General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFact: Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that pass.
Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 09:39 PM - Edit history (2)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/two-gop-senators-have-new-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-as-clock-ticks.htmlLink to tweet
Heres what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clintons 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that pass
Of course, Sanders is not formally a member of the Democratic Party even though he caucuses with the Democrats in Congress. This may have created some tension with the Democratic leadership and cost him opportunities to pass bills.
Another way members of Congress can influence legislative outcomes is to amend a bill someone else has sponsored, particularly in the Senate. The rules in the Senate allow for much more and freer amending activity than in the House, so senators introduce (and pass) many more amendments than House members do.
Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clintons is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanderss is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.790f92bd5453
Edit my post to point out the following:
why is this op important...because Sanders singel payer bill has no specifics on how to pay for it. whose taxes go up? by how much?
And now GOP sees fresh opening with Dems' single payer embrace...
Just as I wrote in my op
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029590993
To quote:
"the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already were seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasnt even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), itll just fall apart. Its the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, youll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.
At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.
At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.
We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.
According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020. "
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/350935-gop-sees-fresh-opening-with-dems-single-payer-embrace
"Were absolutely ecstatic that the Democratic party is embracing single payer, and I think theres a stark contrast developing at a time when the Republican party is focusing on cutting taxes, the Democratic party is focused on adding trillions of dollars of spending and advocating for socialized medicine, said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP-approved super PAC.
The CLF, which plans on spending $100 million during the 2018 election cycle to protect Republican seats in the House, plans to spend a portion of that on ads tying Democrats to single payer. Thats twice as much as they spent in 2016. We have $50 million dedicated to attacking Nancy Pelosi. Were just working through what portion of that can we use to explaining how harmful single payer will be to the American people, Bliss said.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)influenced by lobbyists. Tell me something I don't know.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)genuine, even when they coincide with something that very influential industries/people are in favor of, or at least what those industries prefer over alternatives, doesn't mean that the influence of that money has no impact on who rises to the top, affecting as a result, what philosophy holds power in Washington. People don't have to be corrupt to benefit from the broken system, they just have to be favorable to those powers in a position to king-make.
Cary
(11,746 posts)If we vote it doesn't matter how much money is thrown at Democrats.
The only real solution is 100% publicly funded elections. The only way to get that would be overwhelming public support. And I bet dollars to donuts that even if we somehow managed to get 100% public funding, the radical left would still complain and agitate.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)into following politics and you know whats going on and what's up you can make a relatively informed decision. For the rest of the public, money is spent to inform them either accurately or inaccurately on the candidates, and they end up basing their decisions on the narrative or opposing narratives that money has bought.
There's no such thing as utopia, so damn straight I hope there are always people agitating for something better.
Cary
(11,746 posts)That's how much say you get. No more, no less.
"Better" isn't up to you, or any single person. We have to be part of the winning coalition to have our say. That requires compromise and humility and respect and discipline.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)count only as much as I do though, you are sorely mistaken.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Do you want to affect change, or do you want to.chase windmills?
You can do one or.the other. You can't do both. This is a fact of life, always and everywhere. That's true because it's true, not because I say it's true.
ImpeachTheGOP
(89 posts)Because that would be incredibly naïve.
onit2day
(1,201 posts)passed without taking credit...getting it done and letting others take the credit according to multiple senators, republican and democratic.
Another attack Bernie post by twisted minds.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)lord forbid the democratic party stood for healthcare being a human right....
because according to this op the repubs wouldn't like that
<rolls eyes>
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)It's like they have no freaking clue what the party has stood for on the healthcare front, in their platform, their advocacy and their actions for decades.
The republicans don't like that, it's why they attack the Democratic party, it's really weird that the party is being attacked FOR fighting for universal healthcare by external forces, and those external forces are joined by some rather clueless people who are attacking the party for supposedly being against it, against pretty much all evidence to the contrary.
Nonsensical attacks, both insane and both literally averse to understanding what the party stands for, with the "christian right wing" in the GOP and the "purists" who both prefer to ignore then fact that the Democratic position was always moral and purist on this issue.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)honey bucket
(5 posts)Sanders has a poor history in his Senate votes.
NO on
Amber Alert
Gun Control-5 No votes
Immigration Bill
Russian Sanctions 2 NO votes
Raped Women's health care
etc etc etc.
He and his wife are also profiting from her being on a Nuclear Commission in Texas
This commission ignored Latino resident pleas to not locate Nuclear in their neighborhood
but this commission just ignored the people who live there.
And there are lots more No votes that are really the votes of a man who doesn't know how to compromise
and work well with others.
His health care bill is the one we didn't like because it would tax most one hell of a lot more and a bill that Sanders
still can't explain how he'll pay for.
This is why Sanders (a man who took many millions in foreign donations), lost and would lose again.
We just don't like him or his crooked wife.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)And he fought vigorously to pass it.
I didn't know about the Amber Alert...wow, just wow.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)and this is why Bernie voted no. Be aware that Dems cried foul when Republicans did this and Lehay was specifically vocal on it.
"After months and months of trying, we've finally gotten a green light for a national Amber Alert program," Leahy said in his April 10, 2003, statement. "The problem has never been winning enough support to pass it. The problem has been that our bill has garnered such strong support that it has been abused as a sweetener for highly controversial add-ons."
Among the add-ons placed on the bill by House Republicans was one restricting the discretion of federal judges in crafting sentences for a range of crimes.
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/09/21/sanders_vote_on_amber_alert_emerges_as_key_campaign_issue/
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)should be approved, nothing would ever get done.
The Amber Alert became law. It has saved lives. Would it really be worth it if those children who have been saved by the Amber Alert had been murdered because Republicans piggybacked legislation onto it?
As I said, the Amber Alert has saved many children from being murdered...can you tell me what has been the harm brought by it?
womanofthehills
(8,764 posts)As far as the Amber Alert he felt it should be left to the judiciary as the bill would take powers away from the judiciary.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Since when does legislation work like that?
The Amber Alert bill passed. Was that a bad thing? What damage has it caused?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)"wrong" per say, certainly at odds with my own perspective. I have no idea why he voted no on the amber alert thing but that is highly unlikely to have anything to do with lobbyist ties or anything other than his actual opinion on the bill. Maybe he had good justifications, ultimately wrong or right, for not voting on that, but I'm not interested in looking them up, because again, there's no good cynical spin for why somebody might vote the way he did(or at least I can't think of any).
As to purity...its more of the same BS. A bill does not have to be pure, nor does a candidate, or did you forget that Sanders endorsed Clinton who supposedly failed that purity test, and promoted the ACA and voted for it, etc. The "purity" bs has no bearing on fact. The question to be asked isn't whether a bill is perfect, but whether the sum of its parts is worse or better for people, or whether there is any good justification for the harmful part.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)View profile
"wrong" per say, certainly at odds with my own perspective. I have no idea why he voted no on the amber alert thing but that is highly unlikely to have anything to do with lobbyist ties or anything other than his actual opinion on the bill. Maybe he had good justifications, ultimately wrong or right, for not voting on that, but I'm not interested in looking them up, because again, there's no good cynical spin for why somebody might vote the way he did(or at least I can't think of any).
As to purity...its more of the same BS. A bill does not have to be pure, nor does a candidate, or did you forget that Sanders endorsed Clinton who supposedly failed that purity test, and promoted the ACA and voted for it, etc. The "purity" bs has no bearing on fact. The question to be asked isn't whether a bill is perfect, but whether the sum of its parts is worse or better for people, or whether there is any good justification for the harmful part.
And what is the answer to this question regarding the Amber Alert?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)But for some reason you only want to see things at face value, I wonder why.
How exactly are the Sanders benefiting from Jane being on a nuclear commission in TX? I'll give you one guess who signed that bill into law. Of course you're also forgetting that there was support from the community itself over this https://www.c-span.org/congress/bills/billAction/?print/1410681
Bernie doesn't know how to work well with others? You're damn right he doesn't and in my eyes and many others, we don't want to him work well with others, specifically Republicans, either. We want Bernie to be a damn lightning rod and nothing but. "He who knocks" if you will, the guy who has stood fast for ages with the same core beliefs and principles as he has always had, never wavering. This is why he is so popular.
You're worried about taxes? Seriously? Taxes. The taxes are less than what you pay for now health care. This is a RW point of view you have here. There are no co-pays with Medicare For All, perhaps you aren't aware of this. You pay nothing out of pocket. Any current system which exists doesn't even have that. Bernie has fully explained how he'd pay for it. Here are a few highlights of just how he would pay for it;
Business payroll tax : $3.9 trillion over 10 years. Companies would pay a 7.5% income-based fee, but Sanders asserts it would cost them less overall compared to the current system.
Household premiums : $3.4 trillion over 10 years. Families would pay a 4% income-based fee, considerably less than what they pay now.
Higher taxes on the rich : $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Raise marginal rates to as high as 52% on the richest Americans. The current top rate is about 39.6%. Also, limit deductions and treat taxes on dividends and capital gains equally.
A new net wealth tax : $1.3 trillion over 10 years. This new tax would apply to the wealthiest 0.1%, or 160,000 households. A 1% annual tax would be applied to net worth exceeding $21 million.
One-time tax on offshore profits : $767 billion over 10 years. Sanders wants to tax profits of Americans companies that are earned and held in other countries. These profits are not taxed until they are returned home under current U.S. law.
Increased estate taxes: $249 billion over 10 years.
Fee on large Wall Street banks : $117 billion over 10 years. The six largest U..S. financial institutions would get the bill.
We'll disagree on if Bernie would lose again. "We don't like him", is who exactly? The 8% who see him negatively? You are very much a minority. He's the most popular politician in office today. Sorry you dislike the guy who fights like hell for the everyday average Joe along with the poor. Hopefully you'll see the error of your ways
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Is that kind of thing helpful?
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)often in deeply hostile and offensive terms. As were Hillary's. Yet there's no special exception in the DU rules shielding either of them from anything. There is only one such exception.
Go figure.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that there's no reason to be treating him as an opponent.
And there's no reason to keep the Bernie v. Hillary dynamic going anymore-there's room for both of them and there's room for all their supporters. We can't win without all their supporters.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)forgive this...it should never have been put out now...a couple of weeks fine...but not now.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)etc, or "give me a reason to vote for x, y or z" then boy, do we have a problem
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Beartracks
(12,821 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... should be focusing on the multiple threats to the ACA. The public should be ANGRY and CALLING their political representatives.
But, instead, they're ooh-ing and aah-ing at the bright shiny object that HAS NO CHANCE OF PASSING within the next 20-30 years.
Meanwhile, the distracted public applies NO pressure to lawmakers who effortlessly disassemble the ACA's components until it collapses.
This bullshit go-nowhere MFA bill IS A DISTRACTION and it's a THREAT to the ACA.
MFA will never pass without a strong and robust ACA. If the ACA fails or collapses, the GOP will use its failure as a reason to oppose MFA.
The timing of the MFA bill was wrong-headed. In my opinion it's grandstanding when EVERYONE knows it stands no chance of being passed or even voted on. It's not even useful as a bargaining chip.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and Hillary Clinton a "corporate Wall Street", a phrase picked up by Dr. Song months later.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Either these are self-loathing liberals, or right wingers sowing discord and discontent.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)He is still in government and he is working for good causes... just as she did.
Cut the shit, stop tying to divide.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It was embraced by the RW and Trump took the hint and now we're out of the loop. Not good at all.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)portrayed. Demonizing Democrats hasn't worked out and is very divisive.
lapucelle
(18,319 posts)It's been happening with the term "single payer" all week. Many confuse it with "universal coverage" which has been a Democratic party core value since 1993.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Bill Clinton over NAFTA, but no one really called him out or said anything about asking him to justify his remarks. And I have noticed that about universal coverage, as well. Another poster had a link to Bill Clinton's universal coverage from 1993 I believe, and it certainly is a core Democratic value. Very progressive for the time. Ironically, I've been seeing those CNN reruns about the '90's and they are almost exclusively about Clinton's presidency and the fight for health care. Very, very progressive for that time period.
lapucelle
(18,319 posts)if they were to get a health care bill passed.
They wooed and courted everyone in the House. Unfortunately, not all congressmen were on board.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Opposition to the TPP was the only position you could take and be on the side of working people-and there was no difference in attitude on TPP between workers of different races-the working class, as a class, was against it.
If we'd simply put our nominee's primary position on that into the platform and the ads, we would never have lost the Upper Midwest.
That's just reality.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And yes there is a direct link to today's events, in that the MFA bill is timed to deliver a coup de grace to the ACA in the last days of the GOP window to use reconciliation to repeal it. In other words it uses an ersatz appeal to "progressivism" to assist in the wrecking of a vitally important Democratic initiative.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)which is always a right wing concept now, because it now means that social benefits and state funding for education can be challenged by corporations as "subsidies".
We never needed to force other countries to cut social spending, educational spending, relax labor law enforcement and loosen environmental regulations just to have access to their markets.
And what's actually reactionary is putting "containing China" ahead of defending working people.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)for the protection of intellectual property, services and investments, labor rights, and the environment. Its title was "Transpacific Partnership." Its purpose was to create export markets for US goods and services while safeguarding the worker rights and environment of partner nations. You really ought to familiarize yourself with what it was and forget what RWNJs like Julian Assange pretended it was. Unfortunately the original TPP links are no longer functional but there's a lot of material in my own DU links which are collected here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6793235
Or the short link in my signature: http://goo.gl/SibdqS
haveahart
(905 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)of getting single payer anytime soon...and without the ACA millions will die.
Exactly.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)dump nuclear wast on the poorest community...were those good causes?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)He's not perfect, never will be. I don't pretend he, or really any politician is, sorry.
kacekwl
(7,021 posts)More B.S.
factfinder_77
(841 posts)His singel payer bill has no specifics on how to pay for it. whose taxes go up? by how much?
And now GOP sees fresh opening with Dems' single payer embrace...
Just as I wrote in my op
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029590993
To quote:
"ow the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already were seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasnt even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), itll just fall apart. Its the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, youll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.
At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.
At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.
We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.
According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020. "
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/350935-gop-sees-fresh-opening-with-dems-single-payer-embrace
"Were absolutely ecstatic that the Democratic party is embracing single payer, and I think theres a stark contrast developing at a time when the Republican party is focusing on cutting taxes, the Democratic party is focused on adding trillions of dollars of spending and advocating for socialized medicine, said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP-approved super PAC.
The CLF, which plans on spending $100 million during the 2018 election cycle to protect Republican seats in the House, plans to spend a portion of that on ads tying Democrats to single payer. Thats twice as much as they spent in 2016. We have $50 million dedicated to attacking Nancy Pelosi. Were just working through what portion of that can we use to explaining how harmful single payer will be to the American people, Bliss said.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The Sanders/Clinton fight is the past, for God's sakes.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)It's about what the OP stated very clearly.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why should we be comparing the two anymore at all?
What difference does it make whether Hillary got stuff she sponsored passed?
Why pit Hillary against Bernie at all anymore?
They both have a right to be here and this party can only lose ground by telling either of them to go to hell.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)bill will be defined by the GOP because of lack of specifics about funding. That is a serious flaw and consideration. This is just one of many articles about it available.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(In a Republican Congress, no Democrats got any important bills they sponsored passed-I don't think even Teddy managed to do so).
OK?
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)legislative record on Democratic Underground. That's quite an odd thing to go off on just because Bernie sponsored a bill and someone is pointing out his record. Other Democrats are going to be mentioned, and they all should feel welcome. We need to make sure all good Democrats are welcomed and their supporters made to feel accepted and happy.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They both have a legitimate place, they both have things to say and we need to get their supporters united for the future. There's no reason to pit them against each other anymore.
Can't we just move past that.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)You should take your own advice and "move past that."
Your main concern is obviously about Bernie, so you should take your own advice. Hillary has a book out now that you continue to misrepresent as refighting the primaries whenever someone posts about it. She is a great Democrat and is still wildly popular as seen by the lines for her book and cable ratings from the Rachel Maddow show for her appearance.
Ironically, this is what you said in another thread:
"And posts defending Bernie's presence in the 2016 race, or against what a poster sees as unfair attack, or for that matter posts simply arguing that ideas associated with his campaign(none of which originated there, btw) should not automatically be equated with "refighting the primary"."
edit: Here was my takeaway from this OP, nothing to do with Hillary:
"the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already were seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If if was, I wouldn't have repeatedly said that he shouldn't run for president again.
My actual main concern is about not wanting the party to alienate active Sanders supporters, to avoid driving them away from politics and dismissing what they care about.
We need them, and we need their ideas, ALONG WITH THE IDEAS OF OTHERS IN THE PARTY, to win.
As a party, we WILL drive them away forever, we WILL convince them that political involvement is bogus(particularly the youngest among them, the people we MOST need to have in our tent of any of them and the ones we are most likely to lose)if the party does what some want and anathemizes not only Bernie as an individual-but any and all ideas with any connection to his campaign.
We can't ever win another election if we do what some here want and say that all Sanders-related ideas are off limits(which would leave us with only moderate conservative policies on economics, btw, since it would mean we would even be renouncing anything connected to Keynseniasm and leave us with a tie to corporate power that no progressive party should ever have), hide any progressive ideas in our platform and refuse to defend progressive or liberal ideas when they are under right-wing attack, make ourselves look as conservative as possible in the fall campaigns, and then double down on loudly demanding that people who were more progressive than we were or than we were trying to look vote for us simply because the other side is horrible-in other words, make every future campaign a "stop the villain" campaign.
That's the approach that was used against Reagan in California in 1966 and 1970. Failed badly both times.
That's the approach that was used against Reagan nationally in 1980 and 1984. Failed badly both times.
That's the approach that was used against Bush the First in 1988. Failed badly.
1992 and 1996, we won on the candidate's personal charisma, an actual fight-back against right-wing attackers(the rapid-response team), and, in 1992, a pledge for universal healthcare.
The approach listed above was what failed(at least in the Electoral College) in 2000.
It failed in 2004.
It failed in 2016.
Nothing against the candidates themselves in saying that, they were great people. It's the strategy I'm talking about.
I want us to stop Trump and stop everything he wants done.
But why stay with what has failed for fifty years?
Whoever we nominate(and it will be someone from a younger generation in 2020), why not try something else, given that what we've been doing, other than the variations in the routine Obama brought in, generally isn't helping us?
I support Hillary's right to speak...there was only one small section of her book about whith I raised respectful concerns. I don't support the people protesting
her book signings or anything like that.
And no, my main
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)and the talking points that lost by millions of votes in 2016. I also saw your ATA post that was worded in definite support of Bernie and was obviously worded in a way to imply Bernie was victimized, "lashing out at Bernie" and other such accusations. Your continued implications and insistence that Bernie is being victimized is divisive. You claim to be about unity, but your posts are worded otherwise.
You should take your own advice and quit making this a Hillary v. Bernie thing. Hillary is a good Democrat, and it's okay that people support her and her recent book.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)associated with his campaign, and only run on the ideas we'd have had in the platform had his campaign never happened.
What we'd have had without that were mildly progressive things that didn't ask anything of the wealthy-they and were and are worth being part of what we need to be about in the future, but they were never going to be enough to elect us by themselves. Therefore, we can't win solely on those ideas.
The only way forward is to treat the ideas of both campaigns as being of equal esteem and equal legitimacy within the party. The ideas are separate from the persons and there's no reason to feel any actual hostility to the ideas themselves.
Hillary, in her anti-Sanders passage in the book, admitted that the ideas themselves were valid and should be part of what we are about.
We can't win if we make this a party where the ideas of the 2016 Clinton campaign are legitimate and the ideas of the Sanders campaign(ideas that seem to be supported by most Dems now, at least on economics)are not.
What is so terrible about the actual ideas? A lot of people who preferred Hillary actually supported the economic ideas.
And it's absurd to argue that post-1981 capitalism is more anti-oppression than social democracy. Post-1981 capitalism, after what Reagan did to it in removing all humane values from it, can't defend reproductive choice or fight racism, sexism and anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The only things that can fight that are outside the realm of private profit.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)C'mon now.
You aren't advocating "equal esteem" and "equal legitimacy". This just looks like a way to keep fighting over a campaign that lost by 3 Million votes. These are all emotional arguments you are making and not based on what actually transpired. There is no "both campaigns" anymore. The second place candidate does not advance.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It proves the defeat of the candidate isn't the rejection of the ideas.
The ideas are separate from the candidate and the ideas advance.
I don't have to treat the ideas as rejected to accept the nomination of HRC-and continuing the ideas isn't an insult to her or her supporters.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)rejecting reality to push a false "equal integrity" mantra, which implies that people are being treated unfairly. There are no "both campaigns" anymore because the person who placed second didn't advance. Hillary bent over backwards to work together with Sanders in implementing some of his ideas. Lots of politicians do that. But if those "ideas" mean constant undermining of Democrats, then it's okay to reject them if they don't help get Democrats get elected. Democrats should be made to feel welcome in the party, too, and feel that their majority is being respected and appreciated and listened to.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't undermine Democrats for us to recognize that social democracy is party of our future.
The only way we can defeat sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, lslamophobia and any other related phobias is to return to the levels of job security and economic stability that we had in the mid-Sixties.
A society in which even the hardest-working people go to be every night knowing they could be put out of work at any time and have to travel the country simply to find some way to survive on a day-to-day basis can't be a society free of prejudice and hatred. It can't be a society in which backlash is stopped.
We obviously need to center the fight against bigotry, and nobody in this side of the spectrum is saying or even thinking not to.
Rather than sniping at people like me, why not offer suggestions as to how to adjust social democratic ideas to make sure no one is excluded or privileged by identity? That's something we can work together to achieve. And most of us on the Left at supportive of reparations-I always have been personally-so let's bring that in, too.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)supported Hillary Clinton in overwhelming majorities against both male opponents. That is reality.
The rest is a lot of tangential thinking, but I like how you tie it all in together that I am sniping at you. The duplicity is fascinating on many levels.
Oh, and I'm sure that some people who have very good jobs and economic stability are still racists, like Trump for instance.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody disputes that. Nor does anyone on our side of the spectrum minimize racism as an issue.
It's just that full-employment societies are going to be less bigoted than societies where people are economically uncertain. Saying that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against bigotry no matter what.
We're all united on the need to center the fight against bigotry.
And I fully agree that HRC won the nomination. The contest between HRC and Bernie as individuals and candidates is permanently over.
We are all past that.
What we're talking about is the future.
A fight against social injustice and a fight against economic injustice BOTH need to be part of that future.
That's all I'm saying.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)which is about legislative accomplishments. You have to actually get elected to get your agendas enacted, so let's quit tearing Democrats down since that serves no purpose.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)Here's what the opstated very clearly, in the OP's own words:
Clinton was mentioned 4 times, in that paragraph alone, and the OP would have to work hard to make it much more explicit that it is about Clinton v. Sanders than the OP did in this paragrph.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)I read much more of the OP, and I obviously missed an edit. But is this seriously all you comprehended?
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)and that Clinton wasn't mentioned and implied the reference to Clinton must have been added later
You didn't miss an edit. The paragraph I quoted was one of 4 original paragraphs in the OP, the first of which also mentioned Clinton. twice. It is very clear that the OP explicitly started this thread to continue the primary fight and/or bash Sanders.
I'm tired of every other thread being started by people who can't let go of the primary, and have to start daily threads blaming Trump on Sanders. I'm tired of these threads being pumped up by people who deny the express langauge of the OPs, and of juries who can't read the TOS to see that Sanders is to be treated as a Democrat here. Continuing the primary battle is against the TOS. Bashing Bernie is against the TOS. The primary (not to mention the general election) is over.
We have better things to do - like getting all hands on deck to ensure that Republicans don't repeal the ACA in the next 14 days.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)records. It's not about the primaries. I also typed way more than what you are focusing on, but I've seen this before where it becomes about some nit that can be picked instead of the overall message of the thread.
I see you talk a lot about what bothers you and that is very beneficial for you. Unfortunately, I can't do that, but there is no reason for people to have to stifle themselves about the record of a United States Senator.
mythology
(9,527 posts)you are simply wrong. If this wasn't about comparing Sanders to Clinton, then all the OP had to do was mention the median Senator. The OP decided to do differently. It's patently absurd to claim this isn't about comparing to two.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)could be decades.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There was never a supermajority to pass them in his entire Congressional career.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)His biggest regret is he felt during the Carter years, they missed a chance for healthcare...she told me this...had discussed it with him. Ted Kennedy worked hard his entire life to get healthcare... he would never have introduced a single payer bill at this time when it is critical to save the ACA...and if we don't save it...there will be no health care and in this situation,we also lose Medicaid. It was a terrible idea and I hope...millions don't lose any health care and die because of it. There is no doubt in my mind had we fought for the ACA instead of having a single payer bill, we would have a better chance.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)
The heck with MFA. Go pound sand Warren, Ellison, Booker and Franken! Why? Because Bernie is fighting like hell for this.
And if it doesn't pass this time---forget it! Go passive!
Being sarcasitic BTW.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)can work. Otherwise what is the point?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)in its current form.
It's enough that that's the short-term thing.
Everyone backing MFA is working to save the ACA in the short-term.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)introduced. Already, it begins-the GOP attacks...this may cost us the ACA and the coming elections ...so foolish...where is the fix the ACA bill? If the ACA goes down , there will be hell to pay for not putting out a fix and putting out single payer. at such a critical time...when it had no chance to pass.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was the responsibility, more than anything else, of those who argued for the ACA approach over single-payer to start with. Single-payer advocates didn't have a greater responsibility for introducing an ACA repair bill than the people who said that the ACA was the best we could get in 2010.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)But live people depend on the ACA. Personally I doubt I can ever forgive those involved if the ACA fails.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not the fault of single-payer supporters that an ACA repair bill was never introduced. I agree with you that it should have been.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)We can fight fiercely to protect the Affordable Care Act and also look a little bit farther in terms of establishing Medicare for All, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a high-profile single-payer advocate and vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said at the press conference."
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Introducing another bill says...the ACA isn't good enough, and that will help the GOP kill it. And that was not said about this single payer bill. That was a comment made in may of this year...and honestly has nothing to do with anything. Mark my words...this is a really bad thing.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/334917-dem-lawmakers-call-for-single-player-healthcare
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)the ACA and Medicaid.
G_j
(40,370 posts)comparing Sanders and Clinton.
mudstump
(342 posts)keep posting this crap and see just how many progressive seats we win in the future. Why does this poster think that keeping progressives at each other's throat is a good strategy going forward?
murielm99
(30,761 posts)I don't use the term progressive. The implications of that term have become divisive and are being used as a purity test. I will stick to my tried and true label.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)It will take years to rebuild.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody knew the EC would break the way it did and it wasn't the left's fault that the party didn't attend to the Upper Midwest until it was too late.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)to have won in the Stein votes and it has been clearly demonstrated that the left left helped sway the election in Trumps favor.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not his fault or his campaign's fault that the Stein vote played a role in Upper Midwest.
And it's not his fault or his supporters' fault that the Clinton/Kaine campaign was way too overconfident about carrying them.
The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters did campaign for and back the ticket.
And while voting Green in presidential elections is a horribly stupid idea, it's not possible to get people not do it next time by denouncing them for doing it last time and then demanding their votes for whoever we nominate next time. That approach never, ever works.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Water under the bridge...but I would expect Sen. Sander and all Democrats to fight tooth and nail to save the ACA...and mark my words without...we don't ever get single payer.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)record and how that measures up. It's just not realistic to expect that no Democrats are ever mentioned in comparison to his record. It's okay to speak positively about Democrats. It's fine to be a Democrat and they should be made to feel welcome here.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)"progressives" wont vote for Democrats?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We're past that now.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No one has to disavow every idea associated with his campaign to prove that.
And I'm nothing but respectful to HRC.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Using an article about Bernie's legislation record is not about the primary. He just introduced legislation a year and a half after he lost the primary. Just a couple days ago.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the OP is predicated on a Sanders/Clinton comparison, which is not a comparison anyone should still be making.
Neither of them is going to be president, and neither of them is to blame for the other one not being president.
It's time to admit that 2016 is the past.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)None of the ideas I work for are about the past.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)R B Garr
(16,976 posts)the primaries. It's a current topic. Senator Graham just called out Bernie's new single payer proposal and mentioned Bernie specifically, so it's definitely a current topic. It's okay to reference other Democrats here when looking at Bernie's record. It's bound to happen.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)when you use an article from the primaries comparing two 2016 primary candidates. If the OP wants productive discussion about Sanders legislative background and how it relates to current events, then they shouldn't use such an article.
I'm not sure it's even relevant considering everyone knows no single payer bill or ACA fix will happen anytime soon. It's arguing over two current dead ends.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)I just looked at a couple, and they probably would not be allowed. This one seems to be the most current. At some point, it must be okay to look at a Senator's record without accusations.
Not sure why his record wouldn't be relevant, especially if this single payer is being used at all as a litmus test for other Democrats. People will be looking at the total picture, no doubt.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)with something Clinton - or Sander's record with Clinton's record.Or... (and by the way , a useless comparison)
It's pretty clear what the post is about..
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)No comment..
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)R B Garr
(16,976 posts)is diverted to good Democrats and their accomplishments. I think I missed an edit here, but the whole of the post was mostly about Bernie's legislative track record. That's a timely discussion since the bills that have come up in the last couple days.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)isn't good enough when that person knows...the evil GOP are trying to get rid of it and if they do ...millions won't have health care and many will die...and for icing on the cake we lose Medicaid. I am really furious about this.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Bernie out like he was purposefully confusing the issues. That's the main point I've gotten from this thread, and it's a good one. The lack of funding specifics allows the GOP to fill in the blanks however they wish, and you know it's going to be a huge slam on Democrats.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)It has nothing to do with the election. If we lose the ACA, it is over. I doubt we will see any healthcare in our lifetime.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)who had the responsibility to introduce an ACA repair bill.
Why do you keep making it sound like that was up to single-payer people?
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)and the ACA. It is a choice between the ACA and nothing...thus every Democrat and those who caucus with Democrats should have been fighting tooth and nail to save ACA...there shouldn't have been single payer advocates and ACA advocates...single payer is not obtainable and if the ACA goes down, we have lost any chance at universal coverage or any kind of health care for a generation...just like after Clinton. It was a foolish self defeating thing to do ...not secure the ACA before advocating anything else. I personally will never forgive those involved if the ACA goes down...there will be terrible backlash.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Everyone backing the MFA is ALSO working to save the ACA.
Not indroducing the MFA bill wouldn't have made any difference.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)I know of no such action.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie even refused a GOP proposal to include single-payer in one of their bills, because he realized it was a sham offer.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)about single payer.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)everything...and have not seen what you describe. I am not doubting you, but what specifically has been done? I would like to know.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance
ByEVAN MCMORRIS-SANTOROPublishedMARCH 10, 2010, 7:26 PM EST
"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.
Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis.
Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance
41. You're right. And it was those who preferred the ACA to single-payer
who had the responsibility to introduce an ACA repair bill.
Why do you keep making it sound like that was up to single-payer people?
It had nothing to do with preference...we didn't have the votes. Your statement is divisive, please stop.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)2) If we are to win in 2018 and 2020, we need the people you are lashing out at. Dems can't get left votes by vilifying politicians the left supports and then demanding left votes anyway.
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)Sponsoring a bill as the minirity party doesn't get you very far no matter who you are.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)lapucelle
(18,319 posts)Clinton served for 4 years under Republican leadership and for 4 years with a Democratic leader.
Sanders has served under Republican leadership for 4 years and under Democratic leadership for 8 years.
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)I have some problems with Sanders from last year and this year. but about who passed how many bills.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)he is. Mostly he does post office names.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Do you know all the work Sanders has done 'behind the scenes,' if you will, in support of good legisation?
The number of bills sponsored has NOTHING to do with the effectiveness of a senator
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)His Twitter and Facebook pages defend it daily.
He's lead numerous rallies across the country.
There are too many links to post on his activism in support of the ACA. You'd have to have been willfully blind to miss his work. Here's a couple...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/30/politics/democrats-unite-against-health-care-what-next/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-lead-dems-hold-rallies-save-obamacare/story?id=44794110
I am sick of the deliberate lies being spread. Google is your friend. Friend him on social media - ffs there's a plethora of info on Sanders fighting for the ACA.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He has a series of tweets promoting his MFA bill and doesn't mention the ACA even once: https://twitter.com/SenSanders
Arazi
(6,829 posts)The latest move to repeal and replace the ACA
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Do a search:
https://twitter.com/SenSanders
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)He pitches Leftist wishful thinking and unattainable Populism. If we continue to praise him while he remains outside of our Party, we do damage to our 2020 hopes.
I voted for him in the primaries but have grown tired of his shtick.
(Puts on flame suit)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And we don't need take a "we're not going to do any of this leftie crapola" attitude to win.
The country wants an president who finally puts corporate power in its place, who at least, if nothing else, treats business as something that is just part of this country, rather than being more important than everyone and everything else.
Our party is supposed to be the one that says that people matter at least as much as profit-that the need for profit doesn't outweigh all other needs.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)I already heard it today on sirius.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm with you on that.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and future legislative efforts. I wonder why that is.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)I miss the era when it was good and not filled with garbage like this.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)snort
(2,334 posts)I mean what a dick, right? Like wow, you know? Big loser. No, Double Big loser! There.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)philly_bob
(2,419 posts)The interesting point is how Republicans may use Democratic support of Single-Payer in yet another effort to overturn ACA. Personally, I doubt such a jujitsu (use your opponent's momentum against them) technique would work.
But most of us are just rolling our eyes at yet another divisive anti-Sanders screed.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)You're a uniter, for sure.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Gothmog
(145,555 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)in 2018 and 2020. Sigh.....it is literally enabling it.
LexVegas
(6,094 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)and playing right into Republicans hands whose aim is divide and conquer us.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)St Bernie of the Little Bird can do no wrong. Or can he? Is his harm unintended? He confuses me. We may lose health insurance altogether next week.
Thank you Nancy Pelosi for working to protect the ACA! And now the republicons are going to spend $50M because they know how effective she is.
Stand strong for this strong woman, my friends. As Margaret Meade famously said, "There is no greater force than a post-menopausal woman with zest."
ProfessorPlum
(11,277 posts)Beartracks
(12,821 posts)Did this OP get stuck in a time loop or something?
===========
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)It would 'declutter' General Discussion.
ImpeachTheGOP
(89 posts)It just means that in a bought off Senate the things that are necessary for this country cannot get passed.