(83,804 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,372 posts)Thanks for the thread Donkees
heaven05
(18,124 posts)candidate for POTUS, by any measure. Younger people needed to lead our Party. Sen. Sanders has always said, he does not want to be a Democrat. He only needed our political machinery. Sen. Sanders is an also-ran, that's it.
shanny
(6,709 posts)if he had run as an Independent in 2016.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)for only one thing. HRC lost for a myriad of reasons, voter suppression, outside foreign interference in OUR NATIONAL election being the most glaring and obvious.
I wish he had run as an Independent, a lot of votes along with those of other 3rd Party candidates would have gone into our/HRC's win column. We probably would have an experienced competent POTUS now instead of this laughing stock BS artist ruining ameriKKKa along with the GOP, grand old party my ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GORP is more like it. I know, I know, The primaries are dead and gone yet the repercussions are evident, I won't even engage nor comment on our mistakes in allowing minor leaders of a very minor faction in our Party to use our machinery and Party.
shanny
(6,709 posts)who got 45% of Democratic primary votes?
btw, this is nonsensical, "I wish he had run as an Independent, a lot of votes along with those of other 3rd Party candidates would have gone into our/HRC's win column."
If Bernie had run as an Independent, HRC would have gotten a lot more votes?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)just like mine is mine. have a good one
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)There is a ton of oppo on sanders. The Clinton campaign treated sanders with kid gloves. If sanders had run as third party, the oppo would have destroyed him
shanny
(6,709 posts)Sanders could have taken off the kid gloves as well. Polls showed Bernie doing better in the general than Clinton.
The effect of either of those things can't be measured because neither happened. So what is the point in arguing about it now? OTOH, something we can extrapolate from past experience is what would have happened if Bernie ran in the general as an independent...especially at a time when more people self-identify as Independents than either Democrats or Republicans.
Bernie did the responsible thing by not running as a third party candidate, something that is conveniently and universally overlooked by far too many, specifically and ironically those who still drag out Ralph Nader* as the super villain who gave us dimson bush.
and that was a load of hooey too
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)The press knew that sanders would never be the nominee and so never vetted or paid attention to sanders. I saw some of the Oppo on him and sanders would have easily been destroyed if he ran as a third party candidate. Sanders attacked Clinton freely but Clinton treated sanders with kid gloves because sanders supporters went nuts if anyone was not nice to sanders. I personally believe that the candidates should have used the oppo on sanders early on.
Response to Donkees (Original post)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #443)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Response to Gothmog (Reply #490)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Here you are http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320
Here is some more https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
In several key states Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan the number of Sanders to Trump defectors were greater than Trumps margin of victory, according to new numbers released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.
Link to tweet
Response to Gothmog (Reply #509)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)The studies cited break down some of the information that you are looking for. Again, sanders bears a great deal of responsibility for trump. There are a large number of true democrats who will not forget this.
Sanders is not going to run in 2020 in my opinion. Sanders will have to release several years of tax returns in a couple of blue states with ballot access laws to get onto the ballot. These laws will also apply is sanders tries to run as a third party. If the Democrats take the House, the first thing that they will do is release trump's tax returns which will mean that it is less likely that trump will sue to invalidate these ballot access law. I doubt that sanders will ever release all of his tax returns.
Response to Gothmog (Reply #520)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Sanders is still pretending thst he will run in 2020. If sanders runs again, he sill be blamed by real democrats for trump being elected. Feeble attrmpts to deflect will not help sanders with real democrats
Response to Gothmog (Reply #531)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Whataboutism does not work in the real world. Attempts to deflect blame are amusing. I posted two studies that show that sanders is the reason why trump is POTUS. Ignoring these facts will not make them go away nor will pointing fingers at other causes.
I am focusing on issues that can be addressed in the future
1. Voter suppression. GOP voter suppression cost Clinton Wisconsin https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
I would estimate that 25 to 35 percent of the 41,000 decrease in voters, or somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 voters, likely did not vote due to the photo ID requirement, he said later. It is very probable that between the photo ID law and the changes to voter registration, enough people were prevented from voting to have changed the outcome of the presidential election in Wisconsin.
A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in the three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsins turnout dropped 3.3 percent. If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016, the study said. These lost votersthose who voted in 2012 and 2014 but not 2016skewed more African American and more Democrat than the overall voting population. Some academics criticized the studys methodology, but its conclusions were consistent with a report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee had decreased turnout by roughly 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among black, young, and new voters.
I was part of the Clinton Victory Counsel program and nearly went to Wisconsin but ended up running the statewide voter protection hotline in Texas and the poll watcher program in Harris County. Harris County turned blue and one of the poll watchers who I trained in 2012 was elected to the office in charge of voter registration. This cycle we focus on getting rid on the teabagger who runs elections.
BTW, the courts are still considering the Wisconsin voter id law http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99266 In Texas we have largely gutted the voter id law but have to fight to make sure that voters get to vote.
2. Russia. I will let Mueller handle this but there is ample evidence that russia helped elect trump. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/facebook-russia-ads/index.html
"Listen, I've said I don't think this is about collusion. Facebook is a company that most advertisers rely on Facebook's information to determine what the target is," Burr told reporters. "I think clearly there was an effort to bring some chaos to groups on the right and the left, so there's nothing that, at least preliminary, would lean toward one candidate versus the other. I think there was equal money sent trying to create some type of chaos on both sides of the political or ideological spectrum. We'll find more as we go in."
I note that the idiots on JPR fell for a ton of russian fake news. There were a ton of thread on pizzagate on JPR for a while. Sanders supporters were targeted by Russia and judging from the studies posted above with great effect
Link to tweet
Again, sanders supporters were easily fooled by russian fake news and the studies cited above show this cost the election
Link to tweet
3. Comey. Nate Silver has done some good work that shows that Comey cost Clinton the election https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
4. Sanders and Stein voters. The studies cited above show that sanders cost the election. BTW, i was a delegate to the national convention. Sanders was not working hard for Clinton and in fact refused to try to stop his delegates from dong such things as booing Congressman John Lewis. These disruptions hurt the unity that one normally gets from a convention. For example, in 2008, Clinton conceded before the Texas state convention. In 2016 sanders waited until just before the convention and cause a ton of disruption. I was at the convention and sanders refusal to do his best to help Clinton was a factor.
I will continue working in the real world to deal with as many issues as possible. We had a full war room for both the primary and the primary run off for voter protection issues.
I am glad that ballot access laws should keep sanders from running again.
Response to Gothmog (Reply #536)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Read the material posted or have someone read and explain them to you
I know that bernie supporters are not happy about being blamed for Trump but that is tough.
Response to Gothmog (Reply #538)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
betsuni
(25,550 posts)If you're really so interested, Hillary wrote a whole big book about what she could have done differently and what was out of her hands.
Response to betsuni (Reply #541)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)I have a copy
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)sanders supporters were targeted by Russian fake news with great effect and sanders voters were the reason why trump is POTUS. I go to the JPR site to see what Putin is pushing this week and the number of admitted russian trolls on that site is amazing. Russia was very successful in pushing fake news and attacks judging by the stories that were on the greatest page of that site. There were six or more pizzagate stories on the greatest page at one point and it was amusing to see the admins on that junk site ban pizzagate stories.
Russia is still targeting sanders supporters. JPR is still pushing putin's latest lines even now. Putin knows that persons who post on sites like JPR are evidently gullible and will buy any Russian fake news stories.
Russia targeted the US election in 2016 and I fear that Russia will do so again
Link to tweet
Response to Gothmog (Reply #546)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2018, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)
I was at the National Convention and I was a Hillraiser and a member of both the Clinton attorney finance committee and the Victory Counsel program. I saw the Clinton campaign close up including being a maxed out donor and a sponsor for a couple of high dollar campaign events (you have to give the secrete service all of your details when you are a sponsor). I honestly believe that the forces that cause Clinton to lose were outside her control. My only real complaint was that she treated sanders with kid gloves and should have use the oppo research on him. Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate and should have not have been treated with kid gloves.
I live in the real world which is why I rejected sanders (his proposals all relied on a magical voter revolution and made no sense if you lived in the real world). I never took sanders seriously because I do not believe in magic or magical voter revolutions. All of sanders proposals were based on a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions (sanders was not clear on this) would rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. No one who lived in the real world would be stupid enough to believe in magical voter revolutions. None of sanders proposals could be adopted in the real world with the aid of magic 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
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. 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
If you look at the forces that were aligned against Clinton at the end, she had no chance no matter what she did. Again, Russia invested a ton of resources in feeding fake news to sanders supporters who believed this crap. I am serious, go to JPR and see the russian trolls at work. JPR had six or more threads at one point on pizzagate. There are still jpr idiots who are pushing crap about Seth Rich and that Hillary Clinton is really too ill to serve. Heck a number of the idiots who post on JPR are named plaintiffs in the rather ignorant DNC fraud lawsuit. I am sadden that so many JPR types and sanders supporters believed the Russian fake news.
I saw behavior by the sanders campaign at the national convention that sickened me. Many of the sanders delegates were there to help elect trump and did their best. My youngest child was my guest at the National Convention and I watched sanders supporters yell obscenities at her and call her the c-word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. A person who was a senior paid staffer in the sanders campaign came to work for one of the local candidates where she went around telling voters to vote for stein while block walking.
I saw the attacks by Sanders supporters on John Lewis and other African American leaders at the National Convention. One sanders delegate told me that they blamed African Americans for sanders loss and so were going to take it out on these groups at the national convention. I am Jewish and we had one sanders supporter come to one of the Jewish caucuses to tell us that we were bad Jews for not supporting sanders. The idiot was wearing a large cross on the outside of his shirt.
I was teaching a class on poll watching and voter protection when Comey pulled his stunt. My associate was taking the class and told me about it after we finished filming. I was shocked and it is clear that this incident played a major role. Nate Silver and others have looked at this and they are clear that this stunt helped get trump elected. Again, I like living in the real world where facts matter.
Again, I am sad that you want to deflect and deny the role that sanders played in electing trump. I actually work on political issues in the real world and I saw what happened. Between Comey, Russia, voter suppression, stein (who is really a russian tool) and sanders, there was no way that Hillary Clinton had a chance and yet she still won the popular vote by 3 million.
Go ahead and deny the facts as to how trump got elected. I am working to turn Texas blue in the real world. We already gutted the Texas voter id law though litigation. The GOP know that Texas will turn blue and are trying to delay this with voter suppression and other crap.
The fact that you want to ignore the facts here amuses me. Again, I live in the real world which is why I never took sanders seriously. I am also not going to forgive or forget about sanders roll in trump being elected. BTW, I had to deal with Our Revolution idiots who are so very racist that they they attack an Asian candidate because he had a funny first name. The head of thie local Our Revolution group told voters that this candidate "was not one of us" and "we do not want one of them" on the ballot. Luckily the candidates endorsed by Our Revolution lost badly. I am helping the Asian candidate who attacked by the Our Revolution idiots by taking him to meetings of the local Democratic lawyers association and having him be on a panel at a CLE event later this month. It was fun watching a Democratic candidate for Congress mingle in a room of Democratic lawyers.
The real world is a nice place. I will continue to work in it. You can ignore the real world if you want.
Response to Gothmog (Reply #573)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Are you posting on JPR? You will like that site. Facts and reality do not matter on the JPR site and sanders can do no wrong according to the posters on that site. For posters who cannot deal with the real world, it is a good place where one can ignore facts and the real world. You are evidently allergic to facts and the real world which means that you will enjoy a place where fake news and Russian talking points are the norm.
I am so very amused that you are unable to deal with the facts that show that sanders and sanders supporters were responsible for trump's victory. This level of denial does not surprise me in that I have seen it on JPR. ,Since you do not want to deal with facts or the real world, please visit JPR. People who can not deal with facts will fit in on that site. In addition, the Russian trolls and Putin fake news will no doubt re-enforce your incorrect views about sanders
In lieu of hiding on JPR, I would encourage you to get out into real world. Attend some county party meetings or work on a race for a real democrat. Illinois may have some interesting races. Your current governor needs to go. Go attend a state convention. State conventions are fun and you will meet people who live in the real world of politics. Go block walk for a candidate or phone bank. Talk to some real people in the real world. I will be at the state convention in a couple of weeks. We have an idiot bernie supporter running for state party chair and I need to vote against that idiot. In addition, we will be working on statewide voter protection plans. In 2016 we had a statewide hot line and coordination between the Clinton campaign and the state and county parties. I trained and we had 200+ poll watchers out in 2016 and kept the GOP from trying to enforce the old voter id law that was modified in litigation. Despite having a teabagger run the Harris County elections, Harris County turned blue. The poor teabagger who ran Harris county elections got grief for Harris County turning blue.
Link to tweet
This cycle will be better in that a lady who I trained as a poll watcher in 2012 was elected in 2016 to the office that controls voter registration (Texas used to have a poll tax and so the tax office controls voter registration). This will one of the first cycles where we are not suing to get voter registration forms in other than one language (Harris County has ballots in six different language).
The real world is a nice place for those of us who live in the real world. In my case, I and other real democrats are working to turn Texas blue. We are going to do this by ignoring the idiots endorsed by sanders and Our Revolution and work to elect real democrats. I spent the Texas primary day and the primary run off day in the war room answering questions. It is always nice being around real democrats. Working in the real world is rewarding and I urge yo to consider getting out into the real world.
If you do not want to go out into the real world, then go visit JPR and enjoy a safe space where facts and reality can be ignored and sanders can do no wrong. I will continue working in the real world and Texas will turn blue
Response to Gothmog (Reply #589)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2018, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)
You will have fun and fit in over there
The are fun races in the resl world to work on. Have fun hiding from the real woeld
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)They dont give a fuck.
They dont care that they are not ALLOWED to see tax returns.
Not hearing it.
Will it result in the NAZIS continued power? Very possibly.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Many sanders supporters believed these lies and voted either for trump or stein. The studies cited in this thread show that these sanders voters are the reason why trump is POTUS.
Russian is still feeding lies and fake news to sanders supporters on sites like JPR. The JPR site is full of Russian trolls. If you want to know what Russia and Putin are pushing, go check out that website. The idiots who post on JPR are happy to believe in this fake news
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)and there is one, maybe two KGB agents who post there, very cleverly.
Always saying negative shit about HRC and Pelosi, etc., and always half ass supporting the alt left nonsense.
Even though this is obvious, it is ME that is warned routinely NOT to allege there are KGB agents about.
THINK about that for a minute.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Heck, the JPR site is full of Russian fake news.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Response to Lil Missy (Reply #528)
chwaliszewski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)always will!
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Solid stop for the Sanders campaign.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Shaun King intro @ the event;
George II
(67,782 posts)....for an hour or two, fined $25, and told to be on his way. And that was almost 60 years ago.
I'm more interested in THIS arrest story, which took place just about the same time (the 1960s):
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)"Bernie was arrested in 1963!"
"And then he moved to Vermont a couple of years later"
"Why are you bringing up something he did in the 1960s?"
I can't believe that arrest is even a major talking point. It's nice that he did the protest, but only people who really don't understand the movement would think that what Bernie did was all that unusual among liberal white students during that time.
George II
(67,782 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)And am I the only one with a nagging fear that this whole thing is about *HIM* and not *US*? Because Jane's comments over the weekends were shall I say, unfortunate and ill-chosen...
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Disclaimer: I am NOT DENYING that Sanders is the equivalent of the Second Coming. At all. Thank you.
However, I don't believe in the original Second Coming,so there's that!
Gothmog
(145,359 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Gothmog
(145,359 posts)Jews are still waiting for the first coming which we expect will the only coming
Raysawesome34
(19 posts)Can't wait to vote for him in 2020. Seems to be a lot of hate in this forum.
And over one tweet. Almost 600 responses. Kinda seems like a sickness of the soul.
Donkees
(31,428 posts)Raysawesome34
(19 posts)Great to be here!