There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what Sanders goals are

[Quixote1818]

Last edited Sun Apr 30, 2017, 11:54 AM - Edit history (2)

He is not trying to be a leader to Democrats as a recent post suggests, he is doing his own thing and if you like what he is about like getting money out of politics, I am sure he doesn't care if you are a Democrat and Independent or even a moderate Republican.

I think we have to go back to Ronald Reagan's dismantling of the Unions to get a clear picture of what is going on here. Unions use to be our primary source of money but when they were crushed during the 80's Reagan didn't just win a battle he pretty much won the war because Democrats were forced to look elsewhere for cash and Bill Clinton was a major pioneer in going after Wall Street money. At the time it seemed to be a necessary deal with the devil but it was the beginning of a long term demise of the middle class with neither party's major funding coming from labor but greedy Wall Street. The New Deal would slowly be dismantled after this. Over the years it has gotten worse and worse with few bills represent the people no matter which party is in office:

Don't get me wrong because while Dems have problems Republican's are bat shit crazy and Susan Sarandon and Jill Stein are lunatics who were playing with fire big time! I voted enthusiastically for Hillary a month early because I have common sense even if I am an idealist and want the system completely fixed. My guess is that Sanders has the same outlook or else he would not have endorsed Hillary and stumped for her.

So Democratic candidates have two choices. I am not saying one is bad but in a perfect world one is clearly better than the other. Sometimes you have to be a realist and take what you can get in a corrupt system, I understand that. The choices are to accept that the Gov. is run by Wall Street and big donors and make deals with them to get a few things through for the middle class or take the ENTIRE establishment head on; enter that nutty Bernie Sanders. To be fair, few candidates have the luxury of doing this. Sanders is in a unique position where he doesn't have to worry about biting the hand that feeds him.

This type of bold move is going to make you lots of enemies even with people you might have the same values with. You may even look like you are anti Democratic Party from time to time even if you favor it's views 100 times that of the Republicans. This type of move is a very difficult balancing act where you are taking on the power brokers of both parties to try to unravel decades of power structures. It's messy as hell and dam near impossible to achieve or should I say Quixotic? We must remember that Sanders isn't a Democrat or a Republican for a reason. It's so he can call the shots as he sees them and sometimes he may seem off balance or actually really is is wrong because he is not perfect and can make mistakes like anyone. But I do believe he is trying to get money and corruption out of both parties and I think he is sincere about this. I think he has dedicated every fiber of his being to this in the same way he chained himself to the black civil rights protester. Is there some ego involved? Probably but I see a bit of ego in pretty much everyone who runs for office.

I am a life long FDR Democrat and I would love to see the party get back to its roots and make a clean break from all the money coming from the wrong people. This is not easily done for a million reasons and where does the money come from now if we walk away from Wall Street? What is encouraging is that some grass roots candidates are able to raise enough money directly from the people and this is a real threat to the establishment.

I don't see Sanders as a Democratic leader but more like if the country of Switzerland was a person and was trying to impact our political system. This fellow Mr. Switzerland is a progressive guy but not a "Democrat". He has his own goals just like Sanders has his own goals but he is not bound by any party. As a lifelong Democrat I welcome any inroads he can make to get corrupt money out of my party.

As another DUer puts it. These are the things BS is fighting for and they are right in line with what made the party great when FDR was president:

From DUer Akamai https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8996693

"Income And Wealth Inequality,
Making College Tuition Free And Debt-Free,
Getting Big Money Out Of Politics And Restoring Democracy,
Creating Decent Paying Jobs,
A Living Wage,
Combating Climate Changes In The Planet,
A Fair And Humane Immigration Policy,
Racial Justice,
Fighting For Affordable Housing,
Fighting For Women's Rights,
Working To Create An Aids And HIV-Free Generation,
Fighting For LGBT And Quality,
Empowering Tribal Nations,
Caring For Veterans,
Medicare For All,
Strengthen And Expand Social Security,
Fighting To Lower Prescription Drug Prices,
Fighting For Disability Rights,
Etc.

End Quote

[riderinthestorm]

1. K&R! nt

[List left]

2. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[pnwmom]

3. That may be his GOAL, but the EFFECT is he depresses the vote for Democrats

in this 2 party system. You were someone who voted for Hillary after he lost the primary, but we know that others -- after listening to Bernie (and DT) criticize her all the way up till the July convention -- decided to vote for Jill Stein or not at all.

[tecelote]

8. We can't win without Independents.

We're way past the primaries now and Bernie is still fighting for many things we all believe in.

It's not about party support, it's about what you believe.

We need more like him, whether part of our party or not.

[pnwmom]

16. And where is your evidence that he increases the number of Independents who vote Democratic

even though he is once again not a Democrat himself -- so he's hardly making a ringing endorsement.

Some people have always leaned Democratic, and some have always leaned Republican, and some flip back and forth.

Where is your evidence that he will encourage more people to vote for Democrats than otherwise?

[tecelote]

19. Still talking about the primaries?

Let the hate go.

[R B Garr]

41. The post you responded to was about the General election, so why

make it about the primaries. Just because Bernie's name is mentioned doesn't mean it's about the primaries. He's been in the news a lot lately -- making current news.

[Demsrule86]

36. It has to be about party support if you want to win.

Sen. Sanders can talk 'his' issues ( really Democratic issues) all he wants but no one wins the presidency without party support...we will never elect an independent president under our current system. The reason why Trump is in the White House today is because the GOP votes Republican even if they don't like the candidate and many don't like Trump in order to further conservative policy. Until we vote Democratic in all cases as Cary has said, we will continue to lose elections and the Republicans will be able to continue with the destruction of our country. So all this so called 'honesty' and 'constructive' (no such thing) criticism only helps the Republicans and Trump.

[Adrahil]

51. "it's not about party support...."

This belies a fundamental misunderstanding about how American electoral politics work.

And it's why Bernie is doing more harm than good at this point.

[KeepItReal]

12. If people are indeed "depressed", ain't that a reflection of the other candidates...

who fail to inspire people to vote...which is supposed to be their job?

If a Dem wants to primary my Rep. Barbara Lee (good luck with that), I don't feel some kind of way about that person. I'm gonna vote for her until someone with a better platform or track record comes along or she fails to represent my district in DC (see the GOP town halls).

[chwaliszewski]

4. Exactly!!!

That is exactly how I feel about all of this shit lately. Bernie is trying to help. If he calling Democrats on their behavior then maybe their behavior needs to be examined. The colossal brouhaha over him pointing out his disapproval of Obama's fee acceptance from Wall St. is ridiculous in my opinion. I didn't like it when Hillary did it and I don't like it when Obama does it either. Democrats who don't see this as a conflict of principles may be part of this party's problem.

[GulfCoast66]

44. You may be correct

But conversely, Democratic Party members who have a problem with an ex president who will never again hold public office being paid the going rate for a talk may be part of this party's problem.

[Cha]

5. Whatever.. BS goes about them by insulting the Democratic

Party and normalizing trump.

He's divisive and wrong.. so he's not going to get anywhere.

[chwaliszewski]

6. You tell'em, Cha!

Because what we've been doing here in the Democratic party has been working so great these last few elections.

[pnwmom]

18. Voter suppression, including purging, removed millions of mostly minority voters from the rolls.

Are you fine with that? Why aren't we focusing more on that instead of pretending Hillary did so badly, when she was only 70,000 votes behind Obama DESPITE all the vote purging and voter ID laws that occurred since Obama last ran? In 2013 the courts undid most of the Voting Rights act. If that had happened before Obama ran, he might not have been re-elected.

We have a problem that goes way beyond any particular Democratic candidate.

[chwaliszewski]

23. I can play the guilt game, too.

Offering the same old tired ideas, cozying up to Wall Street for campaign funds, allowing Republicans to walk over them. Are you fine with that? Why aren't we focusing more on that instead of blaming the referees for us losing the game?

[pnwmom]

48. Bernie and Hillary negotiated the Democratic platform together, so if you think they were

"tired old ideas" then they were both responsible.

I myself don't think the ideas in the platform were old or tired. And Bernie obviously didn't because he took Hillary's free tuition for up to $125K proposal (not his) and has turned it into legislation that he's already proposed in Congress.

[OnDoutside]

57. So the Democratic Party refuses to take Wall Street money

while the Republicans file their coffers from Wall Street and the likes of the Koch brothers. In the meantime where do Democrats match that funding ? It would be electoral suicide for them to go all Pollyanna.

Yes, make it a promise to ban all such donations IF they get in to a position where they can change the law, but in the meantime they have work within the system they are currently in.

The problem with unreconstructed socialists like Bernie is that it's their way or the highway. Life isn't like that, and it largely explains why he has been outside the circle for 40 years.

[Demsrule86]

34. We had everything in 2008. And then some stayed home and allowed the GOP to take the House and the

governorship's in 10 Hello gerrymander! Some would argue that this was inflicted by the far left ...green types who stayed home and savaged President Obama. In 2016, had Jill Stein not run...Hillary Clinton would be president...she took enough of the vote to throw the election to Trump...and I believe the constant criticism of the Democratic party lost the Democratic Party important votes. We barely lost the electoral college and won the popular vote (3 Million more votes)...so no you can't turn the party upside down and ruin any chance for winning in 18 or 20. If you follow twitter...Democrats are waking up and resisting Trump and the notion that our party should be criticized by those who are not members demoralizes our base and helps Trump/Republicans...proud to be a Democrat...every progressive piece of legislation came from us...and I don't want to hear advice from those who are not Democrats concerning the direction of our party.

[chwaliszewski]

56. Ah, yes. Jill Stein. *sigh*

Had Jill Stein not run, only one thing is absolutely certain: we would have no idea how the election would've turned out. Anything else is speculative. One possibility is if there were not Jill Stein, the people who did vote for her would've either voted for Hillary, Donald, Gary, someone else, or not voted at all. Since this is a democracy, other candidates are free to run for president, just as people are free to vote for who they want. Hence, for whatever reason, Hillary lost, Donald won, everything sucks, and we may be singing this same tune in 4 years if we don't start doing something about it.

[Demsrule86]

59. There was enough votes that Stein took...that would have potentially swung the race to Clinton.

You have to wonder if Stein worked with Flynn and Trump.


?1479834100

[chwaliszewski]

60. Again, you're not getting it.

If Jill did not run, it doesn't mean Hillary would've won. Let it go. This obsessiveness is getting tiresome. Third party candidates are free to run for election in this country but apparently it's only a problem if your candidate doesn't win. Let's focus on 2018. 2016 is over with and cannot be changed.

[Demsrule86]

62. She is spoiler...and a putin girl as well...completely worthless...scammed people about the recount.

I believe she is one of the factors that cost Hillary the electoral college.

[chwaliszewski]

64. Wrong. Again.

Essentially, what you're saying is there should be only 2 presidential candidates to choose from on election day. Any more than that, and the loser can accuse them of being a spoiler. Perhaps, a majority of the people who voted for Jill Stein (whom I do not support, btw) would not have voted for Hillary had it only been her and Donald running in which case your proclamation is merely speculative and not factual. I'm disappointed with Cheetolini as POTUS like you are but seriously, let go of the 'Hillary lost because of Jill' tripe.

[EffieBlack]

61. This

[Ninsianna]

53. So yay! Let's try a whole new method!

How about we betray our core principles, the backbone of our party, emulate the very worst of the other side, support people who are extreme right wing as possible, and let the guy the majority of the party rejected remake it in some image we've already said we don't like.

'Cause THAT's the way we deal with the Voting Right's violations, gerrymandering and an ignorant populace that is easily led to believe whatever lie is whispered to them on Facebook.

Yippie!

[chwaliszewski]

55. We betrayed our core principles when we starting cozying up with Wall St.

We betrayed them when Bill Clinton declared in November of 1999 that the Glass-Steagall law is "no longer appropriate". We betrayed them when elected Democrats vote for the invasion of Iraq, for people like Rex Tillerson, for capitulating to the hollow threats of Republicans. So yes, let's try something different, like going back to our roots.

[Ninsianna]

58. The core principle that's being betrayed here is the commitment to education

betraying it by not knowing what the actual laws are that we're so darned upset about, not having a clue about exactly who voted for what and why such votes left no one at all pure etc.

What does Rex Tillerson have to do with anything?

Our roots require us to actually do our homework, to protect women's rights and to learn history, and economics, and to stop with the shallow slogans and talking points devoid of understanding, knowledge and a commitment to doing what's correct.

So, yeah, let's try going back to our roots and doing our homework before we start just saying stuff cause it sounds all pure and stuff!

Key part of our roots? Supporting women's rights. That's not something we're going to compromise on, no matter what, anyone supporting this is betraying our basic core principles. Those betraying this one also voted for the AUMF, and keep making noises about how we need to become more like the Republicans, to embrace their base, to excuse their misogyny and their racism, to basically betray what we are and what our roots are.

Nah. Let's reject this, and listen to the people who are doing all the marching, first we protect women's basic human rights (that's what all those pink hats were for, it wasn't about a branded "revolution" or people giddy about birds, it was about that "establishment" group that's under attack, WOMEN.

Let's go back to our roots, stop attacking our base, our party and our leaders and stop coddling racists, and fighting the Republicans. We do that by not allowing outsiders to disrupt our unity with their deliberate attacks.

[KTM]

28. Neither Insulting Nor Normalizing

Clearly, to some people here any criticism of the Party whatsoever is "insulting." Some people take any opportunity to spin the news in such a twisted way as to say Bernie was "normalizing" or "praising" Trump when he merely agreed that getting China involved over NK was the correct thing to do. (Whether the method to get it involved is one I would agree with or not, it is the right thing.) Or they try to make the fallacious argument that defending Ann Coulter's right to speak is the same as supporting her words and beliefs. That kind of intentionally obtuse spinning, that turns a real event on its head and attempts to falsely characterize what happened, then repeat ad nauseum to smear an opponent, is classic Fox News.

Ive heard the following said... sadly, in the past it was how I saw Republicans vs Democrats. Unfortunately here it more aptly refers to a certain small cadre of Democrats as well:

Some people love their country (party) the way a child loves its mother - "My mommy is the bestest and smartest and whatever she does is right no matter what anyone says!'

Some people love their country (party) the way a mother loves her child - "My child has the potential to be the bestest and the smartest, to be the most amazing... and I am going to do everything I can to teach and admonish and guide her, and will correct her course to see that she lives up to her full potential."

Wanting the Democratic Party to live up to the ideals it was built upon is not insulting. Admonishing it when it behaves counter to its core is not detracting. Telling it is wrong sometimes is necessary to ensure it reaches the true potential we all want and need it to achieve.

[Cha]

29. BS calling the Democratic Party "feeble" and "they can't

fight back" and the "Democratic Party of the elite" just plays into the Fascistrump's hands.

[KTM]

31. Perhaps you dont remember

The avatars of pink tutus on Tom Daschle ? Or the early-DU days effort to send plastic spines to congress ? Or the general outrage over "keeping our powder dry" and "impeachment is off the table?"

Maybe you think it possible to correct the course of a boat without touching the rudder... i dont. If the Democratic Party cant be criticized and cant be corrected, it cannot be steered. We've lost hundreds and hundreds of seats, we have lower approval ratings that the opposition, and one of our most seasoned leaders just lost a "change" election to a man who cant speak at a 5th grade level.

The truth is, the Dems have some issues that need fixing, and calling them out over them is needed. If our party is made up of people who simply cant take criticism, we are doomed.

[mythology]

35. Those efforts to send plastic spines were utterly stupid

I'm not sure why you think replicating that is helpful.

The Democratic party can absolutely be criticized. But Sanders acts like it's almost as bad to be a Democrat as a Republican. He also does so while offering pie in the sky unfunded "plans" where the money comes from nowhere.

And if you want to talk about not being able to take criticism, Sanders supporters get awfully grumpy when he gets criticized.

[KTM]

37. When the criticism is as twisted as Fox News, yeah.

Anyone who can argue with a straight face that Bernie was "defending" Ann Coulter needs to apply for Bill O'Reilly's job. It is a blatant and transparent effort to divide the party, and some posters seem to spend their entire days doing it. SOME posters latch on to every false Fox-twisted lie they can and spam the board about it all day long, and yeah, that shit should be refuted. SOME people make their day out of Bernie-hate, but wont take on any of the policy issues like the OP expressed, just spam spam spam all day with clearly slanted (blatantly twisted out of context) reposts.

I support the Democratic Party, and want it to be MUCH more successful than it has over the last 20 years - as such I feel it should be on the receiving end of every true critique that it earns. Since 2002 we have been using this forum to do that, and those who think "Never ever criticize The Party" is the way it should be either havent been paying attention or are VERY selective in the criticism they call out.

[JudyM]

52. Sing it. Couldn't agree more.

[BigBearJohn]

7. G*O*D*B*L*E*S*S*Y*O*U!!!!!!

Thanks for the breath of sanity. Phew.

It's so damn easy to criticize Bernie from your living room.
Let's see the complainers get out there and make a real difference.
It's so easy to sit up on your high horse and tell Bernie how he should
run his political life.

My question to you is: What the hell are YOU doing about the political situation?

Bernie is a 75-year-old man who is dedicating his LIFE to make
this a better world in which to live. He may err, but at least
he is giving it his best. He could be sitting on his front porch
spending time with his grand kids and enjoying the good life.
But instead, he is out there fighting so his grandchildren can have
a decent future. And God bless him for it. Can you say the same?

Just sayin...

[Highway61]

27. ...

Totally agree 👍🏻

[seaglass]

9. He should step down from the Outreach role and he should not have participated in the Unity tour.

He is neither outreaching to pull more people into the Democratic party nor unifying the party.

I think you would find that there aren't a whole lot of people who would disagree with Bernie's goals generally, they aren't new or original really. It's him, there is simply zero evidence that he is capable of accomplishing any of them.

[stevenleser]

65. OP is wrong and your response shows why. Sanders absolutely accepted a leadership role

with the party and no one put a gun to his head to do it.

Sanders and his supporters want to have it both ways and nothing makes that more clear than this OP and your response. They want Sanders to be given leadership roles in the party but they don't want him and his performance evaluated as if he is a leader with all the responsibility that it entails.

It won't work and that is why Sanders failed and why he needs to choose whether he is against the party or a leader for it.

[democrank]

10. Thank you for this post.

~PEACE~

[HootieMcBoob]

11. Thank you!!!

KR

[m-lekktor]

13. K+Rnt

[NurseJackie]

14. LOL

[RDANGELO]

15. His campaign proved that the total breakaway can work.

He was able to raise a remarkable amount of money.

[WinkyDink]

17. Reagan did not "crush unions." He dismantled one, the Air Traffic Controllers.

[Quixote1818]

39. Sure, it's more complicated than what I wrote but I was trying to stay focused

I could have expressed myself better but his actions pretty much pulled the rug out of unions in a way that lead to their demise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html


However, a lot of Democrats were already abandoning Unions before that as this article points out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/28/1638599/-Whatever-Happened-to-Unions-Ronald-Reagan


My main point was that the Democratic Party got to a point where it was no longer bound to Unions and started getting the bulk of its funding from the banks and Wall Street. When this shift started taking place it was the beginning of the long term demise of the middle class and a shift in things Democrats had traditionally fraught for.

[leftofcool]

20. Don't tell me what to think or where I belong.

I'm glad you believe in Sanders. I don't believe a word he says. And that is that.

[Quixote1818]

43. My apologies, I took that last part off

I had cut and pasted the words of another DUer but the end of there quote was not expressed in a uniting way.

[Highway61]

21. Very well said

Thank you. I posted the other day and i worded it all wrong. Boy, did I get hammered. But what you stated here is spot on! Sometimes I should not post at all ... I'm not that great in expressing myself as some here are. The issues listed are exactly what we should all be fighting for. Bernie is not perfect, but he fought for those issues without the backing of big money. I admired him for that. Again, good post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. His raison d'etre, like anybody to the left of Genghis Khan , should be to see Trump defeated .

[QC]

30. Very true. That should also apply to the people here

who seem not to know that the primaries ended almost a year ago.

[Demsrule86]

33. I have no interest in primaries, but when I hear someone praising Trump for his awful Korean policy,

I am surprised and I believe it undermines the resistance.

[QC]

38. Praise?

To say that if someone is doing what the U.S. has been doing for years then that's a good thing is not praise. It suggests a strong measure of doubt, for one thing, along with what should be a common sense observation that diplomacy is better than war.

You honestly consider that praise?

Really?

The fact that the president is a toddler with Oppositional Defiant Disorder doesn't mean we can emulate him. Lives, possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions, are at stake. This isn't two cliques squabbling over the cool kidz table in the cafeteria.

[Demsrule86]

42. Yes praise and it has been repeated ad nauseum by the right wing.

"China is, in fact, the key," Sanders continued. "People have been working on China for years. If Trump is doing that, he's doing the right thing."

Trump has done a lousy job with North Korea.

[panader0]

45. China IS in fact the key.

Why is that so hard for so many here to see? Because Bernie said it?
And the key word every Bernie basher seems to miss is "IF".
That's not praise for Trump for God's sake. Jeez.

[Demsrule86]

49. He said Trump was right...that is what the point is...he could have said the 'key is China'.

No one would disagree...but instead he said "Trump is on the right Track".

[ms liberty]

24. Well said. n/t

[brer cat]

25. "Who does not agree with the issues above?

if any people disagree with the above messages, then they belong in another party, perhaps another country."

Sanders' supporters keep trotting out this false dichotomy. If you don't support Bernie, you must not support an increase in minimum wage, or eliminating the burden of crippling student debt, or ...on and on. No rational thinking person is going to fall for that fallacy, and in fact using that argument only increases dissension. It's no different than saying "Hitler like opera, so if you enjoy opera you must believe in killing Jews and gays."

Your binary argument about Wall Street and large donors is equally fallacious. Money in politics is not simply a black/white issue, and to frame it that way is naive. It is possible to oppose big donors in political campaigns and not believe that Bernie is the only alternative to being in bed with Wall Street. Another example: I would like to see big donors out of politics yet I also think Bernie was being sanctimonious in criticizing President Obama for accepting a fee for a speech to a firm on Wall Street. There is nothing irrational or illogical about my holding both of those positions.

Trying to establish that Bernie and his supporters are the only ones with moral high ground is disingenuous and contributes greatly to the vitriol around here that you attempt to blame solely on your perceived "Bernie bashing."

I enjoy opera, but Hitler is still an asshole.

[Demsrule86]

32. Not this again...people support the issues...Democratic party issues in fact.

They don't support Throwing women under the bus in terms of abortion, Criticizing President Obama, criticizing the Democratic Party and praising Trump for his clearly disjointed almost hysterical Korean policy. Sen. Sanders can't decide on what our party...the Democratic party should or should not do as he is not a member of the party.

[KTM]

46. The problem is your assumption of a monolithic "They"

Who is this "They" you refer to ? Im a people... as a matter fact, I am also a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Obama, twice. I cried the first time he got elected, I was truly overjoyed. I've spent eight years defending him against baseless crap, lies spewed out by conservative media and parroted at the pub by ill-informed ditto-heads.

I have *also* criticized him many times. I think he should have pushed for single payer. I think he should have shuttered Gitmo. I think his support of the TPP was the wrong path for the country's future. And yes, I think accepting a huge corporate speaking fee tarnishes his image - and by extension that of the party - in the minds of many of the new voters whose support we most certainly will need. Whether I personally think he should or should not have spoken is irrelevant - I still recognize that to many others, it looks bad, and I understand why they feel that way.

You make this statement that *seems* to impute the notion that "Real Democrats dont criticize Obama/The Party." Those "real democrats" are your monolithic "They." That is nonsense. Look back at the primary, regardless of which candidate you supported, and recognize that almost half of the party didn't agree with you. We are not a They.

*This* Democrat understands that in a contest between two very conservative options, the more liberal will get my support, even if I still disagree with them on some things.

*This* Democrat understands that saying "IF he does this, then that is the right thing to do" isn't praise.

*This* Democrat understands that calling out something you disagree with, even when someone you like did it, is how you support a cause.

And *this* Democrat thinks its craven and cowardly to attempt to snuff out criticism for fear of reproach.

[QC]

40. Thank you for trying to start an intelligent discussion of issues here.

Last edited Sun Apr 30, 2017, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I admire your optimism.

[lovemydogs]

47. Quixote1818, I am an FDR Democrat as well!

I've been since the 80s. I feel the New Deal was the ultimate in equality and fairness.
It was brilliant.
That's why business and republicans despised it so much.
They are in love with the Robber Barron era. The New Deal was popular and worked and it destroyed their dream of continuing with income inequality and the rule of the powerful.
Suddenly the little guy had a voice.
It created the largest middle class and a good society

[Expecting Rain]

54. I don't see any simarlity between FDR and Bernie Sanders

FDR was an internationalist and anti-isolationist.
Bernie Sanders is an isolationist.

FDR was an anti-populist and called demogogues like Huey Long dangerous.
Bernie Sanders is a populist and acts much like FDR's enemy Huey Long.

FDR despised nativists.
Bernie Sanders is a nativist.

FDR wanted to strengthen capitalism through reform, and wan't a socialist.
Bernie Sanders seems to think capitalism should make way from socialism.

FDR was accused of being a plutocrat by Leftists in his day.
Bernie Sanders accuses Democrats of being plutocrats today.

So, I'm seeing a a comple disconnect by those attempting to wear (steal?) FDR's mantle. I think FDR would view Sanders as a modern day Huey Long, and Huey Long was FDR's least favorite American politician.

As to Bernie not needing to worry biting the hand that feeds him, is that so?

Seems to me he promises a lot of free stuff: free college, healthcare, free medical marijuana, and higher wages to the people who sent him $27. Has he ever told his audience they'd need to work hard or sacrifice anything for the common good?

Or is it all about what the 1% were going to fund frm their bank accounts is he gets his way?

To me that sounds like pandering to those who supply your campaign funds. Has it ever told his supporters one hard truth? Can't think of one time such a thing happened.

[uponit7771]

63. *******DING DING DING DING DING !!!! ****** FACT FILLED POST !!!!

[stevenleser]

66. Seaglass' #9 nails why your OP has it wrong and obviously so. Nt