It's fascinating to see where this love for a SOCIALIST is coming from.
I am assuming you are addressing me. I have never professed a "love" for Mr. Sanders. In fact, I stated in a different thread that I do not endorse nor support his Socialistic views. I dolove, however, his approach to campaign finance and to lobbyism and to transparency. I also appreciate the fact that although he is a self-professed Socialist, he refuses to align himself with a single party because he refuses to feed into the flawed two party political system. That is progress to me.
If it were up to Clinton and her corrupt cronies, I probably would have been locked away many years ago. They are afraid of being exposed for the backdoor deals and kickback arrangements made with foreign terrorist nations over the last decade.
I repudiate you and your do-nothing "They are all EXACTLY THE SAME" tactics.
You flatter yourself to think anything you have to say would land you in jail. There are real thinkers out there who are actually threatening to the status quo.
PJ, why should he/she go away? Erik and Liza have a distaste that is relevant. I share it. We want a debate, and if debate means Hillary has to change her tune a thousand times, I want that to happen. She tweeted back welcoming Bernie in the fight for the middle class. She got that all wrong Bernie isn't going to fight for the middle class, he's going to fight for the lower class to become raised. She's got it so wrong it's pathetic.
Everybody brings their history on the board to their posts. Mistakes we've made, new insights we've shared, amends we have made (or in some cases not made when we really should have) and all of those things go into whether or not some people want to engage with others here or whether we wish they would go away because they aren't actually interested in give and take. It's hard to shake the rep of being a troll if you continue to troll.
Maybe if Gore was a better candidate people wouldn't have felt compelled to vote for Nader in the first place.
"Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders' nascent presidential campaign announced Friday that it raised more than $1.5 million in its first 24 hours, a number that far outpaces what Republican presidential hopefuls posted in their first day.
Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, kicked off his dark horse campaign for the Democratic nomination on Thursday with an email to supporters and a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol. Since then, more than 100,000 people signed up for the campaign and 35,000 people donated money, according to a campaign press release.
The average donation was $43.54.
"This is a remarkable start for Bernie's campaign," said Tad Devine, the campaign's senior adviser. "People across America are yearning for authentic leadership that tells them the truth about what is holding back our nation. Bernie Sanders understands the problems we face."
Since campaign finance reform if one of Sanders key issues he has pledged not to use a Super PAC and concentrate on grass roots fundraising. Unlike some other Democratic candidates who say they are concerned about campaign finance reform while they are raising 2.5 BILLION through Super PACs.
I love conversing with Erik here. I have enormous respect for him and the work he does with kids and the perspective he brings to the discussion from what he witnesses of the challenges and tragedies of their lives. I think that is important work and a necessary perspective.
I am thrilled that in 24 Hours Bernie Sanders raised more money than Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. His presence makes the Democratic primary process more involving and (as I have posted) moves the Center toward the Left.
Erik and I may disagree on the acceptability of moderate Democrats, but I think we agree on more than we disagree on and are happy to be hearing the other one's voice. (Hope I'm not misrepresenting your charity toward me, Erik.)
However...I hate seeing the Headband's posts because I have never had any reason to respect his posts. He troll-posts to annoy other posters, he calls people names, and--worst of all--he cheapens every discussion by making it all about himself. Most stupidly, he posts longstanding progressive ideals as if he were the first person ever to articulate them, even though he knows perfectly that virtually every person on these threads already believes those ideals--or has thought through more nuanced versions of them.
And it's not like I don't know I'm in the minority on this. Or that I don't know the possibility of Sanders getting the nomination is a longshot.
This has been a long evolution for me. It's funny that South Fl brought up Nader/Gore. I was in grad school during that election. I was just starting to do the work that I do now. I met this really dreamy guy who worked in a law clinic in the Bronx. He mostly worked on cases of police brutality.
One night we were talking about the election and he told me he was voting for Nadar. I was furious! We got into a giant argument and it's what eventually led to our break up. Now I totally get why he voted for Nader. He's working in DC now. Still being dreamy while doing amazing work.
I voted for Gore. I voted for Kerry. I actively campaigned for Obama and donated money I didn't have. I cried the day Obama got elected. Not just because it was historic, but because I finally thought the country had a shot at real change.
Then I went back to work and back to reality. And instead of getting better things got worse. StageManager2 said that voting isn't a moral issue. But when you sit across from the people who are most harmed by our country's economic policies every single day, when you get to know them as your friends and neighbors it's impossible for it NOT to be a moral issue.
So this is why I'm so passionate about this issue. And I'm sure I'll be passionate about it all the way up to election day. And I do understand the other side of the argument. I used to be making it.
I'm as critical of Obama as the any Democrat, but if you think about how much he did accomplish instead of how much he didn't--and then measure that up against what a President McCain or a President Romney would have done...I think you'll be glad they lost.
And another 4 years of a Democratic presidency will build on that, while 4 years of President BushWalkerRubioCruz will do way more damage.
And, yes, I blame the Nader supporters for Gore's loss. They ignored the money he was taking from Republican donors who didn't want him as president--they just wanted a Republican. And I think conservatives are entitled to blame Ron Paul for helping to elect Clinton.)
But I especially blame the media for creating a fiction that Gore was a wooden automaton. He wasn't perfect--no politician more than human--but he did not deserve to depicted as a Lurch-like fool. That depiction only served to further depress turnout.
And I would agree with about Gore if the Clinton/Gore administration wasn't responsible for the explosion of income inequality and childhood poverty rates in this country.
Erik, I would like to disagree. Income inequality was actually planted back in the Reagan Era with Trickle Down... it took years tho grow and like turning a giant cruise ship, it takes awhile for the action to occur after you turn the wheel. Yes, it did come to fruition during the Clinton/Gore administration, however I do not think it was solely caused by them.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
South Florida, are you the only person who posts from your account? It's almost as if you don't have any recollection that the 'band has gone after you again and again about something you said once. I'm just assuming the other person using your account doesn't know about that or something.
It's just me. I don't hold grudges. Thanks to you and some others Liza has stopped chasing me around. I'm sure as soon as I post something he/she dosen't agree with I'll be branded the biggest homophobe ever, anyway, Liza is passionate about politics and I admire that.
SNAFU...I agree. It started with the Reagan administration. But it accelerated under the Clinton/Gore administration.
Under Clinton we had NAFTA (a disaster), the deregulation of Wall Street, "welfare reform", and the Clinton crime bill. All have been major contributors to the widening income inequality gap and explosion of poverty in this country.
Interestingly enough if you compare the contribution list of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Clinton, there were a larger number of Wall Street cronies who supported Clinton than Reagan. Both men instituted terrible economic policies but the "icing on the cake" is the deregulation of Wall Street which, as pointed out by The Guardian, was pushed forward by Clinton. The motivation for that should be very clear (he was paying back his buddies).