Sanders would never have blocked SP advocates from participating in a HC forum at the WH ...

[slipslidingaway]

he also would not have made a deal with Billy Tauzin behind closed doors to NOT negotiate drug prices under Medicare.

Sanders is not Obama, that is true.

[dlwickham]

1. we've moved from attacking Hillary to attacking Obama

who's next?

[Thinkingabout]

2. Good point, this is not helping Sanders.

[slipslidingaway]

16. Honestly it is not about ONE person or politician, this is about the majority of people ...

who are being harmed by the collusion between big profit corporations and big profit politicians.

That is the big difference between the candidates.

[Thinkingabout]

20. Attacking politicans is not the fix and honestly big corporations and big profit politicans is not

a fix either.

[slipslidingaway]

21. When large corporations make a contribution and also pay huge sums for a speech ...

you have to wonder if a 'just cut it out' means anything.

For example the housing bubble had been building for years (at least since 2003) mortgages were approved and promoted to people that should not have been going into so much debt. The real estate index began to turn down in 2005, but the majority of people and the media woke up several years later.

Unfortunately too many people relied upon the "professionals" and bought a home and went into debt. But the people that were selling these products made huge profits by shorting the market and were positioning themselves to scoop up the bargains ... converting home owners to renters and a revenue source. You know who suffered the most, I would say the 'minority' class, although I hate to use that word.

Now theses are very smart people, there are profits to be made on the way up in a bubble and on the way down. But they were very greedy, there is nothing wrong with doing your homework and profiting, but they deliberately deceived borrowers knowing that the bubble would burst. Anyone with a half a clue knew this was coming ... when Obama and his economic advisors came out and backed Bush's plan and essentially said 'who could have known' it was rather pathetic. When he appointed Geithner I termed that the wave 4 bounce in Elliott Wave terms, he was friendly to WS.

So we are now back to the Clinton's and their relationship with WS. Yes you need money to win, but who are you winning for? Are you winning for the people and the future of country or are you winning for your own comfort and legacy.

I wonder

[Thinkingabout]

24. You can complain forever, don't think corporations are going away nor are they

Going to divide all of their assets and give those assets away no more than those who thinks this is a good idea going to give away all of their assets. We who work hard are not willing to place our earnings in a central pot for all to take.

[ljm2002]

25. Not sure if this is a red herring or a straw man...

...so I'll just go with my initial impression: it's a messy pile of straw that reeks of rotting fish.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Are you talking about yourself? If not attacking other DU members is WRONG.

[ljm2002]

34. Sorry if I wasn't clear...

...so let me spell it out:

You say, and I quote:

"You can complain forever, don't think corporations are going away nor are they

Going to divide all of their assets and give those assets away no more than those who thinks this is a good idea going to give away all of their assets. We who work hard are not willing to place our earnings in a central pot for all to take."

Now please do provide a link showing where Bernie or his supporters advocate ANYTHING like what you stated in the highlighted text. Or hell, just highlight the part of the post you were responding to where this is indicated.

You can't, because NO ONE is proposing anything like what you posted here.

In short, what I posted is not an attack on another DUer; it is rather simply pointing out that your post is a LIE. Or, to be more polite, the issues you raise are red herrings, meant as distraction only; or if you prefer, they are a strawman, since they DO NOT address ANYTHING real. They don't even address the issues brought up in the post you were responding to. Distraction and lies, that is what your post was, and that is why I replied as I did.

I will also point out, that while no one is willing to give up all their earnings into a common pool, yet taxes are exactly that (apart from the "all&quot -- we all contribute a portion of our earnings into a common pool.

[Thinkingabout]

35. You can research it yourself, I have read it on DU, I will not do the research for you, I have

important things to do today.

[ljm2002]

36. Ha ha...

...in other words, "I got nothin'..."

[Thinkingabout]

39. Here you are

Capitalism

Capital (or the "means of production&quot is owned, operated, and traded in order to generate profits for private owners or shareholders. Emphasis on individual profit rather than on workers or society as a whole. No restriction on who may own capital.

Socialism

From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism

[ljm2002]

40. OMG you are going to LIE some more...

...by implying that Bernie Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is SOCIALISM writ large (really, communism) where all resources are commonly owned and there is centralized economic planning and control of production.

That is nonsense and you know it.

So I repeat my request: Please provide just one link showing where either (a) Sanders is promoting policies that would confiscate all wealth; or (b) a DUer is promoting such a policy.

Thanks.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Don't rewrite my post, this is your words.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. Sanders made his bed

Now he's going to have to sleep in it.

Why do you think he's stuck in the polls? He's not increasing his appeal.

[Cha]

52. My my.. aren't you testy.

[slipslidingaway]

46. Not sure where you got the idea that Sanders or any of his supporters expect corporations ...

to divide their assets and give them away???

Sorry but that is just misplaced thinking and something I would expect to read on Repub message board.

Shaking my head as to where you ever got that idea.

[Thinkingabout]

53. Who is the republican posting here?

[slipslidingaway]

56. What the hell does that mean? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

58. The republican you are referring to in post #46

[2pooped2pop]

27. Oh no, another thing that Sanders supporters should not do

It won't help Bernie. Like the few people on this site posting is going to make a difference in Bernie Sanders campaign. Please just stop with the warnings and worry about how you are going to deal with Clinton baggage.

[Thinkingabout]

30. I can say Hillary has not always been right on everything, she has evolved on issues,

this is the smart thing for a leader to do, to look at current issues and say what is the right decision at the moment. She does not have her feet in concrete and can still move around. She listens to people, a good leader does this. She has explained several times she made a mistake in the IWR vote, a good leader can do this. She could stay mired in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or she can work from this day forward, a good leader will do this.

[rbrnmw]

3. Gumby

[dlwickham]

4. we all know that Gumby was a big Pharma shill

he deserves to be attacked

[rbrnmw]

5. hahaha

[slipslidingaway]

14. Laugh all you want, Sanders donated the contribution from a Pharma shill ...

and we are currently being billing $3,200 a month for an investigational drug.

Maybe the 99% should just let their loved ones die?

It might be funny to some, but not those trying to get care.

[cui bono]

8. It's countering the retort from Hillary supporters that "Bernie is no Obama". n/t

[slipslidingaway]

15. Someone gets it, thanks! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

9. "Bernie is NOT Obama"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868565

Did you object to that OP?

Sanders would have welcomed their input to advance a HC system for all and to negotiate a better deal.

So yes, Sanders is not Obama and to differentiate those differences in response to an OP is not an attack.

[dlwickham]

11. if your OP wasn't an attack

I'd hate to see what one would look like coming from you

[slipslidingaway]

12. Did you read this OP "Bernie is NOT Obama"

Do you see ANY attacks there?

Anything ... possibly? Maybe???

Be honest now, the inference is that Sanders is blind to other people, whether by race or sexual preference. That is just false and so is the OP.

No one is perfect, that includes Obama, Clinton and yes Sanders and ... you and me.

Did you object to that OP? No, I did not see where you did.

Noting the differences between Obama and Sanders is not an attack, just different views.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868565

"The hubris of people thinking that because Obama beat Hillary (barely) that Bernie will beat Hillary is astounding.

It's like you're totally unaware that he can't seem to garner ANY appreciable support from AA, Latinos, Women, and LGBT people. Spare me the anecdotes of your next door neighbor who is black or Latino or a woman or gay.

The minority vote is a monolith in the Dem primary contest. You simply cannot win without them. Not only does Bernie not inspire us, he comes off as clueless about our issues. And every time you pretend MLK would have endorsed him (when MLK never endorsed ANY pol), or you ignore Bernie's previous anti immigrant rhetoric, or you pretend he was some sort of champion for LGBT people who never heard shit from him as they strived for marriage rights, you PISS them off.

Let's be real - Bernie AND his supporters killed any chance for AA support when he walked off in a huff at Netroots and then repeated it in Seattle. And then Bernie's worst enemies (his supporters) dissed the shit out of AA as a result. It was bad enough that he spent his whole career in congress IGNORING these folks (and I was one of the group he ignored, so I know the feeling), but his campaign and his supporters sealed the deal with these episodes.

Forget it. Stop fantasizing that you can a) win without the support of minorities - you cannot, or b) that he is your Obama. Not even close. You just sound silly running that meme, IMO."

[dlwickham]

45. this isn't an attack on Obama?

he (referring to Sanders) also would not have made a deal with Billy Tauzin behind closed doors to NOT negotiate drug prices under Medicare.

you have no idea what Sanders would have done and wouldn't have done if he was president

[slipslidingaway]

13. "From fighting segregation to standing against police violence."

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/20-examples-bernie-sanders-powerful-record-civil-and-human-rights-1950s

"Over the past few months, one lingering attack on Bernie Sanders' candidacy for the Democratic nomination is his supposed indifference to racial justice and civil rights issues.

But the truth is, Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights, as he told the attendants of Netroots Nation after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. Of course, it's understandable that they want to bring attention to the movement. Killings of people from Ferguson to New York City to Los Angeles to Atlanta have finally brought important issues like police brutality, systemic racism, mass incarceration and militarization of the police into the center of national dialogue.

Here are 20 ways Sanders has stood up for civil and minority rights, starting in the early 1950s up to the present year.

1. Raising Money For Korean Orphans: International solidarity was an unusual concept for any American to have in the 1950s, let alone a high school student. But one of Sanders' first campaigns was to run for class president at James Madison High School in New York City. His platform was based around raising scholarship funds for Korean war orphans. Although he lost, the person who did win the campaign decided to endorse Sanders' campaign, and scholarships were created.

2. Being Arrested For Desegregation: As a student at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in both the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1962, he was arrested for protesting segregation in public schools in Chicago; the police came to call him an outside agitator, as he went around putting up flyers around the city detailing police brutality.

3. Marching In March On Washington:Sanders joined the mega-rally called by the leaders of the civil rights movement, a formative event of his youth.

4. Calling For Full Gay Equality: 40 years ago, Sanders started his political life by running with a radical third party in Vermont called the Liberty Union Party. As a part of the platform, he called for abolishing all laws related to discrimination against homosexuality...."


The OP that Bernie is not for equal rights and he is not Obama is Misguided! He has been doing so his entire career, in fact he has been more progressive and many people are now just catching up to his "radical ideas."

[2pooped2pop]

28. Bernie will be better than Obama.

Bernie won't back down on everything and continuously try to satisfy the republicans.

[99Forever]

37. Attacking? If stating facts is "attacking" then...

.. you best bury your head way deeper in the sand for the foreseeable future. You have yet to see a real "attack" on Clinton. What the hell are people such as yourself and Po Po mistreated Hillary going to do when to actual hardcore haters REALLY start putting a target on her?

During the primaries is when you vet candidates to see if they have what it takes to take the heat that goes with the office. CLEARLY your candidate DOESN'T.

"Getting attacked" goes with fucking job. If you can't figure that one out, I don't know what to tell you.

[WillyT]

55. Some Of Us Are Trying To Make Sure We Don't Make The Same Mistake In The Next Cycle...

[HerbChestnut]

6. Obama is not infallible.

He's done some things that deserve criticism just like any other politician, including Sanders and Clinton.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Exactly, no one is infallible, thx. n/t

[Broward]

7. Obama is a centrist at best and Hillary is to his right.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Agreed, Hillary is to his right, should be fun :( n/t

[CharlotteVale]

10. Very true. Bernie is on my side.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Yes, I would trust him more. n/t

[MisterP]

22. nor given BLM the bum's rush, nor (insert literally anything else here)

[slipslidingaway]

23. I still have people say Sanders? Who is he ...

Hillary they know and either and like or do not like, they kow who she is

But BERNIE

Sarah Silverman Introduces Bernie Sanders in LA

[JoePhilly]

26. Bernie should definitely run against Obama.

Hillary would appreciate it.

[tularetom]

29. Obama is a fine human being, an honest man, an admirable family man and I really respect him

As a president, however - a giant disappointment. To some extent he is the victim of his own oratorical skills, having raised expectations to a point where he could not possibly deliver on them given the current polarized political climate.

Hillary Clinton is Obama without the charm or charisma. Plus a neocon worldview and timid halfway positions on social and economic problems. Electing her would be tantamount to electing one of the relatively sane republicans.

I'm under no illusions that Sanders will be able to accomplish a great deal unless he can somehow drag a few real Democrats into congress with him. But he won't give up without a fight like Obama did, or fudge his policies in order to reach across the aisle for support like Clinton is almost certain to do.

[JaneyVee]

31. And we would still be fighting for healthcare reform.

The whole thing would have ended in a stalemate with nothing accomplished. Which is most likely how a Sanders presidency would go on every issue.

[Kentonio]

38. Bernie would have appealed to the people to pressure their representatives into the right action.

When reps start worrying about holding their own seats next election, they get honest awfully quickly.

[joshcryer]

32. Erm, Sanders would not have run on insurance exchanges.

So of course single payer advocates would have been in the talks. Obama did not run on single payer, and even Sanders said there weren't votes for single payer, so it would've been pointless for Obama to bring in people who wouldn't be taken seriously by the panels.

I don't know why we're bashing Obama for keeping a campaign promise. This sucks. It does not look like Sanders support to me, it looks like people using Sanders to bash Obama.

[slipslidingaway]

47. Again this thread "Bernie is NOT Obama "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868565

And yes I agree, he would never have left SP out of the discussion, so he is not Obama.

Even if he did not run on a SP platform it could have strengthened the negotiations with the insurance companies and Pharma..

But Obama did forcefully run on the idea of having Medicare negotiate drug prices, he even ran a campaign ad entitled "Billy" but then he quietly make a backroom deal with Billy Tauzin.

Yes Sanders is not Obama.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/442

[joshcryer]

50. But you're bashing Obama for doing what he said he would do.

And lacking any empathy for an Obama who didn't know how to deal with the lobby.

Backroom deal? He had no choice, didn't have the votes because Ted Kennedy was on his death bed and Al Franken wasn't seated. More like backroom extortion for a new guy on the block who didn't know how to play the game.

[slipslidingaway]

54. Wow, not sure how to take your post? Obama was above his head, he had no idea of how to play ...

the game and I should be empathetic?

Would you extent that empathy to other candidates?

Sorry, but there are always choices! One choice is speak out and call upon those who might advance a position.

Or as you say 'he was not qualified to negotiate a better deal.' He was just the new guy on the block.

[joshcryer]

57. Well no, he has integrity.

He ran on a bipartisan ticket, if he were to have changed tack and somehow became ruthless and partisan then he wouldn't be living up to his campaign promise.

The thing is that bipartisanship doesn't fucking work and yes, I do think Obama was naive to think that it would. He learned a lot from that experience after the Congress pretty much held the government hostage.

You can't negotiate a better deal by being bipartisan. He went into the negotiations thinking everyone would be doing so with good faith. And we lost the public option because of that (and let's be clear, the public option was not gutted because it wasn't workable, it was gutted purely out of spite to send Obama a message; it was still on the table two weeks before the vote, if Ted Kennedy didn't die or Al Franken was seated, we'd have had it).

I'm posting facts, not opinion. Opinion is a smear, it is not a smear or insult to say that Obama's style of governing doesn't work with fascists. We elected him in hopes that it would bring change, it did only very briefly.

(And let me be very clear here, if a politician ran as a bipartisan and switched tack as soon as he got into office and went partisan, I would have no problem with it if it brought results, integrity be damned.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Yeah. But, that's only because he's a (EEEEK!!) Socialist. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

48. And obviously he wants all corporations to divest their assets and give them away

[Cassiopeia]

49. Sanders is no Obama

Music to my ears.

[Scootaloo]

51. How dare you insinuate Obama is not God-on-Earth, infallible and flawless, right in all things?

You're pissing off all the people who refused to vote for him in 2008!