2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhen Sanders says "Wall Street banks and billionaires buy elections," whose election does he mean?
And when he talks about "people like you" fighting back against "a corrupt system," who specifically is he encouraging people to "fight back" against?
And if as it appears he's talking about the current Democratic administration of Barack Obama and the earlier Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, why, after 74 years of not being a Democrat, did he decide to be one, and to seek an active role in the party? Doesn't joining a "corrupt system" mean that he too is corrupt?
I honestly find this baffling: if he's running as a Democrat, why in HECK is he bashing Democrats? Or what am I missing here?
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Unless you think winning the Democratic nomination is equivalent to winning the Presidency.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)My point is that it's hard to take his campaign seriously if he's tearing down the party he claims he wants people to join. And clearly the results in the last few primaries bear this out: instead of driving up Dem participation, he's driven it down.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)And very partisan.
This is about changing the entire environment that is poisoning our political process. Both parties have been compromised. Both parties need to be reformed.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)...that has been funding it since the 90s and you also think that ""The Democratic Party" do NOT equal the stated liberal goals of the party platform?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You don't get elected by telling anyone who will listen that the party you've just joined is hopelessly corrupt.
So why exactly is he running?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you have a way you think is better, then roll up your sleeves and run for office.
Uncle Joe
(58,420 posts)you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Whereas, Hillary takes money from the same corrupter of the nation and politics.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)Bernie doesn't fight against anything. He fights for fairness his entire life.
If you can't see that then you are obviously not listening.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)corrupted by money?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)No, I don't think my Federal or State government is entirely corrupted by money. I also like my Dem congressman. I liked my Dem mayor and supported him every way I could for two terms but his Dem successor got done in by the FBI days before the election so we got a Republican and now we're world famous for terrorism.
Yes, the parties are different, and the proof is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)every working day. Never mind I'll tell you. He is on the phone raising money. He has to. That is the system. It doesn't require a vast conspiracy any more than eyes require an intelligent designer. It is what has simply evolved over the last 200+ years. The levels of abject corruption rise and fall. The last time our government was anywhere near this dysfunctionally corrupt was the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I know what my Congress member does because he calls and tells me in regular town hall phone meetings. I've joined several and never once has he solicited a campaign donation. Some of the questions are predictable but he answers them carefully and supplies fresh insights and information from his staff. He's new but my old Congressman also held regular town hall phone meetings. The current one (his name is Pete Aguilar) also holds regular meet-and-greets in local restaurants. I haven't attended those but if he tried soliciting donations at a constituent event he wouldn't be returned.
In other words, Dems can multitask, but yeah they need money to run their campaigns. Sure the system is "rigged" but to hear Sanders, Nader, Chomsky et al. tell it that means every elected official is "corrupt." Which is ridiculous and self-contradictory and the effect is to drive down participation.
What I'd like to know is, is that the intended effect?
Glamrock
(11,802 posts)With regard to:
"Sure the system is "rigged" but to hear Sanders, Nader, Chomsky et al. tell it that means every elected official is "corrupt." Which is ridiculous and self-contradictory and the effect is to drive down participation. "
I think you've got it backwards. Participation has been falling for decades, as the system has become more and more rigged. Sanders, Nader, Chomsky et al. are voicing it.
And like it or not, there are Dems who vote for things like Nafta, TPP, wars, deregulation, etc. because of monied interests. Now, they may very well defend abortion rights, or gay marriage or whatever. They're doing the most good they can while playing the game. For us Sanders supporters(or me at least), that just ain't good enough anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the great strides this country has made with regard to social issues. But economically we're getting killed! It's time to throw the Monopoly board in the fire and watch it Bern!(Ooh, that last sentence was good. Bravo Glamrock, bravo. )
my new sig line
Glamrock
(11,802 posts)Spread it around! It's quite good! Now if you'll excuse me, I need an aspirin. Seems like I pulled a muscle patting myself on the back.
Nanjeanne
(4,976 posts)Neither Dems nor Repub are immune. Some are worse than others. Reps are definitely worse. But not alone.
Do you think the Obama administration gave up on negotiating drug prices because they like high drug prices?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And then when I read all the way thru it I see I would just be piling on. My fellow DUers make me proud answering so completely and educationally. Good Job, yall.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I am speechless.