Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:24:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 1:10:14 GMT
link
Today in the Washington Post there was an article by Greg Sargent someone I usually agree with but not today. His article "Stop Sneering at Bernie" was in response to an article by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones entitled " Here's Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders." Basically Kevin Drum makes his case why he feels Bernie is running a con on his supporters and Greg Sargent makes his case why he doesn't agree with Drum's thinking. IMO Sargent does make some good points but I think Drum is right on because of the following from his article" "Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off special interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half-loaves. All the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that is never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?" "I don't know, but my fear is that some of them will do the latter. And that is a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. When it doesn't work they throw in the towel." "Most likely Bernie will have no lasting effect, and his followers will scatter in the usual way, with some doubling down on practical politics and others leaving for different callings. But there is a decent chance Bernie's failure will result in cynicism about politics, and that's the last thing we need. I hate the idea that we might lose even a few talented future leaders because they fell for Bernie's spiel and then got discouraged when it didn't pan out". I highlighted these three paragraphs because Drum has said clearly what I have been trying to say when the discussion has turned to Bernie on this board. Sargent did make some good points including this one: " I'd argue his candidacy is better seen as a very ambitious effort to deliver a dramatic upward jolt to our accepted baseline on what constitutes a just society". But what is missing from Sargent's argument is the point the changes Bernie advocates are going to take time and a lot of hard work not only in DC but on the state level as well. Something Bernie kind of skims over if he even acknowledges this point when he talks about his vision. There is is a link for the entire Drum article in this article
|
|
|
|
Post by sues on Apr 30, 2016 1:19:10 GMT
I think, just like in the disillusioned 60's and early 70's - some of these idealistic young voters will fall by the wayside and forever think they will never make a difference. And a bunch will probably get involved in politics in some way, looking to keep the cause going. The bulk of them will be like most of us- somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunraynnc on Apr 30, 2016 1:22:28 GMT
At least they are out only about $20.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 30, 2016 10:18:42 GMT
Interesting. I don't think that Bernie is conning his supporters. Maybe misleading is a better word. Don't get me wrong; I think that he is sincere. But many of his young supporters do not seem to understand that big change is a long, hard slog, and it will involve time, compromise, and showing up to vote in mid-term elections. Not to mention that a large segment of the country disagrees with their vision.
Some of his supporters are already organizing, so maybe they will continue to work for the changes that they want. I hope that they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 30, 2016 12:08:41 GMT
Hmmmm. Maybe because I'm not one of his "young" supporters, I don't think I'm being conned. I understand that meaningful change takes a lot of time and setbacks, but I also think that it takes something of a revolutionary spirit to get started. I'm not sure why the two mindsets are mutually exclusive. How can you bring about meaningful change if you don't have a strong idea of what it is you're working toward?
It seems to me that Hillary and other more "pragmatic" politicians are arguing for half-loaves as the end goal, and will end up getting crumbs at the most. Bernie's asking for everything and he's actually been quoted as saying that he understands that all these changes are not the work of one administration, but that in asking for the whole loaf, so to speak, he's hoping for a much larger portion of it than would have been given if he's only asked for half.
Painting Bernie and his supporters as unrealistic dopes seems to be a favorite way of dismissing the ideals he stands for. I don't think it's as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Apr 30, 2016 12:38:30 GMT
I disagree with this. I have been hearing Bernie say that change is a long journey for at least 25 years. I think he has always acknowledge that change takes involvement, time and a lot of work. That small movements can morph into large movements. That it is important that we continually work towards these changes, even though we know that they aren't going to happen "overnight".
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:24:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 19:11:44 GMT
Hmmmm. Maybe because I'm not one of his "young" supporters, I don't think I'm being conned. I understand that meaningful change takes a lot of time and setbacks, but I also think that it takes something of a revolutionary spirit to get started. I'm not sure why the two mindsets are mutually exclusive. How can you bring about meaningful change if you don't have a strong idea of what it is you're working toward? It seems to me that Hillary and other more "pragmatic" politicians are arguing for half-loaves as the end goal, and will end up getting crumbs at the most. Bernie's asking for everything and he's actually been quoted as saying that he understands that all these changes are not the work of one administration, but that in asking for the whole loaf, so to speak, he's hoping for a much larger portion of it than would have been given if he's only asked for half. Painting Bernie and his supporters as unrealistic dopes seems to be a favorite way of dismissing the ideals he stands for. I don't think it's as simple as that. I have been pondering your comments this morning and a couple of thoughts. Bernie is a child of the 60's as am I so I have been through this before. I think it's great to have a revolutionary vision but you have to have a follow through or ground game to insure its success. A lot of the changes advocated by the protests in the 60's never came to fruition because of the lack of a ground game. Occupy Wall Street failed because of the lack of a grass roots ground game to push their vision. I get frustrated with Bernie because he is squandering a chance to enact portions of his vision either as President or as Senator. He has some of the most enthusiastic supporters that I have not seen in a long time and I think it's great. But what is lacking is Bernie urging these supporters to work not only to get him elected but work to make sure other Democratic candidates in their area are elected as well. And it shouldn't matter if these candidates support Bernie or Hillary because the are DEMOCRATS and the more Democrats there are in Congress the better chance he has of enacting his vision. And I'm sorry to say that thinking is missing from Bernie's campaign. As one person pointed out Tuesday night it's hard to have a revolution with one person. The revolution will happen in DC and in order for it to happen there has to be more then one or even a few players. And the way for this revolution to succeed you have to stack the deck in Bernie's favor and to do that he needs to encourage his supporters to make sure as many as possible Democrats are elected to Congress. And he is just not doing that. And that is a missed opportunity for him and the Democratic Party in general. Hillary is supporting down ticket candidates. But I think Bernie's supporters could be more effective if their energy was channeled in the right direction. Like I said a missed opportunity. As a pragmatic Democrat while I hope we get some crumbs I'm not expecting much considering how toxic DC is. But to me Hillary's greatest strength is her foreign policy experience. Something none of the other candidates have including Bernie. Something I think is important enough to me to give Hillary my vote. Yes choosing Supreme Court replacements are important but, in spite of what Bernie is saying, the choices will be slightly left moderates regardless if Hillary or Bernie is president. I have not heard about other Democrats bad mouthing Sander's supporters but if you are saying it is happening then I guess it is. I think it's a mistake for other Democrats to do that. Like I said I think it's great for a candidate to have such enthusiastic young supporters as Bernie does. Especially in this cynical atmosphere that surrounds politics in this country. My criticism is for Bernie and him being less then honest with his young supporters. He knows better. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 30, 2016 20:10:50 GMT
Hmmmm. Maybe because I'm not one of his "young" supporters, I don't think I'm being conned. I understand that meaningful change takes a lot of time and setbacks, but I also think that it takes something of a revolutionary spirit to get started. I'm not sure why the two mindsets are mutually exclusive. How can you bring about meaningful change if you don't have a strong idea of what it is you're working toward? It seems to me that Hillary and other more "pragmatic" politicians are arguing for half-loaves as the end goal, and will end up getting crumbs at the most. Bernie's asking for everything and he's actually been quoted as saying that he understands that all these changes are not the work of one administration, but that in asking for the whole loaf, so to speak, he's hoping for a much larger portion of it than would have been given if he's only asked for half. Painting Bernie and his supporters as unrealistic dopes seems to be a favorite way of dismissing the ideals he stands for. I don't think it's as simple as that. I am going by comments that I have read on FB for the past few months. And yes, many of those commenters are very young and idealistic. They do not seem to have a clue hoe Washington works, judging by their comments. Vox has some great examples. You are not a young, naive voter, and I would not put you in that category. But I do wonder how that revolution can happen, given the sizeable block of Americans who oppose it. I truly do not see how it can happen. Compromise seems to be the safer bet-to me, at least. |
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879 
|
Post by likescarrots on Apr 30, 2016 23:37:19 GMT
It's fine, to me, if the 'revolution' can't happen. It's fine to me that I gave money to Bernie Sanders and he doesn't get the nomination or if he were to get elected he doesn't get done the things he supports and has planned. He didn't 'con' me into anything. Everyone in this country is allowed to have their own ideas of how things should be. I supported, with my vote and my money, what I think is the right direction for this country. For the record, I'm not a young voter, but I was one once, I did the 'mature' thing, voted for the 'lesser of two evils', and the country and the democrats continue to move away from where I think we should be going. I'm not OK with Hillary Clinton and her supporters thinking that they are owed my vote because Bernie Sanders didn't get the nomination, when I don't believe in her policies or the things she has supported in the past. I would feel more conned giving her my vote, than I do giving Bernie Sanders my money.
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by likescarrots on Apr 30, 2016 23:54:33 GMT
Hmmmm. Maybe because I'm not one of his "young" supporters, I don't think I'm being conned. I understand that meaningful change takes a lot of time and setbacks, but I also think that it takes something of a revolutionary spirit to get started. I'm not sure why the two mindsets are mutually exclusive. How can you bring about meaningful change if you don't have a strong idea of what it is you're working toward? It seems to me that Hillary and other more "pragmatic" politicians are arguing for half-loaves as the end goal, and will end up getting crumbs at the most. Bernie's asking for everything and he's actually been quoted as saying that he understands that all these changes are not the work of one administration, but that in asking for the whole loaf, so to speak, he's hoping for a much larger portion of it than would have been given if he's only asked for half. Painting Bernie and his supporters as unrealistic dopes seems to be a favorite way of dismissing the ideals he stands for. I don't think it's as simple as that. I have been pondering your comments this morning and a couple of thoughts. Bernie is a child of the 60's as am I so I have been through this before. I think it's great to have a revolutionary vision but you have to have a follow through or ground game to insure its success. A lot of the changes advocated by the protests in the 60's never came to fruition because of the lack of a ground game. Occupy Wall Street failed because of the lack of a grass roots ground game to push their vision. I get frustrated with Bernie because he is squandering a chance to enact portions of his vision either as President or as Senator. He has some of the most enthusiastic supporters that I have not seen in a long time and I think it's great. But what is lacking is Bernie urging these supporters to work not only to get him elected but work to make sure other Democratic candidates in their area are elected as well. And it shouldn't matter if these candidates support Bernie or Hillary because the are DEMOCRATS and the more Democrats there are in Congress the better chance he has of enacting his vision. And I'm sorry to say that thinking is missing from Bernie's campaign. As one person pointed out Tuesday night it's hard to have a revolution with one person. The revolution will happen in DC and in order for it to happen there has to be more then one or even a few players. And the way for this revolution to succeed you have to stack the deck in Bernie's favor and to do that he needs to encourage his supporters to make sure as many as possible Democrats are elected to Congress. And he is just not doing that. And that is a missed opportunity for him and the Democratic Party in general. Hillary is supporting down ticket candidates. But I think Bernie's supporters could be more effective if their energy was channeled in the right direction. Like I said a missed opportunity. As a pragmatic Democrat while I hope we get some crumbs I'm not expecting much considering how toxic DC is. But to me Hillary's greatest strength is her foreign policy experience. Something none of the other candidates have including Bernie. Something I think is important enough to me to give Hillary my vote. Yes choosing Supreme Court replacements are important but, in spite of what Bernie is saying, the choices will be slightly left moderates regardless if Hillary or Bernie is president. I have not heard about other Democrats bad mouthing Sander's supporters but if you are saying it is happening then I guess it is. I think it's a mistake for other Democrats to do that. Like I said I think it's great for a candidate to have such enthusiastic young supporters as Bernie does. Especially in this cynical atmosphere that surrounds politics in this country. My criticism is for Bernie and him being less then honest with his young supporters. He knows better. This is completely untrue. Just because he's not supporting mainstream candidates (which why would he when they often promote agendas that he is opposed to...) doesn't mean he's not supporting democrats. He has supported progressive democratic candidates recently including Teachout, Flores, and Jayapal. Frankly, if he supported some of the democratic politicians regardless of their political leanings and voting history, he wouldn't have the support from his base that he has right now. If your party wants the support of progressives (i.e. people who support Bernie Sanders), they need to start supporting more progressive candidates. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:24:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 0:46:42 GMT
This is completely untrue. Just because he's not supporting mainstream candidates (which why would he when they often promote agendas that he is opposed to...) doesn't mean he's not supporting democrats. He has supported progressive democratic candidates recently including Teachout, Flores, and Jayapal. Frankly, if he supported some of the democratic politicians regardless of their political leanings and voting history, he wouldn't have the support from his base that he has right now. If your party wants the support of progressives (i.e. people who support Bernie Sanders), they need to start supporting more progressive candidates. Ok say Bernie becomes President Bernie and his hand picked three candidates get elected. How far do you think Bernie and his three little minions will get enacting his vision in Congress? Can't have much of a "revolution" with just 4 people. By the way Democrats are progressives. It's just a matter how far to the left we want to go. I look at Bernie's socialist/progressive agenda the Democrstic version of the Republican's Tea Party. We will just have to wait and see if Bernie's agenda will be as damaging to the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has been to the Republicans. I was watching MSNBC the other night and they were talking about this very subject. A couple of the talking heads felt that it could damage the party and pointed to a time a couple of decades ago when there was a push to move the party too far to the left and the Democratic Party got its ass kicked. |
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by likescarrots on May 1, 2016 5:39:15 GMT
This is completely untrue. Just because he's not supporting mainstream candidates (which why would he when they often promote agendas that he is opposed to...) doesn't mean he's not supporting democrats. He has supported progressive democratic candidates recently including Teachout, Flores, and Jayapal. Frankly, if he supported some of the democratic politicians regardless of their political leanings and voting history, he wouldn't have the support from his base that he has right now. If your party wants the support of progressives (i.e. people who support Bernie Sanders), they need to start supporting more progressive candidates. Ok say Bernie becomes President Bernie and his hand picked three candidates get elected. How far do you think Bernie and his three little minions will get enacting his vision in Congress? Can't have much of a "revolution" with just 4 people. By the way Democrats are progressives. It's just a matter how far to the left we want to go. I look at Bernie's socialist/progressive agenda the Democrstic version of the Republican's Tea Party. We will just have to wait and see if Bernie's agenda will be as damaging to the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has been to the Republicans. I was watching MSNBC the other night and they were talking about this very subject. A couple of the talking heads felt that it could damage the party and pointed to a time a couple of decades ago when there was a push to move the party too far to the left and the Democratic Party got its ass kicked. I mean, you can keep condescending to Bernie supporters all you want, but it's not getting you and your party anywhere, it's pushing away liberal independent voters (who have voted for your candidates before). |
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on May 1, 2016 14:02:08 GMT
I like Bernie, but I don't hate Hillary. The Post hates Bernie and I'm not quite sure why. There are quite a few negative articles about him. I hadn't noticed, but my son, who is an ardent young (15yo) Bernie fan has pointed a lot out.
Part of a politician's job is to con us all, right?!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:24:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 14:07:45 GMT
Ok say Bernie becomes President Bernie and his hand picked three candidates get elected. How far do you think Bernie and his three little minions will get enacting his vision in Congress? Can't have much of a "revolution" with just 4 people. By the way Democrats are progressives. It's just a matter how far to the left we want to go. I look at Bernie's socialist/progressive agenda the Democrstic version of the Republican's Tea Party. We will just have to wait and see if Bernie's agenda will be as damaging to the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has been to the Republicans. I was watching MSNBC the other night and they were talking about this very subject. A couple of the talking heads felt that it could damage the party and pointed to a time a couple of decades ago when there was a push to move the party too far to the left and the Democratic Party got its ass kicked. I mean, you can keep condescending to Bernie supporters all you want, but it's not getting you and your party anywhere, it's pushing away liberal independent voters (who have voted for your candidates before). I do not believe you read what I wrote. If you had you would have seen my beef is with Bernie and not his supporters. I also find it interesting that you used the term "you and your party". According to Bernie HE is a member of that very party. So I guess the correct term should be "You, Bernie, and your party". That is unless you think Bernie is lying. |
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by likescarrots on May 1, 2016 18:08:41 GMT
I mean, you can keep condescending to Bernie supporters all you want, but it's not getting you and your party anywhere, it's pushing away liberal independent voters (who have voted for your candidates before). I do not believe you read what I wrote. If you had you would have seen my beef is with Bernie and not his supporters. I also find it interesting that you used the term "you and your party". According to Bernie HE is a member of that very party. So I guess the correct term should be "You, Bernie, and your party". That is unless you think Bernie is lying. I think Bernie did the "right thing" in running in the primary as a democrat and not as an independent in the main election. Your party (and I say 'you and your party' because the democrats are NOT my party) would do well to acknowledge that, because had he run as a 3rd party presidential candidate, with all his support, you would lose a lot more voters than you are likely to with him running in the primary and bowing out if he loses. If you want to talk about vague lying I think we'd better start with Hillary. Like remember that time she said she didn't know where Bernie was when she was touting her healthcare plan, and then pictures of him standing next to her came out, and oh ya, don't forget that letter she wrote to him thanking him for his support... We could go on all day, but if you want to make some ridiculous argument about Bernie lying about being a democrat, you'd better be ready for what you've got coming to you. And again, your condescending attitude (yes, I did actually read what you wrote, but go on and keep ignoring what liberal independent voters are trying to point out) are only hurting your party. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:24:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 19:18:52 GMT
I think Bernie did the "right thing" in running in the primary as a democrat and not as an independent in the main election. Your party (and I say 'you and your party' because the democrats are NOT my party) would do well to acknowledge that, because had he run as a 3rd party presidential candidate, with all his support, you would lose a lot more voters than you are likely to with him running in the primary and bowing out if he loses. If you want to talk about vague lying I think we'd better start with Hillary. Like remember that time she said she didn't know where Bernie was when she was touting her healthcare plan, and then pictures of him standing next to her came out, and oh ya, don't forget that letter she wrote to him thanking him for his support... We could go on all day, but if you want to make some ridiculous argument about Bernie lying about being a democrat, you'd better be ready for what you've got coming to you. And again, your condescending attitude (yes, I did actually read what you wrote, but go on and keep ignoring what liberal independent voters are trying to point out) are only hurting your party. Well a couple of things... 1. You seem to like to threaten a lot. I don't think issuing threats is the best way to make your point. 2. You are not going to like this but I can understand why Hillary forgot Bernie was in the picture. It seems old Bernie has a reputation in Congress of being "un memorable" . I read a couple of articles saying he was around but always on the fringe. Never stood out. Unlike Elizabeth Warren. Look at the attention she has gotten in the short time she has been in Congress. You talk about progressives her name will always come before his. So I can understand why Hillary forgot about Bernie and the roll he played when she talked about the healthcare plan she supported/worked on as First Lady. 3. Hmm if Bernie has always been a Democrat why did he wait until he wanted to use the Democratic established network to run for President to register as a Democrat? If he had run as independent his campaign would have died months ago. He knew that so that is why after years of being a registered Independent who described himself as a Socialist he became a registered Democrat and a progressive. You don't think there is something dishonest about this? So as much as you believe us Democrats need your independent votes Bernie needs our Democratic votes just as much if he has any hope of enacting any part of his vision. |
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on May 1, 2016 19:44:52 GMT
Senior Citizens
Elderly persons, usually more than sixty or sixty-five years of age.
People in the United States who are more than sixty years of age are commonly referred to as senior citizens or seniors. These terms refer to people whose stage in life is generally called old age, though there is no precise way to identify the final stage of a normal life span. People are said to be senior citizens when they reach the age of sixty or sixty-five because those are the ages at which most people retire from the workforce.
Hilary Clinton, October 26, 1947, age 68
Bernie Sanders, September 8, 1941, age 74
Both old and both senior citizens
|
|
