Maybe you don't remember that turn to the right that Clinton took in 92... and how he presented as an Republican in terms of downsizing the government, cleaning up crime, beefing up the military, deregulation, etc.

The Democratic party once referred to itself as a big tent. But, once the neo-liberals took over, it became something else.

Effects of which continue...

Get your fucking memes straight, whippersnapper.

that don't serve the interests of most Americans. Some of us are fighting to take it back.

So, if and when you're ready to stop backing right-wingers, we'd welcome the support.

You have to remember some of us were voting Democrat long before the Clintons rode into town

We didn't see some shit on YouTube and try to piece it together.

When you lived through it, it's different. You actually know what the fuck happened.

I posted this a couple days ago

You show me the black granite wall memorializing Clinton's 50K war dead.

For Fucks sake - that was a viable question to ask

Link, please.

given the incredible destruction she wrought as a mere Secretary of State, giving her the Presidency is like wanting to start World War III.

Johnson is responsible for the loss of 50000 American troops in Viet Nam alone. Not counting other losses in the name of the cold war.

None of which would have happened if not for her initiative, so she's earned every last dead body assigned to her account.

I'd wager it will be in seven - if not eight - figures by the time the full accounting is done.

on the history of the Democratic Party and the principles it stood for before prior to 1992. FDR and Bobby Kennedy are turning in their graves at the thought of what has become of the establishment of the party. The party used to serve the people, now it uses them. Truly sad.

It's been "let's chase the Republicans" ever since.

you have fallen prey to deception and don't really have a clue what is actually going on. There are plenty of long-standing Ds that are 100% behind Bernie and will continue to support him win, lose or draw.

We are taking the Democratic Party back is all.

Such a revealing post.

We have a winner. No more calls, please!

I couldn't care less what label is applied to him, his agenda is much like FDR's and that's a Democrat in my book.

Instead of making with the meaningless cracks, the party ought to thank him and be damn glad he didn't run as a third party, as he could have.

Voting records speak the truth.

to have any serious chance of winning the Presidency, he had to run as a Democrat™

Real democrats are realizing the Democratic Party has become a corporate lobbying firm and are tired of being used as pawns to get these DINOs elected. The party leadership has sold out.

I am confident the independents that are involved as well are not spoiled as the poster before said. When people lash out like that it lets us, who are fighting to end the corrupt corporate control of our country, know we are doing the right thing.

Hell, *republicans* of the old days would be considered left wing.
And some "democrats" seem much more interested and tied to big business and special interests than the old days - what are they called now?

Call us stupid poopooheads and be done with it.

It's called history...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027200959


https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/its-al-froms-democratic-party-we-just-live-here-5d0de7f89c3e#.51wuc0e8w

The @ symbol in the URL doesn't work here. This is shortened URL for the one above. https://goo.gl/Jl1E8G

Democrat in Policy Only

Bernie stands for the principles the Democratic Party USED to before they abandoned the middle class and the poor. Now, they're mostly 1960s Republicans. And the Republicans have gone off the deep end into LaLa land.

People that don't see this seem to have no sense of context or history. And others who do see it find it a valuable tool for criticizing Sanders, nevermind the historical context.

Sanders is our FDR.

Everett Dirksen, Margaret Chase Smith, Winthrop Rockefeller, Edward Brooke... They were certainly preferable to some of the Southern Democratic governors of the '60s, like Ross Barnett, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace.

Or hell, even Nixon was more reasonable than Republicans are now. They've gone off the dominionist/John Birch Society deep end now.

However, FDR was a true progressive and embodied better than anyone since then, the principles of the Democratic Party (primarily for the working middle class and poor). That is the kind of Democrat we need NOW. The FDR kind. The "Democratic Socialist" kind.

Capital "D" Democrat - Capital "P" Party. They are proper nouns, which are used to describe a specific person, group of entity.

Sanders has spent his entire political career attacking the Democratic Party, and only recently joined the Party for crass, opportunistic, and mercenary purposes.

to run as a Democrat, because they knew he would peel votes from Hillary if he ran Third Party, and because they truly thought he would have fizzled out by now, leaving his supporters and his war chest to Hillary.

You mean Bernie FORCED his way? Wow! That's, well, ludicrous.

And I would like to call your attention to the way Debbie Dino campaigns for and supports her GOP cronies, down here in Florida. Well documented elsewhere. SHE is the one who is using the Democratic Party for

is just another way of say "there's no difference between The Democrats and Republicans". That is a vicious fucking RW fascist lie DESIGNED to take support away from Democrats and progressives. It wasn't true when Sanders said it in the '80s and '90s. It wasn't true when Nader said it and handed the White House to the Bush Regime. AND DEMOCRATS WON'T ALLOW SANDERS TO SAY IT TODAY AND HAND THE PRESIDENCY OVER TO TRUMP OR RYAN!

there is no difference. You are correct. But the corporate/ third wayers love to tout social issues, but only if working at them isn't hard. I.e. Hilary's immediately dropping three dollars from the minimum wage discussion and Hillary immediately bowing out of nationalized health care.

cronies down here - be called anything BUT a DINO.

If it talks like a DINO and votes like a DINO - it is a fucking DINO.

Oh, and I suggest not throwing around that "Democrats" broad brush - you do not speak for all Democrats. Also, the Bush presidency was already in the bag.

Was about to post the exact same thing.

Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to process, but I'm glad that some people get it.

Do you think he's going to switch to R or caucus with Rs?

Give me a break. He's more a Democrat than all but a handful of our elected Democrats at the federal level. But go ahead and get hung up on a label if you want to.

Oh, and don't bother with the "he hasn't fund raised for the DNC" meme, that lie has already been dispelled numerous times here at DU.

His Senate seat us up in two years and I assume he'll run again.

Sanders and the traitor Nader share a love of stating that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and have even used the same sad terminology. Sanders first used the same terminology of stating that there are no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican party when he ran as a spoiler for governor. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Running for office, and earning votes in the process, does not make one a traitor.

Otherwise every losing candidate (Carter lost to Reagan) would be a traitor.

This is from the article that I posted on this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

by illegally removing 90,000 eligible voters from the rolls, primarily African-American, whose names were similar to those of felons. She did so knowing the list was rife with errors. This was a template other states would use to disenfranchise voters — remove or alter their registration, and voters won't discover the discrepancies until it's too late.

Then there wa the whole "butterfly ballot" fiasco, designed by a Republican-turned-Democrat (who is now a Republican again).

Had Gore asked for a statewide hand recount at the outset, he would have won, and there would have been no Bush v. Gore.

So there is plenty of blame to go around and this cannot be laid entirely at the feet of a legitimate candidate for president.

The number of votes that Nader cost Gore were sufficient by themselves to give the election to Bush. Yes, it would be nice if the voter purge did not happen or the butterfly ballot was not used but the one thing that can be documented accurately is the fact that Nader gave the 2000 election to Bush on purpose including breaking his promise not to campaign in swing states. Nader is the reason why we have Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act.

--that made Florida close enough to steal.

Here are some facts for the Nader supporters to ignore http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/05/bernie-sanders-from-the-guys-who-brought-you-george-w-bush.html

Repeating/reposting it until you're blue won't change that.

From an economic policy standpoint, there is little difference in effect between the GOP and D Party today. Both are corrupt and obligated to corporations and big money.

Bernie isn't trying to become part of that -- and that's what you object to? Do you really mean to say that "Loyalty is more important than effect?" Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

I get that you favor Hillary, and you are entitled to that. But this argument that saying both parties in many ways are the same is preposterous is utter nonsense. There are millions and millions of voters on both sides of the aisle who think the parties are both corrupt and beholden to big money.

Has Hillary been saying that and raising funds from individuals as opposed to corporations and SuperPACs, I probably would be supporting her now. But she hasn't done that, so I support the person who best represents and speaks to my values.

There are major differences between the parties. Sanders supporters discount these differences but there are differences

my post. Let me say it this way, on economic policy issues that affect the average working class American, the two Parties have been and are today far more alike than different. Both parties are corrupt in this regard. ... There are bigger, substantial differences between the two parties when it comes to social and other single issues. On most of these, Bernie and Hillary share similar positions, not exact in all cases but similar.

Bernie's the only candidate aside from Trump who takes a strong stance on breaking the financial ties between corporations/big money and elected officials. Hilary talks a good game but her record belies that.

Sorry about the voter suppression that effects you. Bernie will continue to champion your voter rights!

It is sad that people are making this rather false and sad claim. There are major differences between the two parties including their views on safety nets and supply side economics. Again, the same sad people who defended the traitor Nader on past threads on DU are the same people supporting Sanders. Many of the Nader supporters are also the people who have been attacking President Obama on a regular basis.

I disagree with these claims. I live in a deeply red state where there are tea party nut cases running around unchecked. There are major differences on economic issues between the two parties and I find your attempt at analysis and defending Nader to be sad.

You are the one who is wrong. Safety nets aren't a fix or the solution. They are for safe keeping, well-being during individual hard times. I'm not concerned about individuals, I'm concerned about masses. Nearly all major economic policies going back to Reagan have favored corporations and the wealthy over average Americans. The Dems have done nothing to change supply side economics despite almost 16 years of White House occupancy and at least 4 years of D majorities in both Houses. No Dems have made Supply Side economics their major issue -- but no single policy has caused more harm to middle and working class people. ZERO -- Zilch!

You miss the forest for the trees sir (or madam). If
you are comfortable pursuing incremental improvement while millions of young people in America are consigned to a life of relative poverty, then you are an adversary as opposed to a team mate. There is no greater issue, no issue that cuts so dramatically across people of all colors, than the issue of income inequality caused by corrupt corporate control of governance. The Clinton's have been part of that corruption and played a central role in making it happen (e.g., NAFTA). My conscience will not allow me to consider voting for Hillary at this point.

I am sorry that you are surrounded by Tea Party types. I'm sure that is discouraging and angering if not downright depressing. I believe I have some but obviously not a full understanding of where you are coming from. I live in a remote western community largely populated by what I tend to think of as gun crazy, anti-federal govt. conservative rednecks. It's not a diverse population, but the first 30 years of my life were spent in the northeast and north central US in areas of far greater diversity. At the same time, I can't know how politics have affected you in your life and location. How could I?
I can only know my own experiences. And my experience tells me that Bernie is the right person at this time. I have to favor the person who strikes me as the ONLY current politician/elected federal official who I trust to actually confront what I personally and deeply believe is the most critical issue facing our nation today, in come inequality that results from essentially fascism. I simply can no longer support more of the same. Because it affects all of us, I sincerely hope that you will respect this, and maybe even think about and consider doing the same. I know that sounds presumptious and I apologize for that --- can't help it, it's just the way I feel.

He is a Green. I don't see that as a traitor, sorry. He wasn't running as a Democrat.

Rove actually funded Nader's campaign http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Though I don't consider him a traitor.
If anything I would call him a crusader for consumers. He was the Elizabeth Warren of his time.

His history in activism and in the auto industry has served us all for the better.

From Wiki;

she said that she is "a progressive who gets things done."
What she meant by that is that she puts on her white smock with the word "Progressive" on it, and gets done the business of selling insurance, while wearing bright red lipstick.

That is about as progressive as she gets.

And don't start blaming Nader for 2000. It was the voter suppression in Floriduh, Jeb Bush, and the Supremes Court.

The SCOTUS could not even rule in this case if Nader had not screwed Gore. Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

The facts are out that had all the votes been counted, Gore would have won.
You folks who keep alive the myth that Nader is the reason that Gore lost, are either plants from the establishment, or just plain not looking at the FACTS.

Citizens United has nothing to do with it, unless you want to keep alive the myth.

It is really easy to question Sanders commitment to the Democratic Party which is why it will be fun watching Sanders try to flip super delegates

Bernie is bringing true democratic principles back to the party. We are not at our heart about selling out to moneyed interests as a way of being.

Enough said.

But I'll have to withhold a decision on the second pending for further examples. In other words, keep up the good work.

Thank you Bernie for running and helping the party to remember what made it great.
Too bad the Clintons threw the party off track.

An index card with a check mark in the correct box. Apparently, that's all "Democrat" means to them... "where's your check mark?"

Sad.

A card on file somewhere with a checkbox marked "Democrat" is obviously more important than fighting against people starving in the USA. Right?

And Sanders actions in congress have GREATLY improved my life. And I had no idea he had given so much to help my own personal struggles until he announced and I started looking at his records. So every time I see you people try and insult this guys record it leads me to think you all just want to keep fucking Vets same as GOP do. Vote on Wars that send us over to a country that we have no right to be invading. But then you talk about a Senator who has tried his dam best to help us out once we are wounded in your wars for profit.

http://vetsforbernie.org/bernies-veterans-bills/

Pithy indeed!

"true" Democrats.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]When this party was first formed it was about promoting Jeffersonian liberalism. Shortly after the federalist died out, it became corrupted and became super conservative and the party of slavery and treason.

Then, at the turn of the century it started to drift left with economically with Wilson and then Roosevelt. Then in the 1960's it shifted left socially. After that, it began to move to the right to counter the losses it had to Reagan and brought us the Clintons. Now, with Obama, it has SLOWLY begun to drift to the left again.

So which democrats are we discussing? The Jeffersonians? The party of the South during the 1800's? Wilson's party of economic liberalism and social conservativism? The Party following the LBJ years? The Clinton years? The Obama era? Or are we talking about the party of the here and now?

My point is this, parties are just vessels to winning elections.

We the people of the party are the ones who determine the ideology and the heart of the party. And as a member of the Democratic party I want this party to represent the ideals Sanders is promoting. I don't care that he was an independent till now, I care that he is a democrat now and want this party to follow the path he has set down.

I believe Sanders is the future of the party and I gladly welcome him![/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1635218

We don't give a fuck about party affiliation if it is meaningless.

It is policies, positions, and philosophy that we care about.

Clear?

he wouldn't have disingenuously become a Democrat to win the nomination.

Do you kiss your mom with that filthy mouth? And I don't need someone like you "explaining" anything to me.

There is a major difference between Clinton and Sanders with respect to down ballot candidates http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-sanders-differ-down-ballot-democrats