Bernie!

[KingOrfeo]

Remember the "Reagan Democrats" -- the frustrated white working-class voters, non-ideological, traditionally Democratic, whose support Reagan was able to capture in 1980, and who have been supporting the GOP ever since?

They are now Sanders Republicans. For real.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Keith Ellison hands Bernie Sanders his second congressional endorsement.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Remember the "Reagan Democrats" -- the frustrated white working-class voters, non-ideological, traditionally Democratic, whose support Reagan was able to capture in 1980, and who have been supporting the GOP ever since?

They are now Sanders Republicans. For real.

Why do you bother linking to Salon? Nobody with any sense believes anything they say.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why do you both linking to Salon? Nobody with any sense believes anything they say.

[shrug] Salon is far more credible than NRO, WND, Breitbart, American Thinker, Fox, American Spectator . . .

And Rick Perlstein, in particular, is one credible dude. Everything he writes is exhaustively researched, and he never overlooks anything that doesn't fit a progressive agenda.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here's the problem, though:

Sanders has been one of Clinton’s top headaches, but his resolute unwillingness to go after her too much meant that he didn’t pose a real challenge for her during the debate. Instead, he stuck to his core themes, belting his messages about inequality and bankers out like Ethel Merman trying to hit the back of the balcony. Bernie Sanders knows how to work a crowd of liberals, so this strategy worked. It’s tough to see how that will change the dynamic of the race, though. If Sanders is serious about winning the nomination, there’s only one way to do that, and that’s through Hillary Clinton. As she showed, she won’t be shy about taking him down if she has to.

 

[JackLuis]

Eye-popping fundraising totals make Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz serious contenders

There aren’t too many pundits who would have predicted that Ben Carson, a first-time presidential candidate, would out-fundraise political scion Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, four months before the Iowa caucuses. After all, Bush was supposed to have such money-raising prowess that his shock-and-awe dollar rake would clear the field of candidates.

And yet it’s October and there are a dozen candidates standing and the latest campaign finance reports, filed at the October 15 deadline, show the retired neurosurgeon crushing the political pedigree. Carson, along with Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and, to a lesser degree, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, are proving that even in the era of Super PACs and unlimited donations, traditional small-dollar fundraising remains a potent force in presidential politics—and that underestimated candidates can quickly mount up huge dollars through small donations.

On the Democratic side, Sanders had another eye-popping fundraising quarter, raising $26.2 million and trailing frontrunner Hillary Clinton by just $3.5 million. Not bad for a self-described Democratic socialist who vocally abhors big money in politics. More than three-quarters of Sanders’ funds came from small donors. In addition to the traditional wells of Democratic fundraising (California, New York, Illinois), the Vermont senator raised significant sums from the Pacific Northwest—Washington and Oregon donors combined to give nearly $600,000, which makes sense because both states have voted Democratic in presidential elections since 1988. And Sanders proves wildly popular in his tiny home state, which chipped in more than a quarter-million dollars—a bigger haul than from either Texas or Florida, even though the second and fourth most populous states have populations more than 30 times as large as Vermont’s.

 

[naughtoldperv]

I've never made any political donation$ before, but Bernie will get one from me!
I'm hoping others will do the same..............

 

[mikey2much]

Bernie got my donation cherry too

I agreed to give him ten a month for one year I felt pretty good about things until I got my first email confirming the payment. The group that handles gathering the money seems to be a company called Actblue. This 'Actblue informed me that they had taken ten for Bernie and a "ten dollar tip for actblue"

On the statement from Actblue where they told me about my "tip", there was also a box to check if you wanted to change your donation.


Since I had wanted to support Bernie, but did not care a fig about Actblue, I didn't want to give matching funds. I had never agreed to the ten dollar tip so I felt that they had taken it without my permission. I checked the box to stop payments.

I felt bad about it on several levels. I like Bernie's message and feel he is 'real' in his beliefs. Feeling like this is the kind of man he is gives me the urge to give him my money and support. but if he is this sort of guy, why is he running with the people like Actblue who are doubling the donations against the wishes of the donors and then taking half for themselves and calling it a tip.

So I kept getting the emails and offers to buy mugs and bumper stickers, and I think maybe that is the way to give him money without having to give matching funds to Actblue. But something told me that maybe they wouldn't stop taking the money, so I didn't buy christmas presents at bernies store, instead I waited.

Sure enough the following month they repeated the transaction and took another ten dollar tip. It seems to me that we are in a war with the wealthy for the future of the country and we only have one weapon, money, and the rich have most of it already. It seems that it is an unfair disadvantage to have to pay a fifty percent tax to Actblue to get money to Bernie.

I told The people who sent the email under bernies name that I would give them one hundred and twenty bucks. That is what I am going to do after six months I will discontinue the walmart card that I used to pay them and that will be the end of it for me. I wonder if Bernie knows what is happening? I wonder if he knows that Actblue is taking half of his money?



I have let it ride for three months and it is the same each month. Three more to go.

 

[werwolf]

[shrug] Salon is far more credible than NRO, WND, Breitbart, American Thinker, Fox, American Spectator . . .

And Rick Perlstein, in particular, is one credible dude. Everything he writes is exhaustively researched, and he never overlooks anything that doesn't fit a progressive agenda.

No, it's not. Having spent time on both extremes of the political spectrum and observing how they work, unlike most Americans, I can safely state that Salon is the Breitbart of the left. It's getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the parody and the real thing.

He lost some credibility for me after going on that bizarre, North Vietnamese sympathy (nobody forced them to send 13 divisions into the territories of their neighbors, no matter how stupid American involvement in Vietnam was) ridden rant about the MIA flag. "Racist"? Really? I'll always appreciate Perlstein's books, especially the first one-great for understanding movement style conservatism. But to pretend he has no political slant and it doesn't color his work is a little much. Especially when you take into account the fact that the man was a Nation writer and openly stated that Fawn Brodie was an inspiration for Nixonland. It shows, whatever the merits of the book.

 

[werwolf]

I'll say it again-Sanders has no chance whatsoever of getting the nomination. He knows it. That's why he did what he did in the debate. His goal is far more subtle-to force Hillary to talk about certain things and alter the trajectory of the party.

He's taking on the "Trump" role of the Democrats, the only difference being that Sanders is far more intelligent than Trump and is aware of what he can and cannot do.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I would never use Salon as a source, mostly because the right hates them. But can you name a lie they've been caught in?

 

[werwolf]

I would never use Salon as a source, mostly because the right hates them. But can you name a lie they've been caught in?

Sure:

https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/salon-offers-up-repudiated-lynch-source-claim/

I've also always found it entertaining that like their cousins on the right, places like Salon refer to the "media" as if they aren't a part of it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I agreed to give him ten a month for one year I felt pretty good about things until I got my first email confirming the payment. The group that handles gathering the money seems to be a company called Actblue. This 'Actblue informed me that they had taken ten for Bernie and a "ten dollar tip for actblue"

On the statement from Actblue where they told me about my "tip", there was also a box to check if you wanted to change your donation.


Since I had wanted to support Bernie, but did not care a fig about Actblue, I didn't want to give matching funds. I had never agreed to the ten dollar tip so I felt that they had taken it without my permission. I checked the box to stop payments.

I felt bad about it on several levels. I like Bernie's message and feel he is 'real' in his beliefs. Feeling like this is the kind of man he is gives me the urge to give him my money and support. but if he is this sort of guy, why is he running with the people like Actblue who are doubling the donations against the wishes of the donors and then taking half for themselves and calling it a tip.

So I kept getting the emails and offers to buy mugs and bumper stickers, and I think maybe that is the way to give him money without having to give matching funds to Actblue. But something told me that maybe they wouldn't stop taking the money, so I didn't buy christmas presents at bernies store, instead I waited.

Sure enough the following month they repeated the transaction and took another ten dollar tip. It seems to me that we are in a war with the wealthy for the future of the country and we only have one weapon, money, and the rich have most of it already. It seems that it is an unfair disadvantage to have to pay a fifty percent tax to Actblue to get money to Bernie.

I told The people who sent the email under bernies name that I would give them one hundred and twenty bucks. That is what I am going to do after six months I will discontinue the walmart card that I used to pay them and that will be the end of it for me. I wonder if Bernie knows what is happening? I wonder if he knows that Actblue is taking half of his money?



I have let it ride for three months and it is the same each month. Three more to go.

Like all politicians, he's a crook, so why are you surprised he associates with other crooks?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Eye-popping fundraising totals make Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz serious contenders

Maybe. Generally speaking it costs a fortune to collect donations.

The real struggle in politics is acquiring the best help and enough tv time.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

awesome


Socialism because working is too damn hard


carry on welfare retards

 

[Boxlicker101]

awesome


Socialism because working is too damn hard


carry on welfare retards

The advantage of working rather than being on the dole is that the former pays more. If Bernie is elected, that difference will probably decrease and there will be even more people getting gov. handouts than there are now.

Of course, this will mean higher taxes, also a disincentive to working, at least to doing a good job and being more productive.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The advantage of working rather than being on the dole is that the former pays more. If Bernie is elected, that difference will probably decrease and there will be even more people getting gov. handouts than there are now.

Of course, this will mean higher taxes, also a disincentive to working, at least to doing a good job and being more productive.

Bernie's stated model is the Scandinavian countries, and they are plenty productive. So, in real life, what you're talking about apparently does not happen.

 

[JackLuis]

The advantage of working rather than being on the dole is that the former pays more. If Bernie is elected, that difference will probably decrease and there will be even more people getting gov. handouts than there are now.

Of course, this will mean higher taxes, also a disincentive to working, at least to doing a good job and being more productive.

It does seem to work for Oil Co's and GE though. Corporate Welfare State is alive and sucking the 99% dry.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The advantage of working rather than being on the dole is that the former pays more. If Bernie is elected, that difference will probably decrease and there will be even more people getting gov. handouts than there are now.

Of course, this will mean higher taxes, also a disincentive to working, at least to doing a good job and being more productive.

The former pays far more has zero restrictions on how it can be used yadda yadda yadda. You should just do like all people who can read and call Jen dumb as shit.

Yes it will mean higher taxes but that's not really a disincentive to work until it gets absurd nor it is a reason not to do a good job or be more productive.

 

[KingOrfeo]

More about Sanders' "socialism":

On Sunday, after a week of being asked whether he was a socialist or a capitalist, and accused of being a communist by some of the more hysterical Republican candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced that he is planning a “major speech” to explain to the American people what “Democratic Socialism” is really all about. “I think we have some explaining and work to do,” Sanders told a crowd in Iowa, conceding that the S-word has long made many Americans “very, very nervous.”

After nearly a century of red-baiting and anti-socialist propaganda, this will happen. But today is a much better time to run as a socialist than in the past, and Sanders could be just the man to open up our political playing field to future socialists — or Democratic Socialists, to be more accurate — if he can finally remove the stigma from the word. Of course, communism fell a quarter-century ago, and for many millennials who grew up in a post-Cold War period, the word socialism actually evokes a more positive response than capitalism, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. This is certainly a good sign for the future of socialist politics; however, the majority of Americans today are not millennials, and there is great deal of ignorance when it comes to these words, which tend to elicit a whirlwind of emotions.

There seem to be two common, yet very different, thoughts that come to the minds of many Americans when they hear the word socialism. For some, it automatically means 20th century communism, i.e. a Stalinist or Maoist dictatorship where the state controls all ways of life and plans the entire economy while enslaving all dissenters. On the other hand, it is thought of as a massive bureaucratized welfare state, where citizens are lazy and rely on the government for “free stuff.” In America, this view has always had a racial undertone, with a narrative that it is African Americans or Hispanic immigrants who are getting the free stuff off of the hard work of white people. Today, this dog-whistle strategy is alive and well, as we see in one of Donald Trump’s recent tweets: “Notice that illegal immigrants will be given ObamaCare and free college tuition but nothing has been mentioned about our VETERANS.”

Now, it is important for Sanders to explain to the people what he is and what he is not. Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, and does not argue when reporters leave out the first word, as they tend to. But in reality, Sanders is less a Democratic Socialist and more a “Social Democrat.” The Scandinavian countries that Sanders rightfully praises, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, are Social Democracies. These countries have strong welfare states (another term that has been demonized through dog-whistle politics), which means universal healthcare, free college tuition, a well regulated market, etc. These countries are still very much capitalist societies, just with rules that create a more even playing field. Democratic Socialism, on other hand, is the belief that both the political and economic spheres should be run democratically. It is important to note that Democratic Socialism does not want to replace corporate ownership with state ownership, and is critical of state bureaucracy as well as corporate bureaucracy. On the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website, this is explained in further detail:

“Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible… Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.”

Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy do have much in common, of course, but the latter is more concerned about providing basic necessities to all citizens, while the former is focused on spreading ownership of capital and creating a truly democratic society. Sanders promotes policies that reflect both. As a Social Democrat, he advocates universal healthcare and free college tuition, while as a Democratic Socialist, he promotes employee ownership and worker cooperatives.

Most of these policies are not considered very radical in other industrialized societies — just common sense. Yet in America, words like “slavery” and “communist” and “genocide” tend to pop out the mouths of certain people in opposition — and not just fringe lunatics on social media. Indeed, now that Sanders has become a major presidential candidate, right wingers are falling back on their McCarthyist tradition. Rand Paul, who has tried to sell himself as the mature and reasonable Republican candidate, is obviously feeling his growing irrelevancy, and attacked Sanders in the paranoid tradition of the John Birch Society.

“It amazes me, and it actually kind of scares me. I’ve been making and spending more time going after Bernie and socialism because I don’t want America to succumb to the notion that there’s anything good about socialism,” said Paul in a radio interview, “I think it’s not an accident of history that most of the time when socialism has been tried, that attendant with that has been mass genocide of people or any of those who object to it. Stalin killed tens of millions of people. Mao killed tens of millions of people. Pol Pot killed millions of people. When you have a command economy, when everything is dictated from one authority, thats socialism.”

(I was not aware that the Scandinavians were a bunch of genocidal maniacs. Thanks, Rand!)

Of course, as DSA explained above, a centrally planned, command economy is not advocated by Sanders, and his policies have nothing to do with 20th century communism. Neither does he want to abolish private property, as most GOP candidates will begin spewing eventually.

“Democratic Socialism means democracy,” said Sanders on Sunday, “It means creating a government that represents all of us, not just the wealthiest people in this country.”

Sanders’ message has obviously resonated with many of the American people, who are fed up with Washington D.C., and the latest polls reveal that he has received the largest boost from the Democratic debate (he also leads Trump by 9 points). His speech on Democratic Socialism could help in finally un-demonizing a word that has long been used as a political smear. Sanders must emphasize that Democratic Socialism is nothing like communism, and it is not about “free stuff,” but fairness and democracy. While working people have seen their wages stagnate over the past few decades, the top 0.1 percent has seen their share of household wealth triple. This is not an accident, but a result of globalized capitalism, where so few own so much of the worlds productive and intellectual property. Democratic Socialism (and Social Democracy) is not about abolishing private property or the market, but spreading ownership and creating a market that works for everyone, or as Robert Reich puts it in his latest book, Saving Capitalism: For the many, not the few.” All of the loved socialistic programs that the United States has already adopted, like Social Security and Medicaid, is another point that Sanders should emphasize.

A great deal of Americans — especially millenialls — seem ready to move past the paranoid tradition and fear-mongering of old. The Sanders’ campaign is bringing socialism back to the mainstream, but as he has made clear, only a “political revolution” can really bring it to Washington.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How Bernie Sanders Should Talk About Democratic Socialism:

Instead of looking to Europe, Sanders could evoke the rich heritage of American radicalism.

By Eric Foner

Dear Senator Sanders,

Congratulations on the tremendous success of your campaign. You have energized and inspired millions of Americans and forced the questions of economic inequality and excessive corporate power to the center of our political discourse. These are remarkable accomplishments.

So take the following advice as coming from an admirer. I urge you to reconsider how you respond to the inevitable questions about what you mean by democratic socialism and peaceful revolution. The next time, embrace our own American radical tradition. There’s nothing wrong with Denmark; we can learn a few things from them (and vice-versa). But most Americans don’t know or care much about Scandinavia. More importantly, your response inadvertently reinforces the idea that socialism is a foreign import. Instead, talk about our radical forebears here in the United States, for the most successful radicals have always spoken the language of American society and appealed to some of its deepest values.

You could begin with Tom Paine and other American revolutionaries who strove not simply for independence from Britain but to free the new nation from the social and economic inequalities of Europe. Embrace the tradition of abolitionists, black and white, men and women like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Abby Kelley, who, against overwhelming odds, broke through the conspiracy of silence of the two major parties on the issue of slavery and helped to create a public sentiment that led to Lincoln’s election and emancipation. (And don’t forget to mention that slaves represented by far the largest concentration of wealth in the United States on the eve of the Civil War, that slaveholders were the richest Americans of their time, and that nothing could be accomplished without confronting their economic and political power.) Refer to the long struggle for women’s rights, which demanded not only the vote but also equality for women in all realms of life and in doing so challenged some of the most powerful entrenched interests in the country.

You should mention the People’s Party, or Populists, and their Omaha platform of 1892, which describes a nation not unlike our own, with inequality rife and a political system in need of change, where “corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench…. [and] the fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few.” Or what about the Progressive platform of 1912, for a party that nominated Theodore Roosevelt for president, which called, among other things, for strict limits on campaign contributions, universal health insurance, vigorous federal oversight of giant corporations and other measures that, over a century later, have yet to be realized.

Of course, every politician gives lip service to the idea of enhancing economic opportunity, but you have, rightly, emphasized that to secure this requires the active involvement of the federal government, not simply letting the free market work its supposed magic. Your antecedents include not just FDR’s New Deal but also his Second Bill of Rights of 1944, inspired by the era’s labor movement, which called for the government to guarantee to all Americans the rights to employment, education, medical care, a decent home, and other entitlements that are out of reach for too many today. You could point to A. Philip Randolph’s Freedom Budget of 1967, which asked the federal government to address the deep economic inequalities the civil rights revolution had left untouched. But beyond these and other examples, the point is that the rights we enjoy today—civil, political, economic, social—are the result of struggles of the past, not gifts from on high. That’s what you mean when you say we need a citizens’ revolution.

As to socialism, the term today refers not to a blueprint for a future society but to the need to rein in the excesses of capitalism, evident all around us, to empower ordinary people in a political system verging on plutocracy, and to develop policies that make opportunity real for the millions of Americans for whom it is not. This is what it meant in the days of Eugene V. Debs, the great labor leader and Socialist candidate for president who won almost a million votes in 1912. Debs spoke the language of what he called “political equality and economic freedom.” But equally important, as Debs emphasized, socialism is as much a moral idea as an economic one—the conviction that vast inequalities of wealth, power, and opportunity are simply wrong and that ordinary people, using political power, can produce far-reaching change. It was Debs’s moral fervor as much as his specific program that made him beloved by millions of Americans.

Each generation of Americans had made its own contribution to an ongoing radical tradition, and you are following in their footsteps. So next time, forget about Denmark and talk about Paine, Douglass, FDR, and Debs as forbears of a movement that can make the United States a fairer, more equal, more just society.

Sincerely,

Eric Foner
DeWitt Clinton Professor of History
Columbia University

 

[JackLuis]

Bernie Sanders Brings Back Integrity

in·teg·ri·ty
(noun)
- the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

The cultural norm is to accept the fact that American politicians are corrupt. While many of us complain about our government's efficiency, we are also responsible for the corruption that continues to take place as we continue to elect and re-elect people with clear records of unethical and immoral behavior. With all the media smog in today's society, we have become apathetic in truly caring about the character of who we elect to office so long as they align with our personal views.

While there are differing views on the upcoming presidential election, I wanted to narrow in on the Democratic race to highlight an important personal characteristic that has been lacking in all mainstream politicians since I can remember. This one characteristics can't be bought, taught or photoshopped; it must be earned. This characteristic is integrity. While the value of integrity has diminished when it comes to politics, there is one candidate who is brimming with it. The one candidate who has the most consistent, transparent, and honorable record as a public servant is Bernie Sanders.

Bernie needs a good running mate, to attract the loose ends of the Demo-Indep fringe.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Bernie needs a good running mate, to attract the loose ends of the Demo-Indep fringe.

Kucinich, perhaps? Or, do you mean he needs a centrist to balance the ticket?

 

[JackLuis]

Kucinich, perhaps? Or, do you mean he needs a centrist to balance the ticket?

I don't know much about her but Gabbard of Hawaii sounded like she was pretty sane in what I have seen. She could bring in the "Women" and fill out the "Sanity V Teahaddist" ticket.

 

[JackLuis]

Bernie shocks college student!​

Watch this college student’s perfect ‘Oh shit’ face as Bernie Sanders drops a bombshell about legal pot

The announcement came as somewhat of a shock. Previously, in an interview with Katie Couric, Sanders said marijuana was probably less harmful than tobacco, but noted that law enforcement officials believe marijuana is a “gateway drug” that can lead to heroin and cocaine addiction.

No one seemed more surprised than the unidentified student seated behind Sanders, who seemed uninterested in the candidate’s stump speech until he addressed weed, at which point he snapped to attention and appeared to say “Oh shit.”