2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Root: Pipe Down, Bernie Sanders
(I changed the title because it was too bombastic in my opinion. I decided it was too rude, though I totally get it)
After doing so, riddle me this: Who in the hell is this Democrat-come-lately to scold Democrats on all they’ve done wrong?
Following the stunning win of the hatemonger and Republican nominee for president in the 2016 election, Sanders regurgitated the very rhetoric that made him a distant-second-place primary loser in the first place. Indeed, Sanders spoke against “identity politics” while simultaneously repeating the falsehood that Clinton lost because she didn’t appeal to the “working class.” The problem with such viewpoints is that they conveniently gloss over the notion that “Make America great again” is one of the most successful campaigns of “identity politics” in contemporary political history.
http://www.theroot.com/shut-up-bernie-sanders-1791165976?rev=1484338258642%2F%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=theroot
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Why disparage one of the warriors on our side?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I dont think folks who decry 'identity politics' are on my side.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)It's a lot like how Bernie Bros treated Hillary.
He's working with Democrats and trying to make us stronger. Something we need since nearly 40% of the country are Independents and we lost the country during this election cycle. We need to take a hard look at our message and not push people away but bring them in.
Go ahead. Alert my post. Expected.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I don't know how to phrase this in a politic way, so I will just say it. I am not 100% positive that he is sorry that Hillary lost.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
LisaM
(28,695 posts)I thought I was the only one who felt that way.
radical noodle
(8,748 posts)I sense the same thing.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Trust me.
brush
(57,948 posts)And he didn't even stay in the party — went back to being an independent but he keeps up his attacks on us.
Try attacking trump and the repugs for God's sake.
He could do that for weeks without having to even mention the Dems and the alleged reasons we lost when any 'woke' person knows very well why we 'lost' — Comey, Putin, Assange, Interstate Crosscheck, vote suppression, and on and on and on — plenty of issues for Sanders to attack and propose solutions to.
redstatebluegirl
(12,494 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)I want this man to just go away.
womanofthehills
(9,311 posts)Very sad.
and 100% correct...I think.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
MrPurple
(985 posts)He didn't try to exploit her email issue in the primaries. He has focused on a legitimate issue that the party has been too much in the pocket of corporations and Wall St.
He unambiguously spoke out about the extreme danger posed by Trump and made countless media appearances emphasizing that it was necessary to vote for Hillary.
Attacking Bernie as a voice in the party is an unfounded internecine struggle that is the LAST thing we need now. We can have slight philosophical differences without denigrating different segments of the party. Bernie is now one of the primary voices in the party and attacking those who are enthused by his perspective rather than coalescing around them is incredibly counterproductive.
KPN
(16,158 posts)is irrational. Healthy skepticism is a good thing as long as its not irrational; in that case, it's self-defeating.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)Unusually happy for a party member who just lost an election. I so agree with you. Things that make you go, hmmm.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)That's the title you, respectfully, changed to "Pipe Down".
Now, read your comment. Telling Bernie to "Shut Up" or "Pipe Down" and then saying "So we cant complain about him...". A bit hypocritical?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Becayse what he is saying is making things worse with us. What we think matters too.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)You're right. "What we think matters too." Absolutely.
So don't go around telling people to shut up or pipe down.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)the talking. Gotta shut up to hear
tecelote
(5,141 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)...who "walked the walk" and got his head bashed in, was tear gassed, and jailed for "walking the walk"? He wasn't just one anonymous face in a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Sanders needs to take a position here
bravenak
(34,648 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Good Question.
You would not believe the trolls that came on a John Lewis thread. The images were disgusting and vile. I saw and alerted on two before MIRT got them. One had over 20 images that I can't unsee. George they were so awful. I cried.
mcar
(43,596 posts)MIRT banned 6-8 racist trolls (or one who kept coming back) last night. They all left the same awful array of racist, violent images.
I, too, cannot unsee them. They were sickening.
6-8 of them?!
mcar
(43,596 posts)
KPN
(16,158 posts)Saturday afternoon/evening I believe, also appeared on Huff Post.
You folks are sounding and acting just like Trump on this Bernie vendetta of yours.
George II
(67,782 posts)KPN
(16,158 posts)yesterday morning on "Meet the Press" I think it was. There was a post both here at DU and Huff Post mentioning his response to trump re: Lewis yesterday. You obviously didn't see them.
These attacks on Bernie are characteristic of people who somehow feel threatened -- that's the way I see it based on my 66 years' life experience.
George II
(67,782 posts)KPN
(16,158 posts)Bernie in this entire Postmortem -- they are all about feelings; woulda, shoulda, coulda; he's not a real Democrat, and we -- the Democratic Party -- are the victims. I don't buy that. Its all very small minded stuff frankly. So how else am I to perceive these arguments except that they flow from a "victim" mentality.
Here's the point: if Elizabeth Warren said the very same words that Bernie is saying (by the way, she says the same things in her own words), nobody here would be screaming SHUT UP, stop attacking the Democratic Party.
I'm just tired of listening to a bunch of righteous people who seem to think they have all the answers and its only their view that matters, especially when that view strikes me as not only wrong but petty and irrational. I'm not going to sit on the sideline and ignore that kind of behavior or thinking.
George II
(67,782 posts)....you should read some of the OPs that have popped up in the postmortem forum.
I've never seen so much wailing and gnashing of teeth as I've seen since the primaries began right through the Convention (where Sanders' delegates and people in the gallery were as disrespectful to speakers as ever seen) and even through today.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)If you want substance, then look Sanders' unrealistic platform. There is no way that any of this platform could come about in the real world but Sanders lied to his supporters and claimed the he could force the GOP to accept this platform. Sanders lie was based on the premise that a magical revolution would come about where millions or billions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to reasonable. The concept of this revolution was so silly that it cause a number of loyal democrats to run away from Sanders.
Guess what, the sanders revolution did not occur and never had a chance of occuring Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what
That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.
Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.
So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:
What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]
And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.
The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. This so-called revolution never came to pass.
It was hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously because this revolution only existed in Sanders imagination. Again, where were these millions/billions and millions/billions of new voters?
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Reince Priebus and John Lewis were on with Senator Feinstein.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)You're too busy attacking Bernie. Talk about the issue and you might actually have a leg to stand on.
KPN
(16,158 posts)instead they walk Trump's talk it seems -- attack, attack.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)True he only earned about 25% of the Black primary vote, but on the other hand, his numbers were slowly and steadily increasing from near imperceptible Black polling numbers when he started.
I think I understand why people like you and the OP (and some other Hillary loyalists) want Bernie to shut up, but at least the Democratic party is having a conversation about values and priorities that differ, statistically, between different races.
#BowDownBernie isn't going to bridge our racial divides.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)When have i ever said bow down? That was one lady who Bernie offended at Seattle who said that.
WhiteTara
(30,201 posts)I felt totally disenfranchised by him. His focus was on the white men and their needs.
MadCrow
(155 posts)I have listened to Bernie for years and his message has been consistent. He has always stood up for women's rights and been a strong advocate for civil rights. I was for Hillary until Bernie decided to run. My daughter who is 53 and my grandsons who are millennials heard his message and backed him enthusiastically. I am sick and tired of hearing people on this site disparaging Bernie every chance they get. We are from a state that went for Bernie in the primary, but voted Trump because Hillary didn't address the issues that concern us the most. Hillary lost because she spent more time and effort telling the American people why they shouldn't vote for Trump instead of why they should vote for her. I admire Hillary and all that she has accomplished, but as a candidate her unfavorable s.
WhiteTara
(30,201 posts)Have a great time on DU.
k8conant
(3,034 posts)and that's what we said in Philly.
Human rights are equal rights never spoke to you?
Millions of Americans live with autism—and we’ve got to do more to support them and their families. Never spoke to you?
“We should ban discrimination against L.G.B.T. Americans and their families so they can live, learn, marry and work just like everybody else.” Never spoke to you?
“If we really want to strengthen families, then we have to finally, once and for all, have to fix our broken immigration system.” Never spoke to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On domestic policy, Clinton has struck a decidedly populist tone, emphasizing issues like college affordability, income inequality, and workplace policy reform to demonstrate her attention to Americans' basic economic concerns. She's stood behind the Affordable Care Act, arguing the Republicans would undo a law that's extended health insurance coverage to millions. And she's talking tough on Wall Street, accusing the GOP of having "mass amnesia" about the financial deregulation that preceded the last recession.
snip//
Her approach to economic issues like Wall Street reform and to social issues like gay rights and criminal justice reform is considerably more progressive than that pursued by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, during the 1990s - a fact that may have more to do with the passage of time than anything else.
snip//
While her campaign risks getting sidetracked by the continued focus on her use of a private email server as secretary of state, which has generated an avalanche of GOP attacks on her character and judgment, it's obvious Clinton's team would rather focus on her policy proposals. In the months since she announced her bid, she's delivered substantive speeches on green energy, higher education reform, foreign policy, and criminal justice reform, to name just a few.
http://www.cbsnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-what-does-she-stand-for-election-2016/
So. None of this spoke to you?
Now we have trump that is going to take all our safety nets away. ACA, SS. Medicare. Medicade. PP. Snaps. Then our climate. Our lives. He will take our lives from us, yet none of this spoke to you.
Her unfavorables.
Hillary lost because she spent more time and effort telling the American people why they shouldn't vote for Trump instead of why they should vote for her. I admire Hillary and all that she has accomplished, but as a candidate her unfavorable s.
Sad you never listened to what she was for. You only listened to the perceived "unfavorable".
KPN
(16,158 posts)about Bernie and how shameful his campaign, his supporters and his current visibility/speaking is?
STOP PLAYING VICTIMS and focus on the future for crying out loud.
This whole thread strikes me as just a bunch of whining by people who can't come to grips with reality.
That's my buddy you are talking to
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)I'm now more fully convinced than EVER that NO Dem was going to win the 2016 GE. Bernie's unfavorables would have gone UP had he been the Dem nominee because the Nazi Bannon was going to "vet" him, and it wouldn't have been nice. Bernie would have spent the whole rest of the campaign combating the lies and other horrible and more than likely racist things Bannon was going to throw at him, and we know that the media probably would have given him less coverage STILL even though the Dem nominee because they were too busy giving tRumputin $2 billion in free air time because he was good for ratings as Les Moonves said over at CBS, so when would Bernie have had time to get HIS message out? I guess during the debates in which the moderators allowed tRumputin to lie his ass off. But then again, the fix/rig was in at that point. All of the voter purging, voter cross-checking, voter disenfranchisement/voter suppression, 800 polling stations closing in NC, shenanigans in Michigan, WI, PA., russian cyber/hacking (And whatever else they were probably doing to the voting machines/voter rolls) and fake news would have befallen Bernie as well. He wouldn't have been spared just because he was not Hillary Clinton. I'd have voted for Bernie in an incapacitated state over that vile thing tRumputin, but make no mistake about it--NO Dem was going to win the 2016 GE.
KPN
(16,158 posts)were all about him during the primary.
WhiteTara
(30,201 posts)I saw a lot of women and girls who were looking at him like "Big Daddy" and the kindly "Grandfather" who would take care of them. Not saying that's what the women in your family thinks.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)His supporters will take offense and come to his defense but that will happen with almost any politician.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Cha
(305,720 posts)stifled. So they can forget it.
Thank you for giving us a platform
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino votes. Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/
Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses
sheshe2
(87,892 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 16, 2017, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)
You said...
Mention Bernie on this site and watch out.
......................... Go ahead. Alert my post. Expected.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Everyone knows that it is the hillary supporters (you know, DEMOCRATS) who have to watch every word
sheshe2
(87,892 posts)So very sad.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Right. Sanders criticizes a democratic to make the party stronger. Any democrat who criticizes him however, are simply disparaging him.
I certainly understand the political and ethical convenience holding two of the same to different standards can be... as long as we admit (to ourselves if no one else) that it's irrational to do so, and advertises our bias much more than our wit.
And far be if from me to alert any post in which the poster manages to imagine, create and struggle upon a cross of his very own creation.
kacekwl
(7,595 posts)Americans it would not bother you so much.He's on our side.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)I agree that Bernie is wrong about "identity politics." We ABSOLUTELY need to play "identity politics." In fact, it is the only way for us to regain power before people like me are returning to dust.
Our party lacks the credibility to do anything else because a majority of our party's high-profile voices long ago openly rejected "class politics" and, in fact, still adamantly deny that class struggle even exists. ONLY an outsider can carry that message and an outsider would lose their "outsider" status in the unlikely event they became the nominee (yes, I am admitting that Bernie probably would not have won the GE either). In addition, those of us who have the "identity" live with THAT (the identity) struggle every day of our lives and, accordingly, hear that message and vote accordingly.
Might I respectfully suggest that, while I wholeheartedly agree Hillary was the best choice we had among primary candidates to carry that message in the last election (and worked for her post-primary for that very reason), in the next election it would be better if someone who shares our "identity" is on the ticket.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This effort to promote him is just causing those of us he irked topoint out how bad he failed with us and why. Sanctifying him leads to people noticing he is no saint.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)and there is NO way to rally us around either Bernie or Hillary.
Has to be somebody new and someone not beholding to Wall Street.
I have no investment in either candidate, they are just people like me. If a machinist came along with all the right ideas, I could vote for her or him, as an example.
Doesnt have to even be a current politician, but they MUST be within the TWO party system. Until we change the two party system and we wont, we have to elect a DEMOCRAT and stop acting like children voting for 3rd party candidates.
krawhitham
(4,892 posts)quick easy example
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
secondwind
(16,903 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)It is absolutely positively right to say that "identity politics" is a serious problem and has helped to GUT this party all over the country in small towns and rural areas. Look, let's get it CLEAR. We abhor and will NEVER tolerate bigotry of ANY kind. But it is not enough to say, "Vote for me because I am a woman." Or "Vote for me because I am a person of color." Our also candidates have to stand for the right kinds of populist progressive economic policies and job creation policies that attract voters. And if we are going to be the "Party of the People" as we have always claimed, then that means ALL the people EVERYWHERE. That means the cities and suburbs, and it also means rural areas and small towns. It means white people AND people of color. It means EVERYONE. We have been gutted because we have ignored too many areas of the country and their concerns and values, and we have not messaged well at all on the economic issues that unite EVERYONE. People in cities need good jobs. People of color need good jobs. Women need good jobs. Young people certainly need good jobs. White people need good jobs. Smalltown America needs good jobs. We are certainly for social justice, but we must also be for economic justice and opportunity EVERYWHERE. They are not mutually exclusive. They are BOTH needed. And this, FINALLY, is what Sanders and others are CORRECTLY saying.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He could never get elected in my state. Best we can get is Begich. And he is wrong about identity politics. Trump just won using white male identity politics. I refuse to play colorblind since in that situ only the coloreds get harms and nobody can see cause they be blind
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)
except lecturing me about why my party is paying too much attention to me and others like me.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Why? Why silence someone who is fighting for so many progressive goals?
We need more people with his passion and views, not fewer.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Explain what you are trying to put on me?
They complained that he says the party is listening to us (identity folks; you know, us 'minorities') too much.
You said we need more like him doing what he is doing.
So it follows, that if she complained about him saying we are getting too much attention, and you respond with 'we need more like him' that you agree with what he said about too much identity politics.
See, because to us black folks, trashing identity politics is trashing our identity being involved in politics in a way that we get 'too much' attention.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Not only is America around 40% Independents, we're becoming a minority country where no single race will be as powerful as whites have been. I know you know that this is a big part of the Trump win. It's the last big hurrah.
I've always believed our nation's strength is in our diversity and if we survive these four years, we may finally be able to move on.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Both of those things help minorities more than anybody else, but he hates them. Should we not see this as an attack? Should he not find out why we are hurt by his words?
tecelote
(5,141 posts)You absolutely should. Just don't tell people to shut up or pipe down. Yell if you need to. It's needed right now.
If I can, I'll help get the message across. Here, I don't disagree with you. But I may other places and I respect you more if you argue.
Overall though, I do usually defend Bernie most times and only criticize him sometimes. I think he's a powerful voice and we need as many as we can get.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He has been saying this stuff for years. It's hurtful and the author of this piece voted for him. Even he is tired of it. I think the automatic reaction is to defend him on all points rather than just accepting that others see it from a unique pov
KPN
(16,158 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)that nature. Identity politics is how blacks got the vote, got freedom to own themselves and educate ourselves. Political correctness means not being able to call me the nword in public without people being horrified. Him being against that is being against me. Until he knows what he is talking about he needs to pipe down and learn
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)of the working class coalition (parties are simply vehicles, or tools for the interests of a given coalition). The more powerful minorities are socially, economically, and politically, the more powerful the working class coalition will be, and the more powerful the coalition is, the more powerful our chances of achieving working class change will be.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No matter how many time the white working class ignores our solutions, it will always be more important to help them at all times, even when they are still doing better than the rest of us.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
brush
(57,948 posts)for God's sake. Leave us out of it.
There are so many reasons to fight the repugs without ever mentioning the Democratic Party.
We heard that all through the campaign. STFU on that already.
LisaM
(28,695 posts)I plan to totally steal this sentiment. I remember being asked on this site why I supported Hillary over Bernie (yes, really) and when I said, "she....is me", being told that was part of the problem. Because, you know, feminists in their 50s, so irrelevant.
randome
(34,845 posts)He needs to stop bad-mouthing everyone else. Whatever 'magic' he has has not worked, has it? You'd think he'd try some different tactics by now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
tecelote
(5,141 posts)We lost the country this round. Maybe we should be listening instead of saying "Shut Up" or "Pipe Down".
This shut up attitude sounds like it's coming from the GOPee, not Democrats. We are the party of ideas.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm certainly not telling him to shut up. But maybe he could talk up the good points of the Democratic Party more often. Convince people to support it instead of staying at home in a 'show' of apathy.
But then the natural question arises: "Why then, Senator Sanders, are you not a Democrat?" And there doesn't appear to be any good answer for that, does there?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Think beyond labels.
betsuni
(27,274 posts)with these things:
neoliberal
establishment
elitist
authoritarian
oligarchy
third-way
corporatist stooges only out to send jobs overseas
status quo
1%
lesser of two evils
corrupt
don't care about the working/middle class
playing gender/race cards/identity politics
hippie-punching
hubris
puppets of Wall St.
evil/sold soul to devil
warmongers
only out to amass fortunes
cult of personality/hive mind/echo chamber/blind allegiance
And so much more. Think beyond labels.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)betsuni
(27,274 posts)Search for those words and phrases on this site and I guarantee most will be about Democrats. Try it!
randome
(34,845 posts)'Independent' is no better than 'Libertarian', imo. It's a designation that applies to anyone who doesn't bother to commit to something. The illusion of independence is more important than getting one's hands dirty doing the actual work.
It's always easier to say it's someone else's fault.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Democrat or Republican? Which one?
randome
(34,845 posts)Unless by 'anti-war', you mean never war under any circumstances. Then I would suggest someone start an Anti-War party because expecting the Democratic Party to be something it is not is a fruitless endeavor.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
tecelote
(5,141 posts)And, you are wrong. "...because expecting the Democratic Party to be something it is not is a fruitless endeavor."
It's exactly what's needed. We just lost the country. Every Democrat should be working for change. We are an evolving party by nature.
randome
(34,845 posts)But because the Democratic Party is a big tent, it's extremely unlikely that it will do the bidding of a small faction, such as an anti-war faction. The one thing that the vast majority of Democrats believe in, I think, is that war sucks. That in itself is the polar opposite of Republicans, who think war is simply a means to an end.
That's the kind of positivism that should be trumpeted by anyone who is in favor of the Democratic Party, which Sanders apparently is, just not to the extent necessary to be involved in it.
It's human nature to look with disdain at an outsider who pretends to know what's best for you. That applies to individuals and small groups (like families) as it does to political parties. And that's why Sanders keeps getting push-back, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
tecelote
(5,141 posts)The problem I see here with Sanders is one Democrats share. You don't feel he represents you. That is definitely something he should work on whether it's approach or policy. But I see many that do not believe they are welcome in the big tent either.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Your theory is undercut by the fact that Sanders was on the ballot in 2016 and Sanders underperformed Hillary Clinton https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl
And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.
The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.
But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isn’t necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders’ performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Let’s take a look at how he performed.
After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing
Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 — first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.
If your theory on the importance of independents was correct, then Sanders should have out performed Clinton and not under performed
kacekwl
(7,595 posts)As long as you stand for me and everyone who has / is being devastated by backward thinking.
kacekwl
(7,595 posts)than corporate trickle down scams.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)that treats you like this? not me.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)womanofthehills
(9,311 posts)because he is an independent.
LisaM
(28,695 posts)There are more of us than there are of them. We.lost because of an archaic system.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)We honestly won the Presidency but legally lost because of an archaic system.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Democrats fully control only six states, an historic low.
Why is that not registering with so many on this site?
LisaM
(28,695 posts)We are still being hamstrung by bad voting rules. All over the place.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)but not all.
brush
(57,948 posts)We got that the the first and second and third time.
Deal with the issue the thread is about already.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I consider Sanders an important part of a balanced breakfast, but only part. I lived and voted for his agenda, and long-term success is going to depend in large part on morivating and empowering more progressive voters. It's also going require more pinko progressives working with Establishment Dems. 2016 was a great lesson in this practice, and more of us need to follow that example.
The billionaires, the wingnuts and the media are all on-message against us. We have a winning platform, if only more voters knew about it.
Testify.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)I live in a deep red state and so I am faced with the real world on a daily basis. A number of Sanders proposals sounded great but they were not realistic in the real world. Sanders based his unrealistic proposals on a mythical voter revolution where millions/billions/trillions of new voters would magically appear and somehow forced the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).
And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.
Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
You are welcomed to support Sanders but some of us have to live in the real world. Sanders platform turned me off in that it was based on a revolution that was unlikely at best. Clearly the millions/billions/trillions of new voters that sanders promised never showed which is why he lost so badly in the primary. It is hard to take Sanders positions seriously when such positions all require a political revolution that has not materialized and will not materialize.
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Sanders was in the race for media coverage
GreenPartyVoter
(73,072 posts)
melman
(7,681 posts)
betsuni
(27,274 posts)usually we get few comments for The Root posts, but mention Bernie Sanders and the bat signal goes out, we have a flood.
Cha
(305,720 posts)Arceneaux's analysis. A former supporter.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)betsuni
(27,274 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)even here.
Sid
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)But your attempt to replay the primary "Bernie is a racist" meme might carry more weight among anyone other than the "who else can we blame" crowd coming from someone who didn't call Nate Parker a rapist because he was "only" found not guilty at a trial (in an article, btw, that basically ignored the fact that the criminal justice system, while both unfair and racist, is a million times more the latter, when he attacked Parker's supporters for pointing to his acquittal when simultaneously attacking the criminal justice system when it lets cops go free after they murder poc)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)crusade and derision of identity politics. It just proved the point that we were right to be uncomfortable. Nothing has changed
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)I agree with your view on identity politics completely but please don't act like I can't hear.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)The Sanders campaign did not appeal to many demographic groups (including the Jewish vote) for a host of reasons. One good reason is that Sanders repeatedly attacked President Obama which alienated a large number of key demographic groups. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I did not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (me included) and many African American Democratic voters did not support Sanders and will have issues with Keith Ellison as DNC chair.
I like living in the real world. In the real world there were valid reasons why Sanders was rejected by key demographic groups and you can not pretend that these groups will support Sanders plans to remake the Democratic Party in his own image with Ellison.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Democrats (INCLUDING ME, although clearly I was not part of the majority) DID support Sanders and a lot of us resent people like you telling us what we should think (every bit as much as we resented Bernie supporters telling us what we should think).
Btw, Obama is the greatest president this country has ever seen NOT because every policy he supported was the best one out there BUT because he did more for this country any president who came before him in the face of more opposition than any president who came before him.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)I am amused by your post in that it normally the Sanders supporters telling other African Americans that they had to support Sanders due to his limited role in the civil rights movement. There is a thread on JPR right now attacking Congressman John Lewis for not endorsing Sanders and blaming Lewis for trump winning which has a ton of recommendations.
Do you deny that Sanders attacked President Obama and wanted to primary him in 2012? Were those actions acceptable to you? Do you remember any of the threads on the AA board attacking John Lewis and others for support Clinton? Was it acceptable to you for the Sanders delegates to boo Congressman John Lewis at the national convention? (I was there and I was appalled at the conduct of the Sanders delegates at the convention).
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)example of whitesplaining. It is really cool the way you explain to non-white people what is important for them. Funny how that behavior seems to offend you if it is a white person explaining why non-white people need to support Senator Sanders.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Let's get the garbage out of the way first.
You're "amused?" Did you read my post or did your Bernie hate just go into high gear before you got that far? I said right off the bat that I had no more use for white Bernie supporters telling black people what they are supposed to think than I have for YOU telling ME what I am supposed to think.
Next, how pathetic is it that you have to resort to JPR to come up with a caricature of a Bernie supporter? JPR started with a miniscule fraction of banned DU members, a large swath of whom were right wing posers and the remainder of which were people so stupid that they fell for that fraud Stein and worshipped at the feet of clowns like Greenwald and Assange. It was NEVER majority Bernie supporters and now it is overwhelmingly pure freepers spreading divisive bullshit that gets regurgitated here on DU as a way of attacking liberals. Of course, that's where you go because, here on DU, you can't find spit to back you up.
Next, Bernie made comments about primary-ing Obama because he disagreed with POLICIES and wanted to move him back to the left. This might come as a shock to you, but black people didn't line up behind Obama because he looked like us. We supported him on policies we liked and we opposed him on policies we didn't and at the end of the day we voted for him because the goods outweighed the bads (which - combined with the fact that I'm not a two-year old - is why I worked on Hillary's behalf on my own dime after the primary) AND we came out for him in record numbers because of the quality, character, and courage of the man.
Next, I abhorred the treatment of Lewis. On one hand, his "didn't see" comment was bogus (and he apologized for making it) but there are people in this world who paid a price that only a handful of living people have paid and they can damn well say anything they want as far as I am concerned and John Lewis is one of those people. Of course, while Hillary's team was busy playing politics with what happened there were people like Harold Middlebrooks (btw, if you don't know who he is, you don't know anything about the civil rights movement or about Dr. King) out campaigning for Bernie. We don't all look alike. We don't all think alike.
Is there anything else that you want to lecture me about?
Is there anything else that amuses you?
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Sanders was a horribly weak candidate who was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters.
As for JPR types, I was a delegate to the national convention and so I got to interact with a good number of Sanders delegates. I hate to break it to you but the JPR types do represent the Sanders delegates who represented Sanders at the National Convention. Maybe Sanders did not vet his delegates because he was not in the race to win but the Sanders delegates at the National Convention mirror many of the JPR types.
In the real world you have to work a long time and put in a ton of work to be be a delegate to the National Convention. All of the Clinton delegates were vetted (I know because I helped in the vetting process). The Sanders delegates were selected on the basis if they were BOB types and these delegates really did not reflect well on Sanders values. Each candidate had approval rights over their delegates and the Sanders people used this right to remove and replace a delegate who was duly elected in his senate district caucus because this delegate was not a BOB type and the replacement was a BOB. I saw first hand the results of the so-called careful vetting of the Sanders delegates to the national convention.
Sanders may not have vetted his delegates but then again he was not really running for the nomination or to build a movement but to sell books.
As for John Lewis, the Sanders delegates at the national convention were very proud of their treatment of Lewis. Again, either the Sanders delegates represent the Sanders movement or Sanders did a poor job of vetting. I have met Congressman Lewis a couple of times and have several signed copies of two of his March books. I have a great picture of Lewis standing next to Karem Abdul Jabbar and Keith Ellison at an event. I am proud of the way that Lewis is effectively standing up to Trump right now. Has Sanders made any comments about Congressman Lewis yet? I have not seen any support and fear that Sanders will not take this action because it would hurt his book sales.
If you want to support Sanders go ahead. Have you bought his book yet? That is what Sanders is really concerned about.
yardwork
(64,643 posts)You are a class act.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)I will call on you the next time I need to hear that perspective.
Btw, you are rightly proud that you were able to get autographs from great people, some of whom sacrificed in ways you will never know.
As for John Lewis, he was, is, and always will be, a great man and an icon to those who believe in civil rights and, most importantly to me personally, a friend and ally to those of us who have spent our lives in the civil rights movement. One cheap comment withdrawn within days doesn't detract from that fact any more than a grain of sand AND it shouldn't have made a difference to Bernie supporters (they get no slack from me for their bullshit reaction).
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)I spoke at a couple of town halls on voter id back in 2011 for another local congressman and got to meet Congressman Lewis the first time through that connection. I have been volunteering on voter protection efforts for a long time and that helped get me elected to be a national delegate. In past cycles I worked with the DNC Voter Expansion project to try to get voters "free" ids to vote and this cycle I trained 200+ poll watchers and helped set up and run a statewide hot line for voter protection. Again it normally takes years of hard work to be a national delegate and I am still amazed at how the Sanders delegates acted at the national convention.
Congressman Lewis' work on voting rights is just one reason why I admire him. I have several signed copies of his March books which are some of my prized possessions. I am so glad that I have now heard Congressman Lewis' story about preaching to chickens on numerous occasions. Today at the scholarship speech in Miami, Congressman Lewis once again told his preaching to chicken story and I was smiling all through this story. It gets better every time I hear it.
BTW, I read up on the Civil rights leader that you cited in your prior post. I note that no Clinton supporter attacked that leader for supporting or endorsing Sanders. The same can not be said for Sanders supporters. I wish that Sanders used that leader as his surrogate instead of Prof. West. Endorsements of leaders have little effect on most voters and I had decided to support Hillary Clinton long before Congressman Lewis endorsed her.
Finally my son just reminded me that he wants one set of the signed March books. It seems that these books are sold out on Amazon which is a nice way of expressing support for Congressman Lewis. Have you purchased the latest Sanders book yet?
yardwork
(64,643 posts)When Trump lies, it's easy to see the truth because the true facts are right there. Similarly with JPR, all the threads were right there, recced by hundreds of DUers. Lots and lots of DUer names, many of whom walked right back into DU pretending like nothing ever happened. Many of us were in fact paying attention though.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You claim you have seen them
Link to the posts attacking Lewis for ANYTHING other than the "didn't see him" comment (which he later withdrew), so I can see the HUNDREDS of ex-DUers who rec'd them.
I'll wait. I've never been to the site because I don't really care about what a bunch of white folks with hurt feelings have to say, but apparently some of you folks do and have.
"HUNDREDS" you say?
yardwork
(64,643 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Or I can send them to you
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)On the latest Congrssman Lewis hate thread, there were 80+ recommends from people who used to be or may still be DU posters
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)seaglass
(8,180 posts)in our election, Comey's impact, anything about what he thinks about Trump's despicable cabinet choices - hearings, how he's going to vote. Any comment about Booker's testimony in the Sessions hearing? Trumps attack on John Lewis?
Instead Bernie focuses on attacking Dems.
Yep, Bernie still dead to me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I suppose thats our fault too
UCmeNdc
(9,650 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(15,058 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)
Red Oak
(699 posts)I get it, you don't like Bernie. Got that about a thousand posts ago.
Bernie seems like a guy that is truly interested in helping people. I am glad he's in the Senate.
What would you have him do? Just "shut up"?
Is that what you want?
What would you do that isn't being done right now? Just "shut up"? I doubt it.
Please enlighten us.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Stop campaigning against identity politics. Stop decrying political correctness. It upsets black people when he does this, even those who voted for him. Republicans do it all day every day so we want him to not repeat the memes from their lips.
JHan
(10,173 posts)getting tired of it.
He's not the font of all wisdom and understanding.
But he loves it. I am sick of it too.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the implication here is that his criticisms of a person are derived from a minor disagreement on policy.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Or the arguments over the min. wage or the attack on the 13 dems this past week J.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)And no, There was no need to crap on the record of those 13 dems over a flawed amendment.
None.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Well, for starters, Sanders couldn’t figure out if he wanted to create a fund to import drugs from Canada or the entire world. In its initial iteration, his amendment sought to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for the importation of drugs from “Canada and other countries.” Amy Klobuchar subsequently cleaned up the language and eliminated “other countries” from its title.
But, aside from the confusion about the scope of this proposed reserve fund, the primary reason it failed is that Sanders misapprehended the mechanisms necessary to establish an importation process that conforms with FDA guidelines. It’s not enough to say “these drugs must be safe;” there needs to be funding for quality control and compliance, which was never addressed.
Sure, this was a non-binding budget amendment, and some will argue that things could have simply been cleaned up later on. But it was ostensibly designed to be a funding mechanism, and instead, it read like a milquetoast resolution. There were a number of other amendments introduced that very day that included provisions for the Food and Drug Administration; Sanders’s didn’t, and it needed to.
In making the case for this legislation, Sanders spoke almost exclusively about the re-importation of patented American pharmaceuticals, and to be fair, that is an enormous part of the equation; it’s also what most American consumers demand. However, it doesn’t capture the entirety of the market. In some cases, American consumers may turn to Canadian compounding pharmacies for cheaper specialized medications; in others, Americans may want to purchase generic medications that are no longer patented and can be manufactured independently at a lower cost. And that’s why we need FDA oversight and compliance.
And it's not just this disability activist who's raised concerns...We already buy imported drugs from Canada. Even border officials exercise "discretion" when allowing imported medicines, with shipments amounting to less than three months' supply allowed. These drugs are not subjected to FDA standards but Canadian standards - some have argued this is a dodge but it isn't.
Fake drugs are a problem ( google Amir Attaran, a human-rights lawyer and American-Canadian health policy researcher and read his articles about this) If we aren't clear about import restrictions and guidelines, peddlers of fake drugs - who utilize online pharmacies - can put us more at risk. Is it too much to ask for an amendment to be more fleshed out considering all these factors?
This isn't a black and white issue, and I wish - instead of so many on the left excoriating the Democrats who voted the way they did- they'd take the time to look at why our system is so broken, what lessons we can learn from Canada, what our own FDA can do to make more affordable drugs available and what needs to change in the system to prevent pharma monopolies price gouging consumers.
George II
(67,782 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JHan
(10,173 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(15,058 posts)
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)plain as day that he wasn't going to win after his Super Tuesday ass kicking. He kept soliciting tens of millions of dollars from his supporters which went down the toilet although it was clear he had no chance of overcoming Hillary's lead. He took the primaries all the way to the final state, giving his supporters false hope which lead to their devastation and hurt feelings. So much to the point that enough of them sat out the general election or voted third party out of spite.
Bernie wasn't the only reason why we lost, but he was definitely one cause.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)...it's his fault that Clinton lost?
Quite the stretch there liquid....
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)His pride wouldn't let him graciously bow out of the race even though it was mathematically unlikely that he would win. Shit, he took the race all the way to California where he would have needed to win 90% of the vote there to have a chance. That shows how delusional he and his supporters were. I won't even bother discussing his attempt to try to win over the super delegates. He didn't know when to quit and it cost us.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)I agree that Sanders hurt the party. Here is a good example Sanders really hurting Clinton. I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics
I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign
The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....
And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.
Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Bernie would say it doesn't. What would you say? (If necessary, I can reference the study that shows that government only responds to the needs of the plutocracy.)
--imm
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Trump quoted Sanders directly and these quotes hurt. Are you happy that Sanders helped trump win?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Sanders is absolutely rigged for the rich. The Princeton study and report (2014) indicates that American is no longer a Democracy and that our government only caters to the rich.
Did you not read that report? Can't you simply see it in everyday life?
Sanders had nothing to do with Clinton's lost election. As a matter of fact, it's possible that the reason Clinton did so well IS because Sanders promoted her after the General.
JHan
(10,173 posts)by attacking the establishment who do you think ended up in the cross hairs ?
The incumbent Democratic establishment is who, so all the progress we made was lost because said establishment was the worst ever right?
That's the problem with attacking everyone who disagrees with you as "establishment" and "Part of the problem" and "corrupt" - because that's what Bernie did- by framing Clinton and the Democratic "establishment" and D.C. as "those people who do not care" the entire party was painted with the same brush. This had the effect of dampening enthusiasm for the nominee. Unless you're arguing that Democrats and Republicans are the same?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)I *want* my Democratic candidates to speak out on the problems and fix them.
Sorry, I don't accept staying silent on the problems.
And not so nice attempt at your straw man argument...
JHan
(10,173 posts)In fact Obama, Clinton and many other Democrats acknowledged failings.
The point is the establishment arguments were smears.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Trump was able to repeatedly quote sanders directly and use Sanders claim that the system was rigged to great effect. Sanders helped Trump win according to the polling. Do you approve of Sanders helping Trump win?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Stating the truth is not a bad thing.
And, please, stop trolling...Sanders supported Clinton in the General.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)Much more of that needed to be done so that he didn't damage our nominee. It's not trolling to tell the truth about him. Gothmog is a great contributor here. Welcome to DU.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)...Clinton, too? Or is Sanders the Scapegoat?
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)He smeared her nonstop for over a year in the primary.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)here. Trump knew a good game when he saw one, and he went right in for Sanders' propaganda to divide Democrats. Sanders' is very divisive. I'm tired of him maligning Democrats to promote his limited world view and talking points.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)This site is filled with people criticizing or supporting every aspect of the Democratic Party and its platform in the 2016 election. Is such criticism restricted to certified Democrats? Whatever that might be? And who decides what qualifies one to criticize?
Bernie Sanders, the Independent, votes with the Democrats probably as much or more often than does Joe Manchin of W. Virginia. So the idea that only certain Democrats are allowed to voice criticism seems to me to be counterproductive and illogical.
As to the phrase "working class", the last time I looked most people are working class. That term needs to be understood as a factual statement rather than seen as a purely political term. Class analysis does not in itself deny the obvious power of appealing to race as a means of division.
In my view Sanders should have constantly pointed out that race is one of the means used to divide the working class.
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)Sid
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)The audacity!
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)It is great and very on point
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)As I did when it was posted by two others. You edited out the gratuitous insults and pointless personal attacks. The linked article, however, is exactly the kind of sour grapes, finger pointing, divisive nonsense we don't need.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's precisely because of the fact that * * * S A N D E R S * * * is continuing his "I'm The Other Guy You Should Have Voted For" Tour of sour grapes, finger pointing, divisive nonsense attacking the Democratic Party, using RW talking points that is the point of the article in the OP that you didn't bother to read.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)But you left all the insults and name calling in there. I don't mind hating on Sanders, but there are limits.
Response to HassleCat (Reply #149)
Post removed
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We can't engage in bad behavior toward anyone who helps us. I understand you feel Sanders hurt us, but we could find a similar opinion regarding any other Democrat, real or not, so we agree to refrain from trash talking because we know it will spread and take over the site.
And yes, I will alert on any post that throws personal insults etc at any Democrat, even those I consider DINO.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Such as calling Clinton a DINO?
Clinton is clearly not a DINO, not even close. We want to reserve such labels for people who would regard it as a compliment.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)So do you. So does everyone else.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)and if i comment any further than that I am sure THIS post will get removed as well!
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)They linked to the same article, but included some of the nasty name calling and personal insults from the article itself. I'm okay with attacking Sanders' activities, but not as okay with the name calling, etc.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,900 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JHan
(10,173 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Should Schumer remove him from the leadership?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And Democrats such as Clinton need to speak out more against plutocracy.
It's not a matter of suggesting Clinton's campaign was flawless or that Sanders is a bad person. It's a matter of Sanders and some of his supporters not grasping that the economic conditions we all decry are enabled by bigotry, particular racism. And it's Republicans who engage in so-called identity politics.
In the GD forum, someone posted an article from Salon containing this excerpt:
That's backward, and perhaps it's a product of living in the whitest state in the US. Again, the economic conditions we decry are enabled by those entrenched beliefs and attitudes. As forjusticethunders wrote in another thread, "Racism crippled the power of the working class movement as white workers found that the psychological wage was better than the material wage."
The Salon article points out that a majority of Americans agree with Bernie's stance on various economic issues. But that doesn't matter as long as the psychological wage (feeling superior to and more deserving than 'the other') remains paramount. Strategically diminishing racism is key to sustainable progress. A massive multiracial alliance will threaten the ruling class more than anything else I can think of.
Yes, the primary is long over, but there are lessons still to be learned. Far too many "progressives" have lost sight of just how crucial anti-racism is. It isn't enough to be a non-racist. The "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative is not only false (when you consider which candidate won among the working class overall), but it's also a dog whistle narrative that needs to be replaced, not propped up.
Lastly, consider the following 3 articles on the importance of anti-racism to the labor movement then and now:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19038/unions-labor-black-lives-matter-anti-racist-racial-justice
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Other-News/Unions-Must-Address-Racism
http://www.workers.org/2016/02/11/how-black-workers-were-decimated-by-racism/#.WHiHrUQS88o
BlueMTexpat
(15,502 posts)So long as he continues bashing Dems both generically and specifically (e.g., Cory Booker) - with no mention of Russian hacking or of Trump's conflicts of interests, etc. - he is dead to me.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)Bernie supporters first and foremost (They ALL voted for Hillary in the GE by the way), and some of them are now telling me that they weren't happy with him saying he'd work with tRumputin on some things (Because they want him to obstruct when he can because Pres. Obama was obstructed 8 years), and they also wish he'd start aiming sharper and more pointed remarks/attacks @ tRumputin, and speak out more on GOP voter suppression etc. They've also told me that it's making them feel as if he may not be that torn up that Hillary lost. Heck, one of my Bernie friends just flat out said to me last week that she's beginning to think that Bernie wasn't all that sorry that Hillary lost, and she's been one of Bernie biggest supporters for over 10 plus years, and has been on his mailing and email list for years as well. Granted, MY Bernie supporter friends aren't what you'd call "Bernie Bots," but very supportive of Bernie, but even some of them want him to focus more on tRumputin, GOP, voter suppression etc.
BlueMTexpat
(15,502 posts)the Bernie supporters I know personally are like your friends.
They all pitched in enthusiastically and voted for Hillary after the primaries. We also got along famously even during the primaries. They are not now and never were Bernie Bros.
As with your friends, some have been disillusioned by some of his most recent tactics. Scales seem to be dropping from their eyes in some respects.
alittlelark
(18,919 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)the backbone of the Democratic party is voters of color - he needs to get that rather than be mad he lose all those primaries.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Certainly NOT the solution.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)In the real world, Sanders was rejected in the primary by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Rejecting the votes of these groups would have doomed Sanders in a run against Trump. The fact that Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008 is a fact that shows how bad a candidate Sanders was.
Sanders lost the nomination because he was a weak candidate who made promises that he could never delivered on. Sanders so-called revolution was a flop. Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on these new voters. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what
That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.
Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.
So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:
What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]
And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.
The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign is based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?
Again, where are these millions and millions of new voters?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)The Treasury is already running HUGE insane deficits.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)of the richest people in this nation and the world. It's there. We shouldn't be shy about taking back what they have drained from the commons. And I don't give a shit about running deficits in the interest of actual investments in our people and future. That is money well spent. So much potential misused and wasted in this country.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)do nothing but divide us, and then we're supposed to believe all that divisiveness is coming from one side. There are ways to discuss this stuff from a place of generosity that people aren't fond of leading with here. No olive leaves are ever extended in praise of something good about a person as an act of good will before we start criticizing.
But if you just want to regurgitate the same material that we've fought about over and over and to achieve the same results that they always have...getting a hallelujah from the choir and a fuck no from everyone else...I guess do what you love.
As to wanting Sanders to shut up, give me an alternative to actually winning back this nation that doesn't involve loudly and consistently calling out the influence of big money on our policies? It does not make it easier for our elected democrats to effect change in a vacuum of public outcry. It should disturb you that as a party we don't want that outcry.
Vermijelli
(76 posts)We usually frown upon bashing people for their appearance, especially facets of their appearance that are inherited. They could've described the crowds as homogeneously white, for example but no; the author chose to go down that prejudiced rabbit hole.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That's what you get
Vermijelli
(76 posts)At opposed to implying genetic inferiority/superiority based on melanin levels.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)A crowd without minorities being a representative portion of the population of the Democratic party as a whole.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)to be said. He savaged Clinton over her realistic views about single payer, and now he wants to pretend he's the ACA champion because that's where the limelight is now. Phony.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think this article was deleted twice before I posted it. I wanted it to stay up so I did what I had to do to keep it alive, lol.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)
Good thinking, and it's worth hearing how people are assessing the Sanders' damage, so it's a shame it was silenced before.
melman
(7,681 posts)You were just trying avoid a hide. The stuff about 'deciding it was too rude' was complete bullshit.
As anyone with half a brain already knew.
ismnotwasm
(42,476 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Arazi
(7,004 posts)Off to other fun elsewheres
Good luck peddling same old
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No es necessario. Sabes que du siempre responde por mi. Cada vez yo hablo... Siempre me escuchan! Ha ha ha
HRC2020
(13 posts)She was the best , is the Best and will be the PRESIDENT. A TRUMP presidency will guarantee that even IF Bernie runs again
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)LexVegas
(6,599 posts)kinda like what Trump is doing now?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)yardwork
(64,643 posts)hueymahl
(2,655 posts)I get it, you want to blame anyone and everyone for the loss except the person who ran as the Democratic nominee.
The thing is, there are dozens of people on this thread that point out real problems with this analysis. I'm not going to repeat it, because I don't think you really want to hear it.
My suggestion - HRC defenders, consider taking your own advice. She won but got screwed out of the job - that is self-evident. Pipe Down and move on. As a party, we have a lot of work to do to stop the Orange Menace. It is not terribly helpful to continue the infighting.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Sanders is working with Democratic leadership to rebuild the party, save Obamacare, improve race relations, push for free college tuition, etc. So much noise coming from the anti-Sanders crowd... too bad they're not putting the time and energy to actually, I dunno, solving problems?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-bernie-sanders-michigan-healthcare-rally-20170115-story.html
Bernie Sanders arrives at King celebration
http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/bernie-sanders-arrives-king-celebration/v57CnOIWNawRIkzRtTX05O/
"Good optics" and still grappling with Hillary's loss is proving to be too much for some. So much nastiness. People better get over it, because Republicans are coming after SS, Medicaid and Medicare... HARD.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)but his message failed, and he obviously sees his errors because now he's into incrementalism, compromising, and identity politics. That's quite an about-face. Some would even call that Third Way. Oh my.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)at THE Ebenezer Baptist Church? Uh-huh. For good measure...
Bernie "Expand Social Security" Sanders is just like the "Social Security is a populist political and economic fantasy" Third Way?
Keep flailing.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)to honor him. Banks are closed; mail is not delivered. It's a national holiday. So making time to honor MLK does not set him aside as being something special. It is expected.
That picture is from over 40 years ago. Since then, he has lived in a white, rural state with little diversity. For something more recent, here he is just a few months ago telling a Latina to quit playing identity politics and that her ethnicity was unimportant:
"Sanders made his remarks following a speech he gave on Sunday at the Berklee Performance Center in Boston when a supporter asked him what advice he might give to help her become the second Latina U.S. senator.
Acknowledging that he was responding to his questioner “in a way that you may not be happy with,” Sanders said that he cared less about a candidate’s outward appearance than he did about his or her ideas.
“It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ No, that’s not good enough."
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/22/bernie-sanders-it-is-not-good-enough-for-someone-to-say-im-a-woman-vote-for-me/
And Third Way as in compromising with Republicans. Bernie told us in the primary that he was against incrementalism and he demonized Clinton for her realistic plans. Now he wants to compromise with the mega-billionaire, Trump. He sure has changed his tune.
And you keep flailing on brave's threads, so it must really strike a nerve with you that she dares to point out Sanders' many flaws that caused him to lose so badly with the base.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)The OP? Anyone on this board? No? I thought not. Bernie's civil rights activism is deeply rooted in him, whether in his 20s or his 70s. Poo-pooing it looks idiotic, especially as MLK's own church embraced Bernie... on MLK Day.
Look, I understand some on this site are working their little fingers to the bone in an attempt to *diminish* one Bernard Sanders, but out in the real world, he and his ideas are being embraced by influential Democrats at all levels of government, from Atlanta's Mayor Reed, to Michigan's Debbie Stabenow, to New York's Andrew Cuomo and Chuck Schumer. Maybe some are waking up to the fact that Democrats fully controlling only six states -- an historic low -- blows beyond belief. You may be happy with that number, but I'm not.
I, too, care less about a candidate's outward appearance than I do about ideas. Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina look like me in that we're white women, but I would never vote for them. Hillary's Methodist, right? So am I. Was I supposed to bond with her over religion? I ran to the polls to vote for Obama, twice. What the fuck was that all about?
Sanders has flaws. Hillary has flaws. We all have flaws. I knew his candidacy was a long shot, but Bernie did tremendously well against the Clinton Machine. So many I spoke to said they preferred Bernie's ideas but thought Hillary had the better chance of beating Trump. How'd that work out, folks?
Seriously, I'm in these threads to see if we'll *ever* find out who sent "the letters." The new money is on Russian trolls, the ones who tinkered with voting machines in Michigan and Wisconsin. 
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)we aren't speaking in place of an elected official. The whole nation celebrates MLK as a national holiday. There were parades and speakers all over this country. They were on TV the whole day -- everywhere, so it would be politically stupid for an Establishment politician such as Bernie to shun the holiday. His stated agenda for running as a Democrat was for the media attention that he couldn't generate, so that seems to be his priority. That duplicity is on display with him almost constantly. He shows up for a MLK rally for the media attention, but tells a young Latina woman that her ethnicity is unimportant. That's not a lot of progress after decades in public life no matter how many times that 40 year old picture is posted.
And some on this site still have to read already-rejected tripe leftover from the primaries such as yours that pretend that Bernie was superior when he lost the primary by millions of votes. Millions. He lost because his message didn't match his record and his rhetoric was consistently nasty and sour about Democrats. Sure young people will like to hear about free tuition and legal marijuana, but he couldn't even get his national agenda passed in his teeny, tiny, rural, mostly white state of Vermont. He got away with that duplicity because he was never vetted. Not being vetted means he was never attacked. Luckily people recognized that and rejected nonsense polls about a Trump matchup. So that didn't work out for you, either, since Bernie lost the primary.
I have to laugh at your comments about Russia. Sounds truly Trumpian right there to suggest that Democrats are just imagining that Russia meddled in our politics, especially after your hero Assange trumpeted his leaks all over the globe. Bernie tried to have Democrats fired because of his paranoia and conspiracy theories that the Democrats were out to get him, so your condescension is really laughable. If you are trying to take a potshot about other posters here (your "letters" comment), your analogy is still just downright bizarre. But it does prove that you are in these threads to make things personal, which is a hallmark of the treatment anyone who didn't worship Sanders' was subjected to. Enough is enough.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and one Bernard Sanders invited to commemorate MLK at MLK's church on MLK day. No one on this board can diminish that. Not you. Not the OP. Not The Root. No one.
"Your hero Assange..." Flail away, but don't make it personal, now. 
Knock yourself out... have the last word. I'll be busy at work and welcoming out-of-town guests for the march before Friday's big Postmortem shutdown.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)would make MLK day about Sanders' rather than MLK himself. That is another hallmark of his "movement", where he becomes the most important politician to ever exist. Years, decades of politicians speak at Ebenezer Baptist Church, but Sanders is the most important ever ever ever! Kind of reminds me of the phony business with the Pope. Sanders' flies himself to Italy, and the story is that the Pope invited him, which was not at all true. Such phoniness! MLK is a national holiday. There are celebrations everywhere. It's not about Bernie Sanders, lol. It's about Martin Luther King.
Flail away, yourself. At least you admitted your reason for being in these threads, as if it wasn't obvious. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Gothmog
(155,157 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)The Senator went on that changed his mind about Sanders. Obviously some of his darker skinned supporters took umbrage. I guess that just means it will be that much more difficult for him to mount a successful 2020 campaign. My fellow black folks who were supportive of him over Hillary are having regrets.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)This article was like finger nails on a blackboard to me http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-boston-speech-identity-class-politics
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I guess thats the difference between a progressive and a liberal. Liberals know we are all in this together.
I hope he doesn't think that will help him with us next time. I hear cons say the same damn thing all the time up here.
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)about the MLK holiday. He's done an about-face on incrementalism and compromising, as well. Now it's okay to see incremental change and compromising with the GOP is okay. He's changed his tune quite a bit, amazingly so.
It seems media attention is what motivates him the most.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)hueymahl
(2,655 posts)Most all of my Dem friends and colleagues of all races, but especially AA, are regretting having to back HRC. Not in the general, mind you. They universally wish they had a better alternative in the primaries. Some wish they had backed Sanders. Most wish she simply had not run.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And so did most of the voters.
hueymahl
(2,655 posts)I've managed to stay friends with the ones that did not, but it is still touch and go with a few.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Bernie Sanders!
Leading a Save Obamacare rally with other Democrats in Michigan freezing temps over the weekend... today honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sen. Bernie Sanders arrived early at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he will give a tribute during today’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration.
Sanders was ushered through a side door without speaking with the press.
...
The line to get into Ebenezer snaked down Jackson Street as hundreds waited patiently and the church quickly filled up. Those in attendance included Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Georgia U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, and U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Lithonia).
Boris Stallworth, a West Midtown resident, said he was hoping to here Sanders bridge the gap between both parties. “I think there’s a lot of hurt and pain,” said Stallworth, who shares a birthday with King. “I’m hoping to hear how he can motivate other people, rally us together to be able to combat that negative energy and encourage everybody to get out and do something great.
http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/bernie-sanders-arrives-king-celebration/v57CnOIWNawRIkzRtTX05O/
Too bad at least some The Root's hostility couldn't be put to better use. You know, like coming out from behind the screens and hitting the streets to solve problems in St. Louis or something.
A four-mile stretch on Natural Bridge Avenue in St Louis – not in Chicago or Baltimore – is the place in America most plagued by gun violence
A Guardian special report: the inequality of gun violence in America
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2017/jan/10/st-louis-gun-crime-missouri-natural-bridge-avenue
Bernie Sanders is a good man. More Boris, less noise.
Gothmog
(155,157 posts)This article was like finger nails on a blackboard to me http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-boston-speech-identity-class-politics
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sheshe2
(87,892 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Bernie Sanders is closer to the core Democratic principles than some who call themselves Democrats.
He's closer to FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights philosophy than pro-corporate Dems in the Third Way are.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If you want to know how they observed Lieberman. Most dems hated him for that.
And sorry that us blackfolks are not super in love and nostalgic over FDR. I mean, he did sell out out to get the dixiecrats to do what he wanted. Refused to work on anti lynching legislation. If he is closer to that, no thank you.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)voters. The trend of blacks voting mostly for Democrats started with FDR, whose economic policies were still better for blacks in his day than the Republicans'.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Blacks were sold out by the Republicans who caused the Great Depression, which is why the majority went to the Democrats under FDR.
Considering blacks make up about 12-14% of the US population, what choices do blacks have?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Which meant we all had to work harder, for less, and be happy about it. It was dixiecrats, not republicans who did it,the selling out I'm talkiing bout anyhow, and fdr went for it to get what he wanted. Don't pull that, only twelve percent of the population bullshit. Lynchings are murder. He shoulda did somethin, period. Better hope your group never gets down to less than half the population if thats how you all think. Be Sad to see others treat you likewise. By 2040 y'all wont have a majority. You saying we got no choice but to do what you want. Massa said the same thing. Last time folks thought we had no choice, they were wrong then as now.
