2016 Postmortem

BootinUp

(50,176 posts)

110. Mainstream Democrats really don't buy that far left frame you know.

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:55 PM

Jun 2016

It WAS and IS mainstream Democrats that fight the conservatives for those programs. It WAS and IS the far left that attacks the mainstream D Party.

Back in the 80's and 90's and even into the 21st century "liberals" was a dirty word. I remember when Wesley Clark who I supported in '04, talked about that and wanted to turn that around more.

The mainstream D party was always on the front lines, not just in a safe state like Vermont.

When Sanders talks about the influence of corporate money, there is a lot of truth. But he is blaming the wrong party and leaving out the discussion of RW propaganda and economic problems of the 70's that caused a shift in the whole country on economic issues. He and his supporters don't talk about losing 5 of 6 Presidential elections before Clinton in '92.

So, you don't have to convince me that we have been on the wrong track for a long time. It is the actual causes and solutions where I must differ.

The far left can't run and win except in Vermont, and they want to blame the mainstream D's? Give me a break. You gotta have Senators and Congressman that support Sanders programs for him to do any of them.

Looking forward, it is clear that the D party is more liberal now than 8 years ago. Clintons platform is more liberal than any D party nominee since 84. The future looks bright.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Decent argument against Sanders tuition free college plan here [View all] BootinUp Jun 2016 OP

And here on Du. Very informative, and informed. I appreciated the info. seabeyond Jun 2016 #1

Apparent contradiction from one paragraph to the next? Or am I misreading this? JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #2

Correct me if I am wrong. but people in states that do not BootinUp Jun 2016 #10

Correct, if by SOL you mean status quo (that would be admitting the status quo is broken, though) JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #12

If you are talking about "states" ok. But you are really talking about people who are affected by Jitter65 Jun 2016 #81

No, its not a contradiction BootinUp Jun 2016 #14

But if a state doesn't want in, they don't have to do so. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #19

Sure, I think it matters what the expected participation level would be. BootinUp Jun 2016 #24

Sure, and that's a reasonable point. I just think the logical flaws in that editorial are glaring. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #26

Still waiting for you to make the case for logical flaws and contradictions. BootinUp Jun 2016 #47

I'm comfortable with how I've presented my case. I never expected to satisfy you. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #53

Just stoping corporate welfare would pay it all and more larkrake Jun 2016 #83

I am referring to States budgets not Federal. And I admit that BootinUp Jun 2016 #84

I think states will fall into line when students dont enroll in their colleges larkrake Jun 2016 #88

Isn't it usually the case that out-of-state students don't qualify for BootinUp Jun 2016 #89

so dont be out of state, move there in May after HS graduation larkrake Jun 2016 #109

Most states require 1-2 years residency without going to school in order to qualify as in-state /nt trudyco Jun 2016 #123

not any states I have lived in, or worked in its an obvious problem,so I think the plan would cover larkrake Jun 2016 #129

Not in most Southern States. blackspade Jun 2016 #137

you are misreading this. Fresh_Start Jun 2016 #51

But since states don't have to participate... JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #52

again, start a lottery or remove corporate welfare in the state larkrake Jun 2016 #112

The next sentence in the quoted material resolves it. Orangepeel Jun 2016 #76

The Union-Tribune is a "hard right" newspaper, QC Jun 2016 #3

If it is hard right compared to Brock PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #6

Yeah. If even he thinks they're right wing.... n/t QC Jun 2016 #28

An analysis has already been done about funding this and healthcare. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #4

I didn't realize that a college education was entirely a jobs program JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #11

Did I go into healthcare? Nope. I simply stated an analysis that has already been done on both. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #30

You certainly mentioned it. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #33

No, there is not. You clearly have an agenda that is counter to what the poor need. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #39

LOL!!!!!!!!!! JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #40

Poor have no need for the liberal arts I guess, huh? Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses. HERVEPA Jun 2016 #63

no it is suppose to be a career program, not a jobs program larkrake Jun 2016 #91

Fuck yeah! "Worthless degrees". Go Le STEM... actslikeacarrot Jun 2016 #55

Even those unabale to pay? Wilms Jun 2016 #67

they should be closing their football succubus programs as well. College football should be a larkrake Jun 2016 #87

Taxes never *have* to be raised on everyone to provide new services. Orsino Jun 2016 #111

You sound like you are repeating RW talking points. trudyco Jun 2016 #124

Next thing will be, every developed country in the world will be wanting free college. B Calm Jun 2016 #5

Imagine THAT! elleng Jun 2016 #13

Its a question of how to make progress or not. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #16

Most don't want it enough to inplement it Recursion Jun 2016 #73

Don't tell that to Brazil, Germany, Finland, France, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden B Calm Jun 2016 #80

They agree 7 countries is not "most" Recursion Jun 2016 #135

they already have free college and have extended their hand to american students larkrake Jun 2016 #92

I've been making the same point about the states, only to be told I'm a conservative. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #7

Conservatives, Establishment, Neo-liberal, Reagan -Democrat, Corporatist, etc. Hoyt Jun 2016 #56

Admits to auto ignoring anyone who uses the terms Corporatist or Oligarch.... Henhouse Jun 2016 #64

On closer examination, that's propaganda. Octafish Jun 2016 #8

+10,000 nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #18

His proposal still has the States responsible for 1/3 MichMan Jun 2016 #21

Has nothing to do with propaganda. Question is funding and whether States BootinUp Jun 2016 #29

K&R. lunamagica Jun 2016 #9

Free tuition at public universities is a great goal. Sanders plan doesn't rely on states to pay for emulatorloo Jun 2016 #15

His plan requires states to pay 1/3 n/t MichMan Jun 2016 #23

Thanks! will correct to say Sanders does not put full burden on state, more on Wall Street emulatorloo Jun 2016 #25

Yes but most states are already contributing that much for the cost of attendance aikoaiko Jun 2016 #125

The tax plan out forth by Sanders will not cover thev cost of tuition. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #41

That doesn't negate the fact that free tuition at public universities is a worthy goal emulatorloo Jun 2016 #44

Student loan refinancing, community service and programs like Peace Corp Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #46

It would be great if there were a domestic program like the Peace Corp emulatorloo Jun 2016 #49

It has been before and can be again. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #72

Indeed. Just gotta kick the Republicans out of Congress so we can get it done emulatorloo Jun 2016 #86

There is such a program. greatauntoftriplets Jun 2016 #118

Thanks! emulatorloo Jun 2016 #119

K&R Henhouse Jun 2016 #75

Yes, and criticizing Bernie's plan doesn't mean you don't agree with the goal. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #58

A couple of points. SheilaT Jun 2016 #17

You don't explain why THIS plan makes sense though. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #31

Our children cant even spell. education is the door to the future larkrake Jun 2016 #116

Sorry to repeat myself, but, BootinUp Jun 2016 #117

Not sure what you mean by THIS plan, unless SheilaT Jun 2016 #133

I always think of this graphic... QC Jun 2016 #35

University and college staff members has had increase in wages. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #43

Look at any college or university budget kiva Jun 2016 #108

If you are making five dollars now I would agree there has not been much increases in salaries. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #134

We can't have an educated populace. It would eliminate the excuse to bring in cheap labor. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #20

I don't know why everyone isn't demanding this . . . it's back to the future. Vinca Jun 2016 #22

Still don't understand how? MichMan Jun 2016 #27

Cost incentive is an issue. Good questions. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #32

All his supporters heard was "free". tonyt53 Jun 2016 #34

re 1 of your questions, "Why would a student ever desire to attend a Community College" thesquanderer Jun 2016 #37

most do have the qualifications, they just dont have the money larkrake Jun 2016 #93

No, many students don't have qualifications that are competative enough for that. kiva Jun 2016 #115

You are talking about ivy league, that is not what Bernie is talking about larkrake Jun 2016 #121

Just another "No, we can't" from the third way gang. Imagine if JFK & LBJ were like that? dmosh42 Jun 2016 #36

You think that argument convinces people? BootinUp Jun 2016 #38

Oh, I well remember, but people were creative in trying to make it happen, like going to the moon... dmosh42 Jun 2016 #66

Kind of like this? 2cannan Jun 2016 #79

very good larkrake Jun 2016 #122

So true, a republican chant that proves to me Clinton is repug- lite, maybe not so lite larkrake Jun 2016 #94

Do you idiots realize that STATES already budget money for higher education and might welcome the Skwmom Jun 2016 #42

Thread win... for incivility. How many States like the plan? BootinUp Jun 2016 #45

They do.. And Republican State legislatures are doing their best to shrink the budgets to nothing. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #48

The plan isn't to replace the money states already spend. It is to replace tuition Orangepeel Jun 2016 #78

Only hard core Repug Governors would veto this, and their colleges will be abandoned by students larkrake Jun 2016 #95

I didn't realize that his proposal allows states to opt out. How would that work? ContinentalOp Jun 2016 #50

I support financially free tuition if one performs social service in exchange. David__77 Jun 2016 #54

why should this land on the kids? Their social service is getting proficient at their careers larkrake Jun 2016 #98

They won't be kids. David__77 Jun 2016 #101

You Clinton supporters danimich1 Jun 2016 #57

Sure, and we would say Sanders and SOME of his supporters BootinUp Jun 2016 #60

they have dealt with difficult details for over 200 years which is why we have SS, Medicare, larkrake Jun 2016 #102

Mainstream Democrats really don't buy that far left frame you know. BootinUp Jun 2016 #110

He blames corrupt politicians of both partys larkrake Jun 2016 #126

I campaigned for Bill in 92 because of his optimism. QC Jun 2016 #65

Peoples perceptions differ, I must point out. BootinUp Jun 2016 #70

I guess it depends on where we are in life. QC Jun 2016 #97

Thank you Q larkrake Jun 2016 #131

hes angry but not unrealistic. I'm angry, my neighbors are angry, my state is angry larkrake Jun 2016 #130

Makes me wonder what happened to Bill and Hill. Did life beat them into submission. larkrake Jun 2016 #103

I think the witch hunts of the 90s changed them-- QC Jun 2016 #120

can't = fear of success. I run into this even with my most talented students, they are programed larkrake Jun 2016 #100

Yes, investing in the future of the down trodden masses would be too liberating. CentralMass Jun 2016 #59

No effort to justify his approach specifically? BootinUp Jun 2016 #62

I thought presidents had advisors and cabinet members danimich1 Jun 2016 #69

You wave away over a trillion dollars in new proposals from Clinton awfully easily. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #71

because they are Corporate friendy proposals larkrake Jun 2016 #104

Nope. They are not. And she will be rolling out more on her corporate tax plans in the near future. BootinUp Jun 2016 #113

I hope you are right, I really do, but historically, she is in a bubble against the middle class larkrake Jun 2016 #128

And even if they weren't, danimich1 Jun 2016 #114

Here is a CNN article about Sander' plan CentralMass Jun 2016 #68

when profit margins became more important larkrake Jun 2016 #106

I agree. We NEED "gatekeepers" such as... actslikeacarrot Jun 2016 #61

you are right. This is true in Ivy League colleges world wide larkrake Jun 2016 #107

Bringing up RW talking points from a RW newspaper Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #74

This is pure bull. CA had free tution and I went to college with it. bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #77

No We Can't warrprayer Jun 2016 #82

Here's the thing, states need to start taxing glowing Jun 2016 #85

LA Times has a different opinion. 2cannan Jun 2016 #90

That is one reporters opinion. And although he makes some points BootinUp Jun 2016 #96

Dear GOD, this scheme would cost 10% of a Pentagon! JackRiddler Jun 2016 #99

No We Can't! WDIM Jun 2016 #105

You probably should have some way to dampen tuition price tags. trudyco Jun 2016 #127

Administrative costs nt forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #139

I don't benefit from free college. I'm 63/no kids. But it's the ethical thing to do. I support it. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #132

That's not even an argument blackspade Jun 2016 #136

No We Can't . TheFarS1de Jun 2016 #138