General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders: Hillary, GOP Won't Take on Corporate Power
"I think there is a lot of discontent out there on the part of ordinary people who feel the system is grossly stacked against them."by Common Dreams staff
April 19, 2015
Vermont US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday hell make a decision on running for president pretty soon.
Making sure you have the money to run a credible campaign is very important, he said to interviewer Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Were working on it. And we will make the best decision we can in the near future.
Sanders said he did not believe any 2016 presidential candidate from either party would battle corporate power for ordinary Americans.
I do have doubts that Hillary Clinton or any Republican out there will take on big-money special interests, Sanders said.
In America, if we are going to be successful in taking on the billionaire class, we need a strong grassroots movement, he said.
Its not just Hillary Clinton. Its not a question of running against Hillary Clinton or challenging Hillary Clinton.
CONTINUED w/full transcript...
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/19/bernie-sanders-hillary-gop-wont-take-corporate-power
That does put a finger on the situation: the Nation, the People, and those in the Democratic Party need a candidate who will bring political and economic justice, not protect the interests of the property owners. Hope Sen. Sanders joins us in what I remember we used to call The Good Fight.
Arcadiasix
(255 posts)No Third way
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Jackson Stephens, for one. The guy helped finance Walmart and set-up BCCI.
DUers used to write about it a lot. For example, back before the crash of 2008:
Jackson Stephens (Clinton's connection w BFEE who b(r)ought him from obscurity:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5707283&mesg_id=5718855
Arcadiasix
(255 posts)We at this site would curse her up on side and down the other. Why should we tolerate it form a democrat?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)by the bank$ters, other big money and the MIC. Anyone who denies this FACT is fooling only him or herself.
Arcadiasix
(255 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)to find out what Bernie thinks about that.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)With Bernie stating out loud what needs to be heard, perhaps a Democratic movement is possible.
Either way, it's a long way to Philly.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)going to guess the same is true for Warren and others. They don't have the fundraising structure to get what is clearly needed. I want to see Bernie in the debates because he is versed in all areas, I think. Warren will be in the Cabinet, or SOS. Clinton needs her to relate to the Progressive Flank. She's not any threat because EW has no inclination to be President. But she has much to offer.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Grassroots can do a great deal. Especially when the truth is told about the corpocracy that Clinton works for
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)voters of the terrible corruption that accompanied the Gilded Age in 19th century America to finally swing Teddy Roosevelt to really take action and end a little of the corruption and act to end some of the poverty.
If we want a better society and more justice and a government that represents us all with all of our diversity, but that somehow works, then we have to be patient and work for what is right without becoming discouraged.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)it will speed it up. I'm encouraged that the Progressive Voice has been recognized in the media ... and the party ... to some extent.
Do you or anyone reading this know what's the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive? Because I identified as Liberal decades ago and was kind of out of politics for a while, coming to DU heard the Progressive term. I like it, but wonder if there is some defining differences other than semantic.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)not have the funds to go full on. And that's true. He's further behind than Warren. I love Bernie and we need him in the Primary so to put forth Left of Hillary ideas and goals. He in no way, shape or form has the funds...he's not even a Democrat, even though he caucuses with them. But we need his input and I think he knows that.
I also read in another place that he said he would not play the "spoiler" or pull a Nader. He wants to get his message out and I agree that he should.
All of that aside, He does not have a base of institutional donors and as great of a person he is, there aren't enough $45 checks out there/sent in. That takes a lot of organization.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It trumps peace and politics and justice.
DU's been abuzz about how important it is to have enough of it to compete -- a billion! Two billion! $2.5 billion!
Most of the money raised goes to buy commercial air time. Trust me, COMCAST, Disney, Time Warner, VIACOM, FOX or CIABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks don't need the money. They use it to buy lobbyists to keep elections crooked.
Geez. This is supposed to be a democracy. Everyone should have a right to be heard and to participate, without charge or ability to pay.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)democracy out of it and is racing to the oligarchy stage...because you just stated the definition. I think that's why everyone on here is so upset and rightfully so...it's a behemoth that can't turn on a dime...takes billions now to turn it.
I try to stay positive.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)(On bankruptcy legislation)...This is how anti-abortion murderers and CEO crooks finally secured all their sought-for exemptions from "bankruptcy reform," which offered only Republican "tough love" for the middle class and poor - and an outright kick in the teeth to people bankrupted by medical bills, by job loss, or by divorce, the three biggest causes of bankruptcies, which studies showed accounted for almost all filings. (In fact, nearly half of all personal bankruptcies were due simply to medical expenses; and because of this new law, most of those cases would henceforth produce something akin to slavery capping the patient's misery.) Still, a large share of the total dollars involved in bankruptcy cases were assets held by the very few super-rich going bankrupt, and the Republican "bankruptcy reform" protected those bankrupts, so that MBNA and the other banks which had pushed so hard for this legislation received only limited real benefit from it. Perhaps the executives of those banks, who were protecting themselves from risks they were imposing upon others, were even more concerned to protect themselves in the event that they might need bankruptcy protection themselves, than they were to enhance the bottom lines of the companies they managed. This was a failure of their fiduciary obligations...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/why-hillary-clinton-shoul_b_4293469.html
Response to Octafish (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #6)
elzenmahn This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to elzenmahn (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #9)
elzenmahn This message was self-deleted by its author.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)a Democrat before she was old enough to register to vote.
jftr - I campaigned for Eisenhower for President. I traveled with my Grandfather. I was 7 years old. When I could register to vote (21 yrs of age) I registered Democrat and I am an ardent liberal so what's your point?
Response to DURHAM D (Reply #15)
elzenmahn This message was self-deleted by its author.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)she registered Democrat.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)because we signed up to watch the skies...complete with binoculars...I kid you not...to spot Communists flying in. I felt so important. He was a John Bircher. I became a Democrat when I went to College and my first 21-year old vote was for McGovern after I graduated.
cali
(114,904 posts)She damn well is a life long democrat. From the time she was old enough to vote, she was a dem.
I oppose HRC strongly, but damn I hate stupid shit like that.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)He didn't kiss her ass. That's what bothers you.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)You may want to see it as a cheap shot but you are wrong.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Maybe that's why he's considering joining the Democratic Party in order to run as a Democrat.
I hope he does. I think he's great. He's about the only Senator I ever heard speak who wanted to prosecute the Banksters.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)A statesman and representative in a sea of corporate corruption and sellouts.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)That alone should make him a contender.
2012 Ed Schultz interview
EXCERPT...
ED SCHULTZ: How hard is it going to be for the Senate to do what the
American people want them to do when Wall Street is so terribly influential
and some say the banks own the Senate?
BERNIE SANDERS: Ed, let me tell you what many others might not tell you.
You know, some people think, well, gee, the Congress regulates Wall Street.
I think the truth is that Wall Street regulates the Congress.
They have untold, unlimited amounts of money, money which is used to
get the deregulation -- you recall during the `90s, in a bipartisan way, to
get the deregulation which drove us into the brink of financial collapse.
They have all kinds of lobbyists on Wall Street. They make all kinds of
campaign contributions, so it will be hard.
But on the other hand, as your polls show, the American people
understand how dangerous Wall Street can be. They want Congress to stand
up and if we do what the American people want, it will be the right thing.
SCHULTZ: All right. What do you want to do? You want to break up
the banks?
SANDERS: Here`s what I want to do. For a start, you need to re-
regulate. You need to re-regulate. You need to bring back Glass-Steagall.
You need to say that if we`re providing federal insurance for large
banks, you know why? You can`t go gambling. You`ve got invest in the
economy.
SCHULTZ: Commercial and investment banks have to be designated.
SANDERS: If investment banks want to invest, get involved in Las
Vegas-type activity, let them do it, but not with federal insurance.
SCHULTZ: And how big a chance is that becoming a reality?
SANDERS: Well, I think our friend Jamie Dimon may have made it
easier.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SANDERS: So here`s the point, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Yes?
SANDERS: So invest, whatever you want to do, but don`t come crawling
from the federal government for insurance. That`s the key issue here.
SCHULTZ: Well, you have the big getting bigger after what happened
on Wall Street.
SANDERS: All right. Here`s what you got -- and I want the American
people to hear this. Today, you have three out of the four largest banks
bigger than we were before we bailed them out.
SCHULTZ: Three of the four?
SANDERS: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Bigger than we were?
SANDERS: Yes. Significantly, also, you have the six largest
financial institutions have assets of over $9 trillion, which is the
equivalent of two-thirds of the assets -- equivalent to two-thirds of the
assets of GDP of the United States of America.
So stop for a minute. When you have institutions that large,
JPMorgan Chase, over $2 trillion, while some will say, we`re never going to
bail them out again, right? We`re going to let them fail -- I don`t think
that`s the case. That`s the danger, when they`re that big, if they go
under, with they will be bailed out again.
Number two, if Teddy Roosevelt was alive right now and saw that the
top six banks provided half the mortgages in America and two-thirds of the
credit cards, what do you think a good Republican like Teddy Roosevelt
would have said?
SCHULTZ: We would have gone after it, no doubt.
SANDERS: He would have said, break them up. They`re dangerous to
the economy. They`re dangerous to us (ph).
CONTINUED...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/18/1092100/-Bernie-Sanders-Congress-doesn-t-regulate-banks-banks-regulate-congress-Must-see
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Then I realized that I cannot afford not to. Thanks, LWolf!
I'm just outside Detroit. My property values have gone through the basement since 2008.
I keep waiting. I keep hoping. I keep running out of time.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Yes. I could tell a really long story about that, but so many of us have them.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)and the goal of big money in politics isn't special, but pretty brassy: to make intere$t from their 'interests' in supporting the political system.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions
by Bill Allison and Sarah Harkins
SunlightFoundation, NOV. 17, 2014
Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of Americas most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.
That figure, more than the $4.3 trillion the federal government paid the nations 50 million Social Security recipients over the same period, is the result of an unprecedented effort to quantify the less-examined side of the campaign finance equation: Do political donors get something in return for what they give?
Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested the answer to that question was no. Corporate spending to influence federal elections would not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, the majority wrote in the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
Sunlight decided to test that premise by examining influence and its potential results on federal decision makers over six years, three before the 2010 Citizens United decision and three after.
CONTINUED with charts, etc....
http://influenceexplorer.com/fixed-fortunes/
Money in politics means continued piratization of the Government of the United States. No wonder so many of We the People no longer feel part of it. No longer getting a piece of the action, We see we're just the mopes left holding the bill after the fraternity's totaled the hotel.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...the Left (not the Third Wayers or DINOs) need a viable political backstop. By this, they need a substantial infrastructure that can compete with the corporate owners of this country, in terms of education, funding, media, and otherwise. If we had this, then Dennis Kucinich and Russ Fiengold would still be in office, and Bernie Sanders would be taken more seriously as a candidate by more of the population. In short, it's this lack of left-leaning infrastructure that is creating the thought virus that HRC is "inevitable".
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"not protect the interests of the property owners."
I would like a president who will make more Americans become property owners and who will strengthen our, and by our I mean every one of us's, ability to govern and manage together the property that belongs to all of us.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)understand that it isn't that complex, there is no 3 dimensional chess, and that to get consumed with the differential effects of a divisive polarizing candidate like Clinton is, by default, saying you support and want the ruling class to keep on exactly the way they have been for the last 40 years.
It isn't that hard. Clinton and her apologists speak in terms of unfathomable complexity because if they were to break down their arguments to simple truths and behaviors, it would be revealed that Hillary is actually a pretty shitty choice as a Democratic Candidate.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)just as EITHER Taco Bell OR Del Taco will make you sick, but it's impossible that BOTH could
Arcadiasix
(255 posts)If she is the nominee I can't in good conscience vote for her.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He would give a different statement. In fact the effort of Bernie is currently making isn't getting the job completed and he is in the Senate currently, what us his problem?
cali
(114,904 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Ten persons...myself and my partner (we identify as Democrat but pleading for common sense...not radical Left nor corporate bought Right leaning).
The other 8...Republican (now mind you, we like 7 of them well...the 8th is a jackass, know it all, blowhard, "fuck you, I have mine and too bad"...they are all well off...we were the poor persons at the table...no one under about 57 and up to 70 [the jackass]...almost everyone is still working.
Most do not like President Obama (including the African American male)...why? Unexplained with just grumbling and mumbling. They all hate HRC but admit that she will be the Dem candidate...they HATE Sanders and Warrens. They agreed that all Puke candidates are nuts and that Bush would be the candidate. Between HRC and JB, Bush would win (HRC baggage). Rather funny...they said they would rather have Bill again.
Lastly what we were fascinated by, was their interest in O'Malley! But they don't think he will run and that he would have a recognition issue.
It was allllll so interesting.
We feel that HRC will not win...Jebbie, another Bush idiot, will come off as the common sense and compassionate one in the Clown Car, despite verbal stumbling time and time again.
While have liked some HRC things in the past, we want someone that can SERIOUSLY win the White House...we won't be working her campaign nor donating money and if we have to, holding our nose during voting. There is Bush burnout but we feel that there is, for whatever reasons, even more Hillary burnout.
Sanders can't win...Warrens can't win...we want them to stir the pot and apply pressure but don't want them as a distraction.
cali
(114,904 posts)He is deeply unpopular and the repub power brokers have lost a considerable amount of their power
Paul...total nutso. Huckleberry...nut. Cruz...crazy.
Then there is Rubio. Handsome, youngish, duel language...
Your thoughts...someone else...just curious...thanks.
cali
(114,904 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Don't let us down.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)great on the environment.
What's not to like, if you are a Democrat?
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seems to remember that's one of the things leadership's about, getting others to understand why to support a program or bill.
While that's different from Speaker Sam's philosophy: "To get along, go along."
Leadership and vision are what's needed for the problems the nation and planet are facing.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)if only to see him in the debates.
according the msm occupy wall street was a complete failure, and yet it changed the political conversation in this country. last election everyone was talking about the 1%.
a sanders candidacy could do the same.
run bernie run!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Honesty and forthrightness in a sea of corrupt manipulation and lies.
THIS is the difference between a candidate for a representative government and what corporate government offers us.
JEB
(4,748 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)From a young Mayor to an aged Senator.