Email from Sanders, received Monday. Your reactions?
Winning the Senate
Bernie Sanders
Mon 8/29, 4:31 PMYou
"HenryWallace,"
As a result of your activism, our political revolution is responsible for the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country. We were victorious in making it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, enact major criminal justice reforms, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, and so much more.
And just the other day, the Republican leadership in the Senate announced that the TPP would not be coming to the floor this year. Another major victory.
All of that is the direct result of the grassroots activism that you, and millions of others, engaged in over the last 16 months. Now, we must continue our efforts by electing progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that the policies we have fought for can advance and become law.
For the future of our country, and our progressive agenda, it is imperative that Democrats regain control of the Senate. My guess is that will all come down to which party wins three or four hotly contested races in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio and Nevada.
The Koch brothers know this. That is why they are spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat these four candidates for Senate.
And that's why I'm asking you to support them: Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, Ted Strickland in Ohio, and Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada. If these four Democrats win the tight elections they are currently in, the Democrats will almost certainly take control of the Senate.
And what a world of difference that will make: real campaign finance reform, raising the minimum wage, making public colleges and universities tuition free, addressing the planetary crisis of climate change, progressive taxation, reforming our broken criminal justice system, comprehensive immigration reform and many other important issues.
Split a $___ contribution to help Katie McGinty, Maggie Hassan, Ted Strickland, and Catherine Cortez Masto become senators and take back a progressive majority in the Senate.
I want to be clear: It is very important that our movement holds public officials accountable. The Democratic Party passed an extremely progressive agenda at the convention. Our job is to make sure that platform is implemented. That will not happen without Democratic control of the Senate.
Katie McGinty was one of the first candidates to endorse a $15 minimum wage.
Maggie Hassan, who is a strong supporter of campaign finance reform, increased transparency and disclosure of political contributions as Governor of New Hampshire.
Ted Strickland is a fighter for Ohio’s working families who opposes the TPP and believes that we need to completely change the way we negotiate trade deals.
Catherine Cortez Masto is committed to protecting the environment and knows it’s long past time that we ensure equal pay for women.
Perhaps the most important reason to win a progressive majority in the Senate is because we must support nominees for the Supreme Court who will vote to overturn Citizens United.
It is so important we do everything we can to help these four candidates – Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, Ted Strickland in Ohio, and Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada – win their elections in November.
Your contribution of $___ will help each of these candidates for Senate win. Please split a contribution between them today so we can advance our progressive agenda, defeat the Koch brothers, and take back the Senate.
Thank you as always for everything you do for our political revolution.
In solidarity,
Senator Bernie Sanders
Comments
[delete]
It's not new. It's not "Bernie selling out". I had found this old (but they've just updated it, so the date has changed) CNN article on Bernie previously fund raising for dems. He's caucused with them. They don't run a dem against him in Vermont. It is what it is. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
I had just read an article that morning saying how awful these 4 were, and I had checked out Strickland on wiki and knew I won't donate for a damn Dino after supporting Bernie, and figured I could lump the other 3 with him. So no money.
It was stupid for him to send that out though, since the next day we learned the dems had cancelled a planned ad buy for Strickland because he was so far behind. Waste of political capital.
If we've learned anything this past year it's to do our own research, not to let somebody else vet a candidate for us.
As for the argument that we need a dem majority to pass the platform, both Obama & Bill Clinton had dem majorities in both the house & senate part of their terms and accomplished nothing that I'd consider "democratic." 4 more DINOs sure aren't going to help. I'm calling their bluff this election. evidently the last 2 elections haven't gotten rid of all the rot; let's cut some more.
I too saw Strickland ...
... knew the backstory, and did not donate.
It's funny - in an alternate universe before I started interacting here, with the Bernie loss I probably would have gone up to NH to knock on doors for Hassan, she's a pretty good conservaDem for NH. Guess I'll let the Hillbots take my spot.
Thanks.
I knew about Democrats not running anyone against him in return for his support on the administrative side. However, I doubt that any candidate they ran against him would win anyway. Actually, it goes beyond that. They refuse to support any Democrat who challenges him. That is an old bargain and, yes, he has fundraised in the past. Sounds much more like business as usual than a revolution.
However, I was hoping for more input on the four candidates.
I donated. I have no problem
I donated. I have no problem with progressive democrats. I just won't give anything to dlcers or work for them.
Strickland is a progressive?
Huh. Well, I'm not an expert on OH politics, so all I can say is, that wasn't what I thought.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Are you saying you're not sure, one way or the other?
I wonder where you
Strickland haters get your info. From the Portman camp? I've known Ted Strickland for more years than I care to count. I met him before he was even a congressman and I just had lunch with him and his lovely wife Francis a couple of weeks ago. Ted Strickland is a good man. He has always put the people of Ohio first and he has never forgotten his roots. To date, the Koch machine has dumped 42 million to get him beat. If you've seen Ohio TV lately all you see are anti-Strickland ads. When I click on youtube all I see are anti-Strickland ads. Ted most likely will lose and that's going to be a damn shame. Rob Portman has done nothing during his tenure in the senate. He was one of the first to jump on the TPP bandwagon. After all, he was dubya's trade advisor.
I could write a book or a least a long ass essay on what Ted's done for the working people of Ohio and this country. But of course I may be biased because I'm an old Union guy who happened to be in the trenches during strikes and lockouts all across Ohio. Ted was always there for us.
So go on and hate but hate. But not all dems are evil clinton spawns.
"Ted Strickland is a good man"
That may be. But when I peruse his Wikipedia page, what I see is a DINO.
And I don't care to donate to DINOs.
Anyways, it's moot. Evidently the DSCC isn't spending any more money on him because he's 15 points down. Could it be a case of "when faced with the choice of a real republican or a republican-lite, they vote for the real republican every time"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland
Whooa
I'm impressed you get your info from Wiki!. Wow. Do you know Strickland and what he stands for? I didn't think so. You calling Ted a "DINO" and repub lite is like me calling you an asshole. I wouldn't do that because I don't know you and haven't known you for 40+ years like I have Ted. Faults? Yeah, who doesn't but like I said he's done more for working people and Labor than most dems in the last 30+ years. 15 points down? Where are you located? Ohio? Could it be he's down so far because the fucking Koch bros have invested, as of today, 42+ million in Portman. We've been bombarded with anti-Strickland ads for the last year. Wake the fuck up.
You might consider editing the Wikipedia page.
Anyone can do that, you know.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
Expressing surprise that Portman is considered Progressive does
not equal hate.
I am trying to get info on whether Portman is actually liberal or not so I can decide if I will donate. Can you add anything about that, beyond what was in Bernie's email?
Portman is the R in the race ...
... so you needn't worry about whether or not he's a proggie.
Sorry. Obviously, I meant Strickland.
Portman a liberal?
are you serious? This motherfucker is as about as liberal as Bush or Cheney. Why in the hell would the Koch bros invest 42+ million in the wormy fucker if he was a liberal? I've never seen him side once with a liberal/progressive/Union cause. Except, after his son came out, he reversed his stance on gay marriage.
My post should have read Strickland in both places, like so:
Expressing surprise that Strickland is considered Progressive does not equal hate.
I am trying to get info on whether Strickland is actually liberal or not so I can decide if I will donate. Can you add anything about that, beyond what was in Bernie's email?
I didn't think he was a terrible person ...
... but my first series of googles was that he was running a terrible campaign, and that national groups on both sides are starting to pull money out of OH, thinking Portman probably has it. It's a missed opportunity for sure.
We've been
bombarded with anti-Strickland ads for the last year. On tv, the internet, newspapers. Everything bad that's happened in Ohio for the last 200 years is Stricklands fault according to the Portman/koch camp. The kochs have invested a fortune in keeping their lackey in his seat. Ted's ran the best campaign he can with the limited money he has.
How are you getting "hate" out of my comment?
If you want to see hate, look at my Clinton comments.
My understanding was that Ted Strickland wasn't a progressive. But I'm not from Ohio, and I don't follow Ohio politics closely, so yes, I'm not sure. And that's what my comment said.
Don't know why there's anything hateful about that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I was hoping for input on whether or not they are liberals
Wondering why Sanders didn't do more to get rid of Debbie?
Had my name removed from all mailings.
Very disappointed in how the "revolution" was managed, and now being directed by Jeff Weaver.
No thanks. All just "too little too late."
Let Jeff Weaver raise his "big" money and buy TV ads, or better yet, go back to his comic book store.
I am still assessing. I have not donated to Our Revolution yet,
but neither am I ready to say I never will. The Sane Progressive said half the leaders quit and the rest protested. I guess they really oppose Weaver.
Once Weaver took over Our Revolution, Canova could not evenget his calls returned by anyone in the Sanders camp (or by Sanders). That's cold.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/canova-revolution-be...
Dear Bernie
Dear Bernie,
Sorry Bernie, but I'll have to take a pass, I Demexited.
Sincerely,
ggersh
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
I did, too, but I can still vote Democratic. I am not very
familiar with these four Democrats, though. Are they actually liberal or same old, same old? I don't know.
Michigan
I'm from Michigan where we can choose a ballot, either republican, or democrat, the day of a primary. Don't have to be registered in the party. I sometimes cross over to the GOP side so I can vote for local officials. In my County Many offices have no democrats running, so if I want to vote for that office, I have to go to the dark side.
That said, I replied to the request from Our Revolution that I could not, in good conscience support the candidates running as democrats. IMO, the only way we will ever gain an real shot at a third party is to vote with our donations.
After the BS pulled by Clinton, and the DNC, and the disastrous docket presented by the Goppers this cycle, ( and for most of the last 40 years) I will never again donate to any candidate from either of the major parties. Maybe I'm foolish, but it is my way to vote my conscience
Sadly, as wealth concentrates more in the a few, our
donations mean less and less. A fundraising dinner at $353K a couple? Donations from the likes of Goldman Sachs?
New Democrats consciously made it so that they did not need donations from average people or unions. And they did that so they no longer had to take positions that helped average people and unions.
http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-i
I think we have to vote with our votes--and even they may not mean anything, given election fraud. But, we have to do what we can.
I think we all can vote for anyone
in the general, being labeled is only for the primaries.
I'm not sure about the foursome you mentioned either. Regardless
my choices aren't progressive at all, but I'm hoping that changes
in the 2018 election. As of now I'm not to optimistic.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Of course we all can. I was just speaking for myself.
My votes really don't matter. However, my donations to these people might. I did look up the wikis, but they were not as helpful as I hoped. Guess I'll get to googling.
Me and Google don't get along much
I think donating can be a help its just about finding the right candidate
to back. Their aren't many real progressives out there that I can see
at this time, hopefully that changes.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Forget Bernie. He's pitching for the wrong team now.
Whether they threatened his family or he sold out. It doesn't matter. He has a new master now. And that master is for Wall St, for the MIC and for the Corps,... and against us.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
.....
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/166050#comment-166050
Secretary Clinton will continue Our Revolution
and oh, by the way, I'm putting Jeff Weaver in charge of collecting billionaires' money. Do not remember or look up anything I said before July.
If there was any doubt that the Democratic Party will
protect its grip on power above all other considerations, like every other powerful organization, this past primary season should have put that doubt to rest. I see no rational reason to try again to force it to become something it has already fought tooth and nail to resist.
I have no interest in that party, or trying to save them from the disaster that they have worked so hard to become. They are clearly a big part of the problem.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
The figure people thought was Neo, turned out to be Agent Smith.
#DemMatrExit.
Well...
the platform doesn't mean a hill a beans, no offense, but the 92' platform mentioned the word "revolution" quite a number of times, but we know exactly how that turned out.
Platform, smlatform
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
But there was a revolution!
It was just the wrong kind!
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
EXACTLY. 1992 was a revolution, from traditional Democrat to
DLC style Democrat. Dismantle the New Deal. All traffic in crap mortgage derivatives with no regulation. Pass Poppy's NAFTA. End welfare as we know it. Privatize prisons and surge the drug war. Double down on extraordinary rendition---but don't hit Osama Bin Laden because a couple of civilians will go with him. And so on.
Fundraising for Democrats doesn't seem like a revolution, but maybe I am mistaken.
They fought over it, anyway. That's what cracked me up.
Bernie and his people had to negotiate--and they didn't get everything they wanted, either.
I looked at the email and unsubscribed with a note that said
You endorsed Hillary - when pigs fly.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Our Revolution wasn't created
Our Revolution wasn't created until after he did that, so why did you suscribe to it in the first place?
I don't remember subscribing...
I might have just been included because I was a Bernie supporter and contributor.
I also tried to give Bernie the benefit of a doubt as long as I could. I wasn't happy thinking I was snookered. I really don't know why Bernie dropped out, and I won't speculate. I think defeating Hillary and Trump were so important that no reason Bernie could give would be good enough. I think he should have used the Green Party and gone down swinging.
I think Obama and the Clintons are worse than Trump and the Republicans. I expect the GOP to be greedy, religious zealots. I do not expect the party of FDR to blow up the middle east as a business model and to bail out Wall Street while it destroys the middle class and imprisons and starves the poor. I think corrupt Democrats are the lowest of the low, and I hope the Clintons and Chelsea end up in prison until they die.
It takes a Democrat to screw a Democrat, and Bill Clinton and Obama proved that over and over. Bush couldn't privatize Social Security and neither could Trump. Hillary could do it in flash especially if she has majorities in the House and Senate. Harry Reid who kept his powder dry when it mattered, now wants to blow away the filabuster. Fucker. Easier to pass TPP, cut Medicare, and drill baby drill.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Same here, I donated to Bernie so I still get those emails
But I delete them without reading them. One of these days I'll get around to unsubscribing from the list. As for donating to democrats ... ROTFLMFAO.
Yeah, no. Thats not happening.
I did not subscribe to Our Revolution, but I did donate during
the primary.
Political analysts say...
Political analysts say that even a Hillary landslide won't give the Dems a filibuster-proof Senate majority, or flip the control of the House. The Tea-GOP will remain in control of most state governments.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Which is why Reid wants to blow up the filibuster....
Easier to pass TPP my dear.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Not needed.
Because Congress already passed Fast Track. Straight up or down vote; no amendments allowed.
not clear there are enough R's
that would want to give Obama something he clearly wants. I'm guessing if HRC comes out for TPP after the election, because they added a comma somewhere, R's will treat her the same as they've treated Obama.
If you're for it, I'm ag'in it.
of course there is no Dem filibuster proof number
50+1 is what we call a majority and was in force until it became possible for the Democrats to do something. Not wanting to, they invented the idea of the 60 vote threshold. And even with 60 votes that suddenly became inoperative because, hey, the Blue Dogs that vote with us so often on so much of the legislation, can't be told they have to vote like Democrats on everything! So how many would the Dems need then? 65? 70? 80?
Forgot to mention, 60/70/80/90 isn't enough because it wouldn't be polite to impose our will on the country. I well remember that Franken became the 60th vote and the Dems said they wouldn't push an aggressive agenda because it might affect the mid-terms.
But then we've been through this before, haven't we?
Oh, but Hillary knows how to work across the aisle (SNORT).
She had no trouble passing bills re-naming a post office or remembering the American Revolution. Luckily for us, she could not get her two flag burning bills passed, though--even though Republicans love them some flag-burning bills. I'm guessing Democrats let her down on that.
Didn't do well with Democrats with Billarycare, either, even though her husband was President and head of the Party at the time. I guess she must mean when Kennedy and Hatch passed the SCHIP bill for which she takes credit. At first, Kennedy semi- backed up her version of how that bill got passed, by giving her credit for "Pennsylvania Avenue." However, that implies she stopped her husband from vetoing it, which seems implausible, at best. Later, though, Hatch took down her claims and Kennedy said, "Facts are stubborn things."
What a piece of work.
The tea GOP will remain in control of State government...
That statement is huge. It's very much why I'm looking at supporting Statewide Democrats as well. The tea-gop rubs our faces in their feces every year with real pain as the result - pain to the immigrant community, women, educators,our environment, school kids, and on and on. It's very real pain, and the only counter to it, in a semi organized way, is the dem party. The Greens have not built any functional organization here since a hopeful inception in the 80's when a (then high level) Hispanic politician declared as a Green. A lot of politicking and jockeying went on, with some good communication between the progressive dems and some awake Rs. The dem party went to work to quell the rebellion in the same low-level, corrupt way that they still do from bottom to top. Part of the "power" of corruption is that it is just so fucking depressing and unbelievable that it is actually running the show, and not just a minor script. Its poison can dull the sharpest minds and purest hearts. It is a deep, systemic poison that We (Big We) must deal with somehow. That is a daunting "first order of business" to say the least. That said, with apologies for causing more depression, Bernie has changed the narrative at our state level in subtle and mysterious ways. There is a new wind blowing through the stale old story. There is , to my simple mind, a case to be made for electing as many dems as possible to the State legislature. And , at the same time, to keep blowing revolutionary winds through the hopelessness and corruption - really every time we speak. Bernie has empowered this - I can actually feel it, along with the other force to keep things quiet. So the State level, as I see it, is different enough from the national, that I will work for dems. We have to keep breathing and talking ! We can support the Plains Tribes in their struggle v Big Oil, Colin Kaepernick v enforced speech, and on and on. Our words must not be wimpy, fearful, or corrupted in any way. The revolution is borne on winds of true speech.Our very words become the Revolution, so Breathe On! good Brothers and Sisters.
Apologies for double posting.
Apologies for double posting...
The tea GOP will remain in control of State government...
That statement is huge. It's very much why I'm looking at supporting Statewide Democrats as well. The tea-gop rubs our faces in their feces every year with real pain as the result - pain to the immigrant community, women, educators,our environment, school kids, and on and on. It's very real pain, and the only counter to it, in a semi organized way, is the dem party. The Greens have not built any functional organization here since a hopeful inception in the 80's when a (then high level) Hispanic politician declared as a Green. A lot of politicking and jockeying went on, with some good communication between the progressive dems and some awake Rs. The dem party went to work to quell the rebellion in the same low-level, corrupt way that they still do from bottom to top. Part of the "power" of corruption is that it is just so fucking depressing and unbelievable that it is actually running the show, and not just a minor script. Its poison can dull the sharpest minds and purest hearts. It is a deep, systemic poison that We (Big We) must deal with somehow. That is a daunting "first order of business" to say the least. That said, with apologies for causing more depression, Bernie has changed the narrative at our state level in subtle and mysterious ways. There is a new wind blowing through the stale old story. There is , to my simple mind, a case to be made for electing as many dems as possible to the State legislature. And , at the same time, to keep blowing revolutionary winds through the hopelessness and corruption - really every time we speak. Bernie has empowered this - I can actually feel it, along with the other force to keep things quiet. So the State level, as I see it, is different enough from the national, that I will work for dems. We have to keep breathing and talking ! We can support the Plains Tribes in their struggle v Big Oil, Colin Kaepernick v enforced speech, and on and on. Our words must not be wimpy, fearful, or corrupted in any way. The revolution is borne on winds of true speech.Our very words become the Revolution, so Breathe On! good Brothers and Sisters.
You should all start an organization.
Call it "Not a Sellout Revolution."
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
I am not sure how Bernie's fundraising for familiar Dems,
as he always has, fits the definition of a revolution.
As I posted upthread, Canova said that people stopped returning his calls once Our Revolution opened for business, or whatever it opened for.
Also see e.g. Matt Funicello
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/30/86203/
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
This whole thing is pretty weak.
Seems so so far, but I am not giving up yet.
LOL
That's my reaction.
Based on what I've read here, you may have been the most
cynical from the start. So, I guess you don't feel let down, confused, etc. I still do.
Bernie who?
/s
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Ouch! Maddow said that Bernie raised $228 million during the
primary and Our Revolution has raised $300,000. She was not mocking outwardly, but announcing this sure didn't do Our Revolution any favors, even though it's not fair. He started fundraising for the primary around February or March of 2015. Our Revolution hasn't been around anywhere near that long, so she's comparing apples and oranges--and I'm 100% sure she knows it. And of all that MSNBC crew, she's the only one who says over and over, "I'm a liberal." Kudos on hiding it very well, Rachel! If you didn't announce it periodically, we'd never guess.
I try to limit the amount of negative shit that I see/read/hear
7 million dollars a year appears to have moved this once seemingly political left journalist to a right of center establishment-parrot position whose blatant sucking up to the masters of corruption (that she damn well knows is pervasive and wound around the too-big-to-fail Clinton machine with its smarmy Foundation and bought and paid for surrogates), lost me many months ago. money money mon-nee.
In Case Anyone Cares
I read this after I published my latest post. Not trying to rustle the topic. Apologies where appropriate.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Fine with me. I haven't seen your post, but I know it's fine
with me. Bernie wrote this. Posting it didn't take me long at all. The more new threads, the merrier, as far as I am concerned. No worries at all! But, considering others is very nice of you.
I just deleted it
No longer a dem
I sent a reply
basically saying that no one is getting my money because no one could get my vote due to registration fraud
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
Ouch!
Whoa, what?
the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country.
Look, I've got a low bar. Just don't rely on inaccuracies and lies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It could be. I don't know what was in the platform
when FDR was first elected. When Truman took over from FDR there was no platform. Same for LBJ. I am not sure what was in Truman's platform in 1948 or in LBJ's in 1964. The Civil Rights Act got passed before LBJ had a platform of his own and it may not have been in Kennedy's. The New Deal, the Great Society and the Voting Rights Acts might not have been in the platform. I'm pretty sure Emancipation wasn't in Lincoln's platform because that was not his original agenda and Lincoln was a Republican, anyway. So, it could be a true statement. I don't know. Thing is, though, how much does the platform matter?
While it's not perfect,
this looks like a fairly progressive platform to me (using the modern notion of progressive, meaning left-wing, rather than the older notion of progressive, meaning anti-corruption):
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29596
In particular, look at this:
(4) We will act to secure to the consumer fair value, honest sales and a decreased spread between the price he pays and the price the producer receives.
They're talking about setting prices and narrowing profit margins. Can you imagine anyone suggesting that now?
(6) We maintain that our people are entitled to decent, adequate housing at a price which they can afford. In the last three years, the Federal Government, having saved more than two million homes from foreclosure, has taken the first steps in our history to provide decent housing for people of meagre incomes. We believe every encouragement should be given to the building of new homes by private enterprise; and that the Government should steadily extend its housing program toward the goal of adequate housing for those forced through economic necessities to live in unhealthy and slum conditions.
Entitled to decent, adequate housing? The current pols don't think we're entitled to anything much at all, as far as I can tell. In fact "entitled" has become an insult they throw at us.
But of course you probably remember all this, since you were his vice-president!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Cool. I didn't know old platforms were online.
Yes, I was his vice president, but the pribbling fat-kidneyed pignut (Shakespearean insult) threw me over. So, I ran against Truman. I lost (duh. Never run against the guy who ended World War II, so soon after the end of World War II). Incredibly enough, I ended up supporting Eisenhower and Nixon and writing whine-y letters. But, I also became a billionaire, when a billion was really a billion. So, there's that.
My god, it's just too many lies
too much rewriting of even recent history.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Did Bernie really write that,
Did Bernie really write that, though, or have they got a ringer out while Bernie/some family member languishes in Gitmo? (possible snark, hope so anyway)
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
At the very least, he would have read it before it went out.
"Our Revolution" OR
just plain revolting?
Fortunately, I opted out of all Sanders-related emails right before the HRC-Dem Party ass-kissing went into full gear and did not receive the letter in question or anything else since. As far as I'm concerned, and in spite of all the "excuses" offered, he became one of the biggest sell-outs that I have ever seen.
It's all in the initials: B.S.!
Our village and town are so small that we don't have a village idiot or a town drunk. Nope, we all take turns.
Investigate the candidates and if you like any of them, donate
to them directly. When you donate to the group, they decide who gets the money.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Exactly EC.
n/t
I was hoping this thread would elicit some info about them, but
it hasn't so far.
Basically, he's duplicating the work the candidates, Hillary (?), the DNC and DSCC already do.
All I know is, I am really confused at this point.
I think he's just adding his voice to the others, for whatever
authority or persuasion he still holds over us (or his voice is being added for him). Given how many of us loved Sanders and hated what the Dems did to him, this will probably be reasonably effective. Many of us will just ignore, but I imagine many who loved Bern but didn't get that involved will support candidates that he now seems to support.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Sorry, still confused. You'd think he and his wife
would be at least as angry about what Democrats did to him and to his supporters and donors as we are and the left surely did not need further fragmenting. That may well be not what he intended, but it's what is.
I don't know, I guess I don't think about it enough to get
confused. Bern's doing what he thinks is right and I'm doing something totally different.
I think he feels he would lose all prominence if he doesn't go along with the Dems. So he goes along. I doubt he thinks politically aware activists will continue to follow him.
Considering how aware we have become, I think the majority will not continue to follow him. If we build a strong progressive movement, we will attract the few who continue to follow Bernie because they want something they can follow without a lot of effort.
We do have to figure out how not to fragment. Since the bare bones of a structure is already there, I think we should become the Green party. Try to elect Jill this year, even if she loses the party will still have more strength and we can build from there.
If something happens to Hill and Bern is given the Dem nom, we can always switch back, at least for now. I doubt that'll happen, though.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I have made many posts about voting for Stein, including
a recent blog entry. I've said I will and I've urged others to do the same. Many would say that is fragmenting because most of the people who are not rightists will be voting for Hillary and even Bernie endorsed Hillary.
Dear Bernie
We're all familiar with the old saying that actions speak louder than words. With that in mind, I was reviewing your speech of July 12 in which you made the following assertions about Hillary Clinton:
What's notable is that based on Hillary Clinton's own past actions, every single one of these assertions - that is, that she will actually do something to ameliorate the problems you enumerate - is a lie. I don't think it takes a crystal ball to realize that in four years time, none of these grim realities you referred to will have in any way changed for the better. In fact, quite the opposite. That's because the people signing the checks are the ones who like things just the way they are - or more accurately, aspire to make things even worse for the many in order to make things even more obscenely profitable for the privileged few.
You're not stupid. You know this full well. Up until you gave this speech, I considered you to be one of that exceedingly rare breed of politicians who are actually willing to speak truth to power. But now I see you're just another lying hack who has no problem slinging bullshit on behalf of what is surely one of the most venal, corrupt, and malignant individuals ever to seek the presidency.
All I can say is, your "revolution" is thankfully not mine.
inactive account
Agree with everything here except:
Your penultimate sentence.
But that's hardly the most important sentence up there. Lies are lies, regardless of what one thinks Sanders' motivation for telling them is.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Agree. Penultimate sentence is over the top. For all we know,
Senator Sanders is under some very serious coercion. It seems likely to me, given that he has a record for being non-violent, and caring about his constituents, that he is cooperating based on threats of individual, or even mass, violence. We already saw the Dems willingness to spread the Big Lie with the Nevada caucus, and "The Chair Thrown Round The World". I for one think them perfectly capable of having promised him a militarized-police blood-bath for his followers at the Convention if he didn't play along. Given that the Clintons have tended to leave a trail of mysteriously dead associates behind, and that hasn't stopped, I don't think it's that far-fetched.
Another possibility is that he is kidding himself that the platform matters, and will be adhered to and respected going forward. He may also honestly believe that he was beaten fair and square, at least enough so that he does not feel justified in screaming "Fraud!" A lot of people are not ready to face this new reality of computerized voter fraud and suppression. It spits in their holy water of American Democracy.
Sanders' past speech and actions have been quite consistent, and by all accounts, have always been in favor of his constituents. Such a major deviation as supporting the antithesis of what he has been championing for decades tells me that something is very wrong with this picture. I think that characterizing him as a "lying hack" is inaccurate and unnecessary.
He's only human. What he started is not. It's a call to necessary change that is far overdue. I'd rather carry it forward, than spend any more time prevaricating against the man.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes