This message was self-deleted by its author

[seabeyond]

This message was self-deleted by its author (seabeyond) on Fri May 15, 2015, 10:45 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. Transparency?

[seabeyond]

2. please, just quit playing games. you want to know something? ask!

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. OK.

Transparency.

[seabeyond]

4. ok. transparency. i do not know what you are talking about... so done.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. I guess you forgot your asking this question:

"what makes sanders and warren, anything but politicians. playing the same game?"

I'll say it again, slower this time...

T-r-a-n-s-p-a-r-e-n-c-y.

[seabeyond]

28. well... then, and thank you for finally taking effort to clarify. i disagree. i am being transparent

about their political stunt, for valued and needed conversation. and a lot of people want me to shut the fuck up, or are accusing me of something.

so, .... gonna help me out. on the transparency thing?

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. What you're being transparent about is your perception that it's a stunt.

You know and I know you're not that obtuse.

My turn:

So, done.

[seabeyond]

37. is it a stunt or not. simple question. not about me ... dude.

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. "dude"? Srsly?

[JDPriestly]

184. For one thing, Sanders does not dial for dollars from corporations and their

employees. That makes him very different from the average politician.

Sanders beat the one of the richest Republicans in Vermont in his Senate race.

Know why? Because he represents all the people. And the voters vote for him because they know he is on their side and will not compromise so that he can keep the donations flowing from corporations. If he compromises it's to achieve a goal for the people, not for a corporation.

Warren accepts corporate donations, but she came to politics and became progressive in her views the hard way. She researched the causes for bankruptcies, especially personal bankruptcies of members of the middle class. To her amazement she learned that in many cases, they were not due to some moral laxity or huge mistakes on the part of the bankrupt people but other issues like a lost job or bad health. That changed her into a liberal. She was a Harvard Law School professor before entering the Senate. You don't get a job like that unless you are really good at what you do. She is a woman who started in a lower middle class family in Oklahoma and made it to a professorship at Harvard Law School -- on her own merit. That is so remarkable, just amazing. She is brilliant and folksy. If you think she is just another politician, I suggest you read her book, A Fighting Chance.

The thing that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren share, the personal quality that makes them unique in our Senate is their utter sincerity and relative honesty. Bernie is a "I try to never lie" kind of guy. Elizabeth Warren seems to me to be the same, but Bernie wins a prize for being truly himself. He just does not put on. He is the real deal.

Watch their videos. Listen to their voices. Here's how you can tell whether someone is real. If their entire being affirms the meaning of their words, they are real. If their voice is firm and confident, that is a sign. Both Bernie and Elizabeth have voices that sound like they come from deep within them. The voices are not superficial. Their voices are one with their beings. Their movements are the same. That's what you call integrity. There is no muscle in their bodies that questions the affirmation of those ideas that they strongly support. This is not hocus-pocus. There is a unity between Bernie's and Elizabeth Warren's statements and their true feelings and beliefs.

As for Bernie, he is about moral values. He talks about them. His ideas are consistent and not just convenient. He answers questions with little or no hesitation.

Just some tips on how to determine authenticity. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are both authentic.

Let Jon Stewart be your guide. His talent is spotting and calling out phonies. That is why he is trusted with regard to his news analysis. Let Jon Stewart be your guide.

Hope this is helpful.

[madokie]

188. Yup

They both are the real deal.

[seabeyond]

191. none of that addressed what i asked. nt

[JDPriestly]

196. Very specifically, Pink? Really? A stunt?

I wear a lot of pink. It goes with the color in my cheeks, and a colorist told me to wear it. Looks good on a lot of people. And then, there is Code Pink. I am not a part of that group but in my view, their choice of the color pink sends the message that they don't hesitate. They are women, proudly and even aggressively women and they wear pink to defy anyone from discounting their commitment to progress just because they are women. That's how I read it anyway. Same for women supporting Bernie. Pink is traditionally the color associated with femininity. Since I don't look good in blue but look better in pink, I'm happy that pink is for me as a woman.

And the bill about Wall Street? The banks need to be broken up. They are a danger to our society. In fact, a lot of the mega-corporations especially in the communications and media business need to be broken up. They have too much power and too much money. They bring too much risk into our economy. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren know that. They have sent a warning signal to the banks that their "too big to fail" status is about to end one way or another. They are right on that issue.

Did I answer your questions?

These two actions --- the pink and the Wall Street bill -- are not stunts. They are messages that have meaning. I back both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

[Nevada Blue]

222. Thank You JD Priestly

for this wonderful post.

I read here daily, but don't post often. As I age, I'm losing the ability to express myself coherently and precisely - and that's not a good way to post at a fine active board like DU.

I read your post twice. You eloquently said what I feel in my heart and in my gut about these politicians.

Just thank you, that's all.

[JDPriestly]

193. What do you really mean by a political stunt?

Now that we are learning about what happened with Bin Laden, we know that some of the information released was probably a political stunt. The bit about torture and the chauffeur? Probably a stunt. The bit about collecting information? Possibly a stunt. The awe at the danger of the mission although the "attack" had probably been cleared with the top ranks of the Pakistani military. Now, if even half of the recent allegations about that Bin Laden killing are true, that was truly a political stunt, scheduled just in time for an election. It was still a dangerous mission, but the telling of the story, the fabrication of details -- a stunt.

What Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are warning us about the TPP are true. The agreement is the equivalent of a corporate coup. Any attempt to try to derail it is patriotic, not a political stunt.

I'm not sure whether the opposing Obama's TPP is what you are referring to as a stunt, but that is no stunt. That is really an admirable effort.

[kenfrequed]

5. It would help if you actually asked a question.

All I see are a lot of implications and aspersions where you attempt to label Sanders as a typical politician. If you look at his record you would realize that he is anything but typical. Ask an honest question and you will get an honest answer.

[seabeyond]

7. i want to know if warren and sanders participated in two political stunts. if so, dont we have to

acknowledge they are politicans as all others are. and they do not get a pass, any more than we would obama or clinton.

thank you. i will add that.

[Bonobo]

8. "I want to know"

No, I honestly do not think you do.

[seabeyond]

12. YOU, are one i will not take seriously. you, are one that makes shit up, and then argues from that

position. you, add nothing to a political discussion. and. you have a crowd. and, i will ignore them, too. 3 yrs, we know each other.

[NCTraveler]

18. You don't take them seriously. That's a shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634558

[seabeyond]

22. not in addressing me. as a whole? yes i do. hence the continual addressing of the social/economic

populist issue. i take that very very very seriously

along with mra, in our party

[geek tragedy]

26. such a sober, respectful voice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11145018

[seabeyond]

32. yes. he consistently giggles at vulgarly denigrating women thru language of a question. nt

[Bonobo]

231. I was making the point that posting about small penis size as a joke is no different

than joking about the size of a woman's vagina.

SheShe posted a joke about penis size and thinks that is different than posting about vagina size.

THAT is the reason for the post.

Double standards irritate me.

[kenfrequed]

31. So...

According to your measure oppsing a trade treaty because it is a bad treaty and putting for legislation that supports the ideals of a candidate are "stunts."

Whereas signing a bad trade treaty that will endanger American jobs, the environment, improve corporate profits for pharmaceutical and entertainment industries, and force American workers to compete with the race to the bottom for wages are... what precisely?


I am sorry, but you have not presented an honest question. You are making an accusation that a Senator putting forth a bill that is in keeping with a lifetime of his political service and his positions is a stunt. I find that to be repugnant and revolting and it probably speaks more from where you are coming from than the character of Warren or Sanders.

Good day sir.

[seabeyond]

47. stopping at the first sentence. i am not the one claiming stunt. the populist on du are....

they are blaming "dems" of the last 24 hours, with including their populist leaders.

addressing that has nothing to do with my views of tpp.

where did you get that?

oh wait. you created a story to argue.

k

i do not play that game.

[kenfrequed]

56. Direct quote:

This is a direct quote from your initial post:

-----------

"i want to know if warren and sanders participated in two political stunts. if so, dont we have to

acknowledge they are politicans as all others are. and they do not get a pass, any more than we would give one to obama or clinton."

-------------

Are these your words? Or is this a fox news sort of accusation where you merely passively say "people are saying..." and then run back and pretend you didn't make the accusation?

[seabeyond]

62. i'm not allowed to ask a political question, involving democrats on a democratic board?

[kenfrequed]

91. So...

Your denial of calling or implying it to be a stunt is what then? A mistake? An oversight? A stunt?

Any shred of credibility you might have barely clung to is gone. Please go away now.

[seabeyond]

94. ASKING if it is a stunt, while populists on du are calling it a stunt. have issue with the word

'stunt', talk to the populist. as i am. ASKING them if this was a political stunt and to explain it to me.

[kenfrequed]

97. Well no.

You are implied it was a stunt and then threw a lot of crappy half-accusations around and pretended to be "neutral" about it. Badly. When I called you on the implied accusations, you denied them. When I quoted you, you acted outraged that somehow you were being denied permission to pose questions. When I asked you whether it was a misstatement and slipped in the word 'stunt' as one of the possibilities, this is how you responded.


I am done with this and I will call it what it is. A lie. You lied. You argued dishonestly from the start and coached accusations in your questions rather than asking for honest discussion about policy and positions. When I called you on it you lied and hoped no one would scroll backwards.

[seabeyond]

102. you argue, creating a bogus argument and have the guts to call me a liar?

[kenfrequed]

103. I already quoted you once.

Yes, I already quoted you once in your fake-question accusation of Sanders and Warrens actions being a stunt. You denied it. I reposted your original question and then you acted outraged.

I created no bogus argument. I quoted you. And now you are acting outraged again.

Scroll back to your OP.

[seabeyond]

106. "fake-question accusation" they were not fake. you argue fake. that is you making up an argument.

[kenfrequed]

108. I am done with you.

I countered your argument almost immediately and pointed out the flaws in your statement instantly. There is nothing more to be done with this discussion. I am done with you.

Good day sir.

[seabeyond]

110. ya. done. make up and argument. call me a liar. and done. i hear ya. ah ha....

[cui bono]

230. Populists are NOT calling anything Sanders and Warren did a stunt afaik.

Last edited Fri May 15, 2015, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

I think you are misunderstanding the criticism.

The stunt was the Dems who pretended to put up a fight and then caved the next day to make it look as if they tried and they were on the people's side trying to protect them. In reality, the fact that they caved the next day shows they didn't mean it in the first place.

Now, which Dems were those? Did Sanders and Warren change their votes? I don't know the vote for that but I am 99.9% sure that they did not.

EDIT: Sanders and Warren were not part of what populists are complaining about. So now you can put that to bed. You might want to start researching things before you go posting your "concerns". Or at least start acknowledging when you are corrected. Did you ever watch that video I posted several times for you about how Sanders fights for women's rights?

Thirteen Democrats have voted in favor of moving to the bill so far: Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Tom Carper (Del.), Chris Coons (Del.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jeanne Shaheem (N.H.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/242093-senate-votes-to-start-trade-debate

[cyberswede]

235. I agree. nt

[Orsino]

38. You have a right to be suspicious of a politician's pose...

...as long as you are more suspicious of politicians who haven't even bothered to pose.

In all seriousness, I expect even the most progressive president to disappoint, and obviously any deals with the most corrupt Congress in history will disappoint further.

But a criticism of Sanders amounting to he's-too-good-to-be-true doesn't impress me.

[seabeyond]

48. seeing how anally pragmatic i am.... i cant help but see it in all and everywhere. just how i walk

this earth. i like to understand the game that i am being asked to play.

i figure i have more chances at a win, or homerun

[sabrina 1]

52. No they didn't.

Why would anyone who knows their record even have to ASK such a question?

And Sanders Bill is ANYTHING BUT 'toothless'.

Explain what you mean by that anyhow. What makes a bill 'toothless'?


I know that any bills any Progrerssives like Sanders propose or endorse are referred to as 'toothless' by those who are not supportive of Progressives and Progressive policies.

Interesting that you would choose THEIR word to describe a very Progressive bill that is the exact opposite of 'toothless'.

[seabeyond]

54. populist said sanders puts the bill up yearly, knowing nothing will happen. what is that?

i am not allowed to ASK a question? lmfao.

edit... btw. you are another not interested in conversation, but a round of circles i will not participate in. you do not actually address what i say. you create your argument, to argue. yuk

[sabrina 1]

118. Why do you think that good bills like Sanders' need to be introduced over and over again?

Any bill, such as Sanders' which is beneficial to the PEOPLE, but not beneficial to Corporations, will be stalled by those who are funded by Corporations.

The real question that should have been: 'Why do WE tolerate the blocking of any bill that benefits the people'?

Sanders does his part, he refuses to just go away as he is supposed to do. He keeps doing his job, keeps shoving these bills in their faces, forcing them to respond, exposing them for what they are.

And that is why the people are no longer supporting Corporate Dems which means they will be replaced with Dems who will support these Good Dems over Corporations.

Sanders will not give up. Thankfully, which is why we need more like him.

To BLAME those who are working for the people for what is the fault of those who are not, is simply ludicrous.

[seabeyond]

122. you post has nothing to do with what i am talking about. you changed the conversation.

[MoonRiver]

131. NO! You cannot ask questions about the DU chosen one!

Was the same scenario in 2007, when Obama was the beloved. Now those same adorers have summarily thrown him under the bus. Get with the picture seabeyond!

[seabeyond]

134. i was an obama supporter, calling out the sexism to palin/clinton. just the kind of woman, i am. nt

[MoonRiver]

140. I was a Hillary supporter and endured a miserable time here during the primary.

That's why I am posting little this time around. But I firmly believe what I posted to your OP. Nobody can question the ones DU majority is obsessed with. This time it is Bernie.

[seabeyond]

143. it seems to be moonriver. doesnt mean i will shut up. i need factual information to process and

be informed. i will keep on asking. regardless who or what. i need to understand. i am addressing a lot of first time voters. i do that best informed and honest, presenting all sides and equations.

that is what happens when goal is a dem win, and happy with both candidates.

[MoonRiver]

150. I applaud you seabeyond!

[Marrah_G]

144. Sea, not sure what is going on today, but you seem to be looking for a fight

I say this as someone who respects and values your contribution here. This whole thread leaves me feeling like you are having a bad day and are venting it here. My pms are always open if you need someone to talk to

[seabeyond]

146. wrong. i asked to be informed. i have people saying i do not want to be informed. calling me a

liar.

those that actually addressed my OP, are respectfully providing info.

certain people INSIST i do not support sanders and am out to get him. wrong. i continually and consistently support the man. but then, when clinton makes a good move, i say ... yea, too. i like both. sue me.

[RiverLover]

72. The president wants you to believe they were stunts to minimalize what they said, what they're

trying to do for US.

Its the people that fall for such an obvious ploy, stunt if you will, that worry me. Sheeps to slaughter.

[seabeyond]

74. the populist dems on du are the ones yelling the "dems" 24hr tpp lock is a stunt. nt

[RiverLover]

78. I didn't. I read an article about what was really happening. It was the press everyone should be

pissed at, for making it something it wasn't.

And Obama trying to make Warren the focus rather than acknowledging the majority of Democrats in the House and all non-Wall Street Dems in the Senate are against it is telling. He is a master politician. It's JUST what his buddy Rahm would suggest to do.

[seabeyond]

80. thank you, for addressing my OP. so you are seeing the yesterday thing, as the press.

i appreciate that heads up. i will watch that. that is certainly a part of the equation.

thank you

lol

all i am doing is fucking asking for info and an understanding. i have been doing reading and listening. and processing what i am getting, i now have a couple questions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. Your answer will be either "yes" or "no"

How will either answer inform your subsequent opinions?

Doing the right thing, even if done publicly, ostentatiously, and with limited hope of success - is still doing the right thing.

[Marrah_G]

139. I don't believe so

They are saying what they have been saying for many years.

[seabeyond]

145. can you explain the anger at some dems, calling tpp the last 24 hours a stunt, while

keeping sanders and warren out of it?

why arent they consider part of the political equation now and we are just dissing on some dems.

one person suggested media, press. i dont know. i ask. how are sanders and warren not part of the anger with the tpp block, unblock.

[Marrah_G]

148. I have no explaination for what other DUers are thinking

My own thoughts are that Sanders and Warren have spoken out and worked against things like the TPP and for income equality for many years. I don't consider them being part of any stunt, because they are doing what they always do.

[seabeyond]

152. i was trying to get an understanding of the politics yesterday, and obama vs warren.

i do not think it will be had. i do find it interesting.

personally? i do not trust anyone. i want to clearly see their moves and why. i stayed out of the back and forth, and simply paid attention. now i have questions. what happened? no more or less.

[Marrah_G]

153. I wasn't on DU yesterday, so I must have missed a lot.

[jwirr]

197. First of all the tpp issue is not what you were asking about at the beginning of this OP. If it was

then a lot of us did not understand that.

But now you want to know why Democrats are calling the vote on it a stunt. IMO some believe the Democrats refused to vote for it merely to see if they can get a better deal. I personally do not call that a stunt because it was a good move - but then they start making a deal and all we get is two separate bills that are likely to fail anyhow. So they voted no for absolutely nothing. And people smell a rat. I did read this morning that they are opposing it again. Who knows where that is going.

Why don't we connect Bernie and Elizabeth to this issue? Because all but one Democratic Senators voted against it. They did not do it because of Bernie or Elizabeth - they did it because a lot of us who are against the TPP pressured them. And we will continue to pressure them and the WH.

I think you are assuming that Bernie and Elizabeth are causing us to think what we believe - IMO we here on DU are smart enough to think for ourselves. We support them because they think like we do - not the other way around.

[seabeyond]

199. thank you. if my OP was not clear, it was because i was not informed, hence ASKING questions.

i think a lot of people made more into the post than what it was for their own agenda.

clearly

tpa the last 24 hours, and sandars too big to fail bill.

both times, the headines we were given were false, to what was actually happening.

i realized it with bernies too big to fail. (i call it a political move). but, i had to do a lot of reading, a lot of listening, to find the truth when he put that bill out.

i was reading... sanders GUTS too big to fail.

that wasnt true. took effort.

i come in this morning, listening to duers moan they are done with dem. they played a stunt with the block.

again i ask. is it a stunt and if so why? i find out again... it was not a stunt, but a political move, that we should have been aware of.

the headlines

warren BOLCKS tpa... was false

there was much more in it. i wanted to know what it was about.

[Jackpine Radical]

186. What is a "stunt?"

A gesture that is unlikely to result in immediate success?

Was it a stunt when the Billionaires for Bush engaged in a little theatre to make their point about Oligarchy? Of COURSE it was.
But it wasn't a pointless stunt.

Bernie has periodically proposed legislation that is close to his heart, even though he knows that it won't pass at the time of its introduction. A stunt? Yes, I guess you could say so, depending on your definition of "stunt."

What would you prefer that he do? Sit on the back bench and keep shut up?

Back in the teens & 20's, the Democratic Socialists used to run candidates like Gene Debs & platforms advocating pie-in-the-sky notions like workmen's comp, unemployment comp, and Social Security. It was ridiculous. Not only would they fail to get elected, but none of those platform planks had the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of passing.

Then one maverick state, under the baleful influence of Bob LaFollette and his evil band of Progressives, passed some of those things. Eventually they became law across the land.

I think Gandhi engaged in stunts too. Like that salt strike nonsense.

Sometimes you have to do "stunts" to pry the Overton Window open a little wider, knowing that it still won't be quite wide enough to shove your platform through, but the widening itself is an incremental act.

[seabeyond]

192. i didnt say it was a pointless stunt. i call it a political move. i agree with it. headlines....

sanders gutted "too big to fail" was false.

just like this morning reading how bad the dems are. i was asking what that was about. blocking and then passing. people moaning over their STUNT.

it was a political move, i find out. put this in the bill for us, and we will not block.

not that ANYONE could actually say that it was a political move from dems. not that we actually truthfully stated what was happening in our titles.

warren BLOCKED tpa.

well, no. there was more to the story. right?

[Jackpine Radical]

202. OK, some terms have been rather corrupted by sloppy usage.

"Political" is such a term. The word has come to mean something synonymous with "cynical" but it really just relates to the process of governance. To say that something is "political" is merely to say that it relates to the process of governing, so at that level at least, what I EXPECT from politicians is that they do "political" things. Sometimes the art of politics involves "stunts" even when the purpose is not a cynical or self-serving one.

One further point I should establish here is that I really doubt that Bernie in his wildest imaginings ever thought he would declare for the Presidency. His prior actions were not conditioned on the question of how they would look in a Presidential candidate. He's pretty much continuing on his habitual course, with no change in his espoused values, nor much of one in his actions. That seems to me to be an important fact.

And as an afterthought, I just now flashed back on Abbie Hoffman and the street theater of the Vietnam War protest era. Abby said something about "crying 'Theater!' in the middle of a crowded fire."

[ucrdem]

6. It's a little unnerving.

They got Wyden to vote against his own bill. Holy shit. What have they got planned for October 2016? At this point I'm finding it very hard trust either of them.

[seabeyond]

9. i cant help it. i am beginning to wonder also... why wouldnt i. a week into sanders run,

i am seeing different shit happen. it behooves me to fuckin' pay attention. right?

[ucrdem]

17. The chorus of STFU and don't ask embarrassing questions is rather loud.

Which makes me wonder.

[seabeyond]

24. i should be able to legitimately ask two legitimate political questions. and expect an answer. nt

[cali]

45. what's embarrassing is word salad passive aggressive rhetoric

in order to play gotcha. What's embarrassing is anyone pretending that the OP was a serious question. It bears no resemblance to one.

I explained: Both Sanders and Warren have long consistent histories of advocacy for these issues. Bernie has introduced legislation to break up the "too big to fail" banks several times over the years. He's been very vocal about what he sees as bad trade agreements- for decades. Warren has made the centerpiece of her career, for over 25 years, economic injustice in such areas as banking. Are they politicians? Sure? Do they do things, "stunts" if you will, to try and draw attention to their issues? They'd be poor politicians if they didn't. But at least their stunts are wholly consistent with the advocacy they've been practicing for years.

As someone else pointed out, President Obama went to Nike, one of the worst offenders in the world when it comes to off shoring and exploiting labor, to push for his agenda. That's a "stunt" too, of course- but it's a stunt that contradicts statements and positions he's held in the past. And that is a difference right there.

[seabeyond]

51. your argument is that it was not a serious question. it was. you get to decide. then argue. really?

[hifiguy]

210. Indeed,

Palinesque blenderizing of word-clouds will get you nowhere but ignored, and very deservedly so. I, for one, find the rules of grammar, rhetorical clarity and punctuation to be my friends. I guess I am some sort of throwback.

This has all ascended so close to open trolling that you can't put a piece of paper between them,

[Backwoodsrider]

33. yeah lets pull back the covers and see who they really are

Not the polished and promoted political image but who they really are and whats driving them. We look at Clintons and every other politician that way, what makes them different?

[seabeyond]

53. if you are willing to pull the covers back, why are so many trippin to avoid pulling the covers back

[Backwoodsrider]

60. good question

Many peoples minds are already made up about which candidate they like, especially the thinking people here at DU. When our minds are made up we often start looking for facts that prove to us we made the correct choice. When the facts we are receiving don't match our views and beliefs we either change our thinking(rare) or we eliminate those facts. You know the statement "don't bother me with facts my mind is made up" I think that applies to many in DU who want a hero to worship. Some people don't like to hear contrary information so they block it. I say screw it pull back the covers on EVERYONE. Life is too short to go through life with a limited view OPEN YOUR MIND

[seabeyond]

63. we live in a world of contradiction. it behooves us to get good, living in that world. painless for

me.

but yes. thank you. i do live as you insist. it does not hurt to pull the covers cause even then, with our dems, .... i like what i see. lol

and it is interesting

and gain knowledge

which allows us a greater chance of success.

thank you

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. Too bad that didn't happen with Obama pull back the covers to see who he really was.

[seabeyond]

76. i think many many of us have, all along the way. nt

[Backwoodsrider]

117. yeah he sure didnt perform as promised

But I kind of figured his platitudes about helping the average person was just to get elected then he had to switch to corporate mode because he is now on a global scale. I still think he has concerns for the average person but he has to appease the corporate big money world too.

[G_j]

121. at this point?

[SMC22307]

234. "Holy shit" what? Wyden wanted all four bills passed.

--Fast-track bill (TPA)
--Trade adjustment assistance (worker assistance programs for those losing their jobs)
--Trade enforcement bill (currency manipulation), opposed by Obama
--Africa trade bill

“Until there is a path to get all four bills passed,” Wyden said after a lunchtime meeting with fellow pro-trade Democrats, “we will — certainly most of us — have to vote no.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-threaten-to-stall-trade-legislation-in-the-senate/2015/05/12/08f71d66-f8c0-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

Reid called for all four bills to move as a package:

http://www.politico.com/morningtrade/0515/morningtrade18274.html

Unnerved by Harry, as well?

[ucrdem]

238. Yes, unnerved. Great links, thanks, but what it boils down to is "Wyden squeezed."

Clearly the goalposts were moved at the last minute, after months and months of negotiations, and Wyden had to ditch his own bill. The letter he wrote which was posted here was a mish-mash adding up to basically nothing. Now this deal with these four amendments. Okay I imagine they're good amendments, that may or may not see daylight, but the whole "procedural snafu" as it's politely described is as unnerving as hell, yeah. Are they going to pull the same stunt over some issue they pull out of the air on Nov. 7 2016? "We can't recommend a vote for Hillary unless she promises XYZ." Hello President Jeb. And that's if Bernie keeps his promise not to run third-party. Who's to say that goalpost won't shift in the night too? That's what worries me.

[SMC22307]

239. Who is "they"?

The rotating villains? The American people? Who is or isn't recommending a vote for Hillary?

[ucrdem]

240. LOL, read the OP and if that's inconvenient read your links.

But I'll help out, from WaPo: "anti-trade hard-liners."

[SMC22307]

241. Ha, right. I couldn't make out the word salad last night...

not putting myself through it again tonight.

I support the anti-*free* trade hard-liners... not unnerved in the least!

[geek tragedy]

10. Stunts are all any minority party Senator or Rep has for these kinds of issues.

It's not like anything Bernie Sanders supports is going to pass muster with the Teahadists in Congress.

So, if it's not going to pass, might as well put the issue up front and center and get the conversation going.

Difference between a stunt and a conversation piece is . . . ?

[ucrdem]

14. Okay so how do we know his presidential campaign isn't a stunt?

There seems to be some question here as to whether he's in it to win. If he isn't, that's a problem. If he is, that's also a problem. Not good.

[geek tragedy]

20. if his campaign is a stunt, then that will be revealed by the end of January 2016 nt

[seabeyond]

57. i do not think the campaign is a stunt. i think sanders has a shot. nt

[HERVEPA]

27. If you knew or read anything about the man and his history, you'd know it's not a stunt.

[seabeyond]

59. putting up a bill, to jump start a campaign, declaring his position, he knows will not go anywhere

is not a stunt?

i love his bill. i love you put it forefront. i enjoyed reading it and getting educated.

i think it is a well moved political stunt

[cali]

29. He says he's in it to win it, but even if he's not, why is it a problem?

Why isn't a good thing that he's forcing a focus on some very important issues?

[ucrdem]

43. Using bullshit from Clinton Cash to bash the Clintons is a problem.

Link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

[cali]

58. oh noes. he's being wholly consistent about the intersection of big

money and politics, something he's focused on for almost 40 years- and the Clinton Foundation sure as shit is one of those intersections.

and he's been quite restrained about it. Martin O'Malley has been much harsher in his criticism of her. What will you do when O'Malley really gets going?

If HRC's campaign is so fragile that it can't deal with this level of mild criticism, than she's a disaster for us as the nominee.

Lame as always. At least you too are consistent.

[treestar]

93. It pretty much is

There's no way he's going to win and he must know that. So it's all publicity for left wing ideas. Not really a bad thing. But people don't seem to realize merely running for president doesn't change many voters minds. He might even be doing this to make Hillary look moderate to the soft center of independent voters.

[seabeyond]

95. i would hope sanders has not given up. i would like for him to see his campaign run as if he does

have that chance. i think he does.

if he is running it from a position of being a voice, and a counter to clinton, i would like to know that also.

[seabeyond]

19. i do not get what you meant in your last statement. and absolutely. stunt brings conversation.

i am good with that. look. this morning i am seeing threads full of disappointment with what happened yesterday. i see some dems getting the blame and the torches. i am seeing some dems, not being touched.

i am asking.

those we are keeping hands off? how much were they a part, or leaders of this.

it matters. in the politics of it. cause this is politics and a political race.

that is all.

[cali]

25. He's been introducing similar legislation for years.

Was the timing of this to draw attention to the issue and his campaign? Sure, but as you say, the intent is to push a conversation; to bring the issue front and center.

Btw, things Bernie has introduced and supported in Congress- mainly Veterans issues, have gotten support from repubs and yes, teahadists

[seabeyond]

61. ok. i do not know the point of your last statement. is the smae true with tpp/warren/boxer/24hrs vs

obama.

those two i said nothing. i educated myself and enjoyed the conversation. i listened and thought about.

this morning i am seeing our populist group raising the torches with dems. yet. i want a pragmatic answer to what political move was that and sanders/warren/boxers participation. was i watch warren and obama go at it.

understanding the politics cali. you know it all. you tell us. you see some. and some i wonder about. so, educate me. i will listen. unless you start with a fabricated argument, like... it is not a serious question. then i stop reading.

[treestar]

92. Not much it seems

The conversation does not seem to change people's minds much. I guess it could over time, or it must, or nothing would have changed earlier. But these days people are quite stubborn. Even if Bernie were President, it would still be all conversation.

[el_bryanto]

11. It is a tricky question

I guess there are two questions here - what is the value to pushing through a bill that has no hope, as Sanders has done repeatedly, and are Sanders/Warren/Boxer simply playing politics with granting fast track authority on TPP? Correct me if I have misunderstood.

The first one illustrates Sanders weakness in some areas - he hasn't been able to build a coalition to support his positions, and as such he hasn't had as much legislative success as we would like to see. I don't think you can call his bills purely symbolic; rather I am sure that he believes that his bills and proposals are genuinely what is best for America (a belief that I share, particularly in this case). Clinton and Obama have been more successful in building coalitions; but they are also going for more middle of the road solutions to these problems. From my perspective it comes down to do I want to support someone who is fighting less effectively for everything I would want, or do I want to support someone who is fighting more effectively for half of what i want or worse.

Which segues nicely into the TPP debate - I don't think TPP is a great deal for America, as near as I can understand it. I think it prioritizes corporate rights over individual rights, while it makes some gestures towards environmental concerns, they aren't very strong, and the potential for its use to harm local unions and local laws (in our case, state and city laws) is troubling. I am not knee-jerk opposed to all trade bills, but this one troubles me (not least of which because of the secrecy that Senator Boxer commented on). I think it's bad policy and will have bad effects both in the USA and in the other nations effected by it. While I can acknowledge Obama's political acumen in fighting for it, I wish that skill were turned to more productive ends.

In the case of TPP it seems simple to me - Obama is fighting for a bad trade agreement that seems likely to cause harm; Boxer/Warren/Sanders are fighting against this bad trade agreement, so I'm on their side.

Bryant

[seabeyond]

36. no. the question is. are they not making political moves, and we have to be aware and know what

and how the game is being played? to be informed?

i am beginning to see much more at stake and i want to understand.

thru out the sander bill and tpp (24hr), i have posted nothing. merely read, listened and educated myself.

this is what i am seeing after these two moves.

totally political. pragmatic. non emotion, no hyperbole. just the facts, ma'am.

[NCTraveler]

13. They are politicians playing the game.

It's what they do. Simple fact is, the ideas they have with respect to winning the game are personal and based in ideology. Their views are much better than the r's. In the game they play, a victorious outcome would be awesome. Unfortunately, the legislation you mentioned is political and a part of the game. What is that game? It is getting society more comfortable in addressing these issues in a better way. Their technique is very important and often takes decades to show results. It is why they are great in the senate. It is also why Sanders will be great on the campaign trail. Making society more comfortable discussing a stronger government role is hugely important. It is the exact same thing that drives Regan's popularity. They are also staying on message. They are going after their base and doing so very effectively by sticking with a select few topics. They do not have tons of info out on them, other than a few issues, and that makes them very friendly to certain types of people into politics. The real difference is what they feel to be the successful outcome to the game. They are actually the same outcomes Hillary would like. Difference there? Hillary knows the rules of the game and how to actually accomplish things along the way that will lead to victory. All three of them are extremely necessary in order to make progress. They are on the same team, playing different positions. Warren, Sanders, and Hillary know that. It is why they often work very well together and have such great respect for one and other. they understand the importance of the game and how to get things done.

Grayson. I learned a while back not to talk about him here. His game is clear. His game looks nothing like that of Sanders or Warren.

[seabeyond]

39. They are on the same team, playing different positions. Warren, Sanders, and Hillary know that.

thank you for this conversation. yes. this is what i am looking ot bring to lite and discuss. personally, i think it is all awesome. i think it is progressive for all we need to do. and i think this is dems time. all of them. i hear ya.

gonna think about your post, .... thank you for furthering conversation.

[NCTraveler]

50. What you want to discuss here is very important.

Not sure why some are taking issue. It will be a big part of the Sanders campaign moving forward. He is going to have to show he is a good manager and negotiator. That will mainly be shown by the team he puts around himself. He is going to have to show he doesn't just understand the game, but that he can also mover the ball up and down the field. I truly think those two things will make or break him in the caucuses. If he shows positive on both of those, he will probably get my support by way of a vote. Not a second before he can show his competence in those areas.

[Backwoodsrider]

42. hope you are correct

That would be great if we start addressing issues like the VA and education and our economy for the people and all 3 candidates holds hands and marches to the same democratic drum. However I see 3 distinct and powerful people that believe in their ideas and don't have a very good record of negotiating from what I have seen except HC

[NCTraveler]

55. I truly don't need Sanders to be good at negotiating in order for him to get my vote.

I need to see what kind of team he surrounds himself with. I don't think Obama is the best negotiator. I do think he has some of the best negotiators in the business around him. Please note, I am not saying anything positive or negative about the things being negotiated. Early on I saw Obama and Rahm. I fucking hate Rahm. What I also know about him is that he is ruthless in politics and negotiation. It was clear to all Obama was in it to win it because of those he surrounded himself with. Lets see if Sanders team is what this country deserves. The best in the business. Then again, Obama built these relationships early on in Chicago. His ambitions were clear from early on. Much different than Sanders or Warren.

[Backwoodsrider]

64. makes sense

I could not stand Rahm either but I think he did help Obama get elected. Looking forward to seeing if Sanders is serious and gets a quality team together or just uses this election to take shots at HC and other power brokers.

Remember running for the pres is used for a number of reasons...

[cali]

68. Hate to break this to you (actually, no. I enjoy it quite a bit)

Bernie has an excellent record of negotiating successfully on Veterans issues, and Veterans organizations have honored him for his work and dedication, more than once.

Veterans' bill tested Sanders' leadership

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders had his doubts that he'd reach a compromise with Republicans on a reform bill for veterans' health care.

Congressional support for action was high, fueled by national outrage involving lengthy patient wait times that might have led to the deaths of some veterans. But Sanders, an independent from Vermont who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said he rode a "roller coaster" of challenges leading up to final passage of the bill, which President Barack Obama signed early Thursday afternoon.

From the beginning, Sanders said, he found himself fending off Republican "piecemeal" approaches to the legislation. Some Republicans also demanded new spending in the bill be offset with cuts to other programs, an idea Sanders also fought.

<snip>

Passage of the legislation — the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 — means the "do-nothing Congress" legitimately can claim to have risen above the partisan rancor and done something.

Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, called it "the first encouraging sign that the last stages of the 113th Congress will not be a total, embarrassing failure."

<snip>

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/07/veterans-legislation-tested-sanders/13724839/

Bernie Sanders on frontline for veterans

As an antiwar activist who never served in the military and the first self-proclaimed socialist in the U.S. Senate, Bernard Sanders is at initial glance an unusual choice to chair the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

But Sanders, the tousled-haired 71-year-old Vermont independent who took over the committee in January, has embraced the role with a populist gusto that has won him staunch backing from veterans groups.

“That is odd,” said Peter Gaytan, executive director of the American Legion, whose members gave Sanders a warm reception at the organization’s Washington conference in February. “If you look at his leanings, you wouldn’t think he could care so much about veterans, but he does.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-on-frontline-for-veterans/2013/04/14/d97c9830-9e04-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

<snip>

Stroud is scheduled to present the VFW’s legislative positions at 10 a.m., Wednesday, in testimony before a joint hearing of the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. That evening he will also present Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with the VFW’s 2015 Congressional Award, which since 1964 has been presented annually to one sitting member of the House or Senate for significant legislative contributions on behalf of those who have worn the uniform.

“With eight years on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee — two of them as chairman — it is no understatement to say that Senator Sanders has taken care of wounded, ill and injured veterans and their surviving family members,” said Stroud. “He has been a commanding voice against changing the COLA calculations for disabled veterans, for the proper care and treatment of women veterans, homeless veterans, for better employment opportunities and improved access to mental health programs, as well as increased congressional oversight of the VA claims processing transformation,” he said.

“And when the VA imploded last year, he was the lead negotiator for the Veterans Access, Choice and accountability Act, which the president signed into law last summer,” said the VFW national commander. “The VA still has an uphill climb to fix what’s broken, to hold employees appropriately accountable, and to restore the faith of veterans in their VA, but veterans everywhere should be proud and comforted to know that this United States senator has their back in Congress.”

<snip>

http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2015-Articles/Ending-Sequestration-Again-Tops-VFW-Legislative-Agenda/

Yeah, he's just some crazy, wild lefty- who's been a leading voice on Veterans issues.

Looking forward to your response to this post.

[Backwoodsrider]

119. hero worship!

get some

[cali]

137. wow. you get owned and that's all you got? lame.

and sorry, don't do hero worship. I do facts. I know it bugs people like you who shrink from facts, but oh well.

And yeah, I disagree with Bernie on some issues- unlike a huge number of Clinton and Obama supporters who refuse to admit that their adored ones could possibly be less than perfect. I think his position on the F-35 is awful and all about getting $$$ for the state. I think his record on gun control is generally lousy, particularly his vote to block law suits against gun manufacturers (aside from defective product) sucked, although I know it didn't have anything to do with getting donations from that sector, as he's never taken a penny from them.

In any case, you were wrong. again.

[Backwoodsrider]

149. thanks for the additional info Cali

I did not know his position on the F-35, I cringe whenever I see that program, the money could of been used for such good things but I understand if Sanders wants some of that money for his state, that is his job.

Again I don't normally piss somebody off but sometimes I am very selfish and see things in others I am afraid to look at in myself, but that's for another website.

I am making an effort to keep my posts focused on the political issue and not on the poster.

[cali]

159. Yeah, the F-35 is a boonswaggle and it represents something even bigger

and maddening: dealing with the military industrial complex.

Look, you seem like a decent guy, but your posts about Sanders (and that's all I've seen of yours) are quite bizarre. You know nothing about him, but you insist, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that he'll be a spoiler. You characterize him in ways that are only tangentially and thinly attached to reality and when informed that you are incorrect you stubbornly stick with it. I don't get that kind of thinking.

[Backwoodsrider]

162. we should know who is right about Sanders in a few months

Yeah I just put my theory about Sanders out there will stop beating the drum and move on. Either its right or wrong. I do respect your input cali and getting along is better than harping at each other so will be more careful what I post especially about Sanders, that is a sensitive subject in DU because lots of people are in his corner.

[seabeyond]

163. yes. we must all tippy toe around not to piss people off. or they will start bullshit threads.

and cheer ridiculing duers as bullshit hides.

[cali]

172. it has little to do with people being in his corner. It does have to

your lack of knowledge and your willingness to make things up. Sorry to say that, but that's what you did in the op you posted yesterday, and throughout the thread. I think the thing to is to careful that what you post is FACT based, not careful because you're concerned about the sensibilities of DUers and/or don't want to be piled on.

I don't really get why you'd make things up and I don't get why you don't inform yourself about Sanders. If you did, you'd understand that your wild accusations about a third party run are laughable.

[SMC22307]

15. Of course they're politicians. And if their "stunts" wil somehow benefit...

the 99%, then bring on the stunts. As long as they're on the working chump's side, stunt away.

This seems like you trying to make an issue where there is none, much like the I v. D "debate."

[seabeyond]

41. here is the question with your comments. i have listened, read, thought about sanders bill, tpp 24hr

i have not discussed them because i was learning and watching how they were handled.

this morning i am reading the populist du'ers bummed and blaming some dems. yet, from what i see it is their guys that played this, yet blaming others. should we not be honest and address the reality. cause the very politics of it is good. i am good with it. i am not good listning to some of the threads this morning.

[cali]

16. He has repeatedly introduced legislation to break up the "too big to fail" banks

This is nothing new. And yes, he probably did introduce at the point for political purposes, but it's obviously underpinned by his sincerely held beliefs as he's been fucking doing it for years- and speaking out on it for years.

Now let me address your completely disrespectful bullshit post with exactly the amount of respect that passive aggressive masterpiece deserves: NONE.

Seriously, your having a fit over women for Sanders and the color pink? I went to their FB page and didn't see that it was awash in pink, but even if it was, so what?

You? logical? Yeah, your posts just radiate logic. Er, no. Quite the opposite. Word salad doesn't reflect logic. It doesn't reflect pragmatism or being thoughtful or knowledgeable. It reflects disjointed, stream of consciousness self-laudatory personality traits.

And what makes Sanders and Warren more than politicians playing games? Their consistency on issues going back many years.

Your post is a wonderful purgative:



oh yeah, one more time con brio:

[procon]

71. So if he's not very effective in passing legislation as a congressman

why would I think he's going to be any better as a president?

Its well known that the point of touting unpassable bills is fame and money. Everytime a politician promotes one of these dead-on-arrival bills it gives his political brand a boost and makes some happy sound bytes in ads requesting donations. Nonetheless, fundraising off key issues of the day to help Bernie fight the good fight, is still about as productive as Don Quixote charging at windmills.

To be sure there's consistency, lot's of politicians are very successful at self promotion and enjoy the rewards of fame and fortune that follow in the wake of glittering public accolades. Sometimes that ability is effective in a winning campaign strategy, however, in addition to the populist grandstanding, there must be real quantifiable substance on how a politician will achieve effective policies given the partisan divide we face.

I look forward to reading the details as soon as he (and HRC, too) puts his official policy statements on his presidential campaign website.

[cali]

96. He hasn't been very effective with that legislation, but here you go

I see you're yet another poster who likes to address things they know shit about and thus removes all doubt. First of all, in his 25 years in Congress, he hasn't exploited his position for wealth. He's one of the least wealthy members of Congress. Secondly, if ever a politician didn't give a shit about fame, it's Bernie. He seems to find it annoying. And Bernie, has been successful in Congress. Yes, he's quixotic, but he's made progress. And he certainly is persistent. You can read all the details right now on his Senate website, and hell, you can call him up and ask him a question any old Friday. He goes on the radio on the Thom Hartmann show every Friday to take calls. And yeah, he takes calls from all sorts, even antagonists and people unfamiliar with facts and the truth.

Bernie has an excellent record of negotiating successfully on Veterans issues, and Veterans organizations have honored him for his work and dedication, more than once.

Veterans' bill tested Sanders' leadership

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders had his doubts that he'd reach a compromise with Republicans on a reform bill for veterans' health care.

Congressional support for action was high, fueled by national outrage involving lengthy patient wait times that might have led to the deaths of some veterans. But Sanders, an independent from Vermont who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said he rode a "roller coaster" of challenges leading up to final passage of the bill, which President Barack Obama signed early Thursday afternoon.

From the beginning, Sanders said, he found himself fending off Republican "piecemeal" approaches to the legislation. Some Republicans also demanded new spending in the bill be offset with cuts to other programs, an idea Sanders also fought.

<snip>

Passage of the legislation — the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 — means the "do-nothing Congress" legitimately can claim to have risen above the partisan rancor and done something.

Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, called it "the first encouraging sign that the last stages of the 113th Congress will not be a total, embarrassing failure."

<snip>

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/07/veterans-legislation-tested-sanders/13724839/

Bernie Sanders on frontline for veterans

As an antiwar activist who never served in the military and the first self-proclaimed socialist in the U.S. Senate, Bernard Sanders is at initial glance an unusual choice to chair the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

But Sanders, the tousled-haired 71-year-old Vermont independent who took over the committee in January, has embraced the role with a populist gusto that has won him staunch backing from veterans groups.

“That is odd,” said Peter Gaytan, executive director of the American Legion, whose members gave Sanders a warm reception at the organization’s Washington conference in February. “If you look at his leanings, you wouldn’t think he could care so much about veterans, but he does.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-on-frontline-for-veterans/2013/04/14/d97c9830-9e04-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

<snip>

Stroud is scheduled to present the VFW’s legislative positions at 10 a.m., Wednesday, in testimony before a joint hearing of the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. That evening he will also present Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with the VFW’s 2015 Congressional Award, which since 1964 has been presented annually to one sitting member of the House or Senate for significant legislative contributions on behalf of those who have worn the uniform.

“With eight years on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee — two of them as chairman — it is no understatement to say that Senator Sanders has taken care of wounded, ill and injured veterans and their surviving family members,” said Stroud. “He has been a commanding voice against changing the COLA calculations for disabled veterans, for the proper care and treatment of women veterans, homeless veterans, for better employment opportunities and improved access to mental health programs, as well as increased congressional oversight of the VA claims processing transformation,” he said.

“And when the VA imploded last year, he was the lead negotiator for the Veterans Access, Choice and accountability Act, which the president signed into law last summer,” said the VFW national commander. “The VA still has an uphill climb to fix what’s broken, to hold employees appropriately accountable, and to restore the faith of veterans in their VA, but veterans everywhere should be proud and comforted to know that this United States senator has their back in Congress.”

<snip>

http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2015-Articles/Ending-Sequestration-Again-Tops-VFW-Legislative-Agenda/

[procon]

130. Keep to the point.

An awkward redirect like that is useless when my reply was in response to your stmt, "repeatedly introduced legislation to break up the "too big to fail" banks". Nothing has changed to counter my observation that such legislation will be unsuccessful in today's congress, and any lawmaker who continually put up those bills has an ulterior motive that is not dependant on passage.

Nonetheless, thanks for going to the trouble to post on vets issues though, it's an important topic and I look forward to reading the details of Sander's presidential policy statements on all these matters as soon as he makes them public.

[cali]

156. say what? You are the one that claimed he wasn't an effective legislator

Here's a little reminder of what YOU wrote, dear procon:

" So if he's not very effective in passing legislation as a congressman why would I think he's going to be any better as a president?"

I answered that charge. I provided you with evidence that he has been able to maneuver effectively and legislate, but hey, I appreciate your efforts to wriggle out of being wrong


And I look forward to HRC's new positions on any number of issues. I'm glad she finally, years and years after Sanders, came around on marriage equality. (he voted against the bigoted DOMA). I'm so glad she no longer holds the anti-immigrant positions she vocalized so loudly in the 2008 campaign. It's a relief that she's "evolved" on criminal justice. I look forward to HRC continuing to equivocate on the tpp and Keystone. I love her new found antagonism ("we need to topple the 1%&quot toward Wall Street and corporate greed. I await with bated breath her putting anything on her website other than talking points for defending her and a donation button- she's been in longer than he has,

If you want to mix it up with me, you need to do a great deal better than that lame attempt.

[procon]

171. "mix it up"???

Why are you being so hostile and always trying for a street fight instead of just making a normal civil reply? I'm looking for information about the policies of Sanders as presidential candidate, but all I get is glowing character testimonials, lists of his populist sentiments, serial legislation he supports that has no chance of passing, undercutting his opposition, and still not a substantive answer yet.

You don't have any information, and I get that, no one does at this point, so I don't entirely fault you. As a loyal and passionate fan, you're evidently still as much in the dark as I am because Sanders hasn't yet fleshed out his presidential website with any policy statements. It's still quite early yet, so maybe calm will prevail until he makes his official presidential platform public and there is something to discuss.

[cali]

183. hmm.

"Keep to the point. An awkward redirect like that is useless...."

that's how the post I responded to, began. I responded in a like manner. your post(s) have been snide and have not demonstrated what you claim- that you're merely looking for information about Sanders. That's obviously disingenuous.

I've given you specifics. You've been told repeatedly that you can go to his senate website where his positions are laid out in detail.

You play transparent games and I take it that you have no research skills. It's quite easy to find out, in specificity, what Sanders policies are. His Presidential platform is all there on his Senate website.


I like Sanders. I trust him to some degree, but then I'm familiar with him. He's represented me in Congress for 25 years. I'm not passionate about him or even terribly loyal. I take exception to his positions on the F-35 and some onerous votes on gun control. I don't expect Sanders to win. I'm passionate about the ISSUES he espouses and has espoused for years. I agree with his specific solutions- like raising the cap on social security, raising taxes on cap gains.

I am passionate in my opposition to Hillary. She's a center right dem except on social issues. She's a corporatist of the first order. She talks out of both sides of her mouth. She doesn't exhibit political courage or leadership. Odds are that I'll have to hold my nose and vote for her in the general- which I think she stands a good chance of losing.

And now we are done. Your pretense that your being civil and mature is something I find difficult to stomach.

You are transparent- and p-a.

[procon]

205. Now its accusations and name calling???

If nothing else, I've learned that the word 'specific' has a new meaning. No one would reasonably expect that a senator's priorities would be the same as those of a president. Evidently Sanders also knows that, which is why the things that appear on his senate web page are not on his official presidential website. Then there's also the problem that he can't use the US government's web service to promote his presidential bid.

The aspirational list on his senate website probably has an enormous populist appeal, but it is not a presidential policy statement where he explains the details of how he would accomplish his goals if elected. I'm sure he will make his platform public fairly soon, so I'll wait until I know the facts before assessing the pros and cons of his official positions, just as I will for all the candidates.

[BrotherIvan]

109. It's quite obvious you don't know much about Bernie Sanders

He is not wealthy by any stretch. So these bills is not some stunt as the OP is trying to say.

Sanders released his economic platform the day he ran. Looks like they are revamping his presidential website (used to be on there as well). http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/

[procon]

151. Yes, that's why I'm looking for subjective information.

In my quest I've been to Sander's senate and presidential campaign websites. Unfortunately, what I read at the link you provided is filled with lots of glittering generalities that seem targeted to populist sentiments, but there isn't much subjective information.

Even though this is from his Senate website, let's say it folds over to his presidential platform. OK, his number one priority is infrastructure and he says, "We need to invest in infrastructure, not more war." That's terrific, right? Now tell me HOW he intends to accomplish that in a divided congress when no one else has?

His entire list is like that; there's just no meat there to tell me, as a potential voter, that he actually has any workable plans to pass all this delicious pie.

[BrotherIvan]

158. It's so funny that there are all these requests for info and attempts to say "he has no plan"

When he has TONS of legislation with specifics. For instance, look at his bill for Medicare for all. He proposed the 29 page bill during the ACA fight.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

That's what he is proposing in his platform. He hasn't changed. And not only that, he quotes studies that show not only is it deficit neutral, it cuts costs in the first year.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

If you dig into just about any issue, you will see there is a bill that he has CLEARLY taken a stand. There is so many interviews and Senate floor speeches where he is very clear what he wants to do and how he wants to do it. All you have to do is go look.

But then the OP dismisses that as a stunt. That is why this latest meme from yesterday and today on DU is so disingenuous. Such theatre.

[procon]

165. The priorities of Senator are very different that those of a President.

It would be great if everything would mesh seamlessly, but of course, they don't. For example, Sanders might take a stand on climate that appeals to his state, or even most sane people, and that's super if he never had to push any farther.

However, as a presidential candidate, the overriding question then becomes; how does he transition his views into a workable policy? As president, he must find a way that incorporates the challenges of states that are very dependent on the fossil fuels extraction industries, the global market forces that trade in that production, and the international financial deals that fund it all.

To do that, any presidential candidate will need a new, more comprehensive policies to encompass all our complex domestic and foreign policy demands. Until he gives us that information -- and hopefully it will be soon -- you're absolutely correct, it really is just more political theater.

[BrotherIvan]

166. So only neoliberal proposals count as real ones?

That seems to be the motivation behind this question on many threads. He's not "serious" because he is proposing traditional Democratic solutions. No thanks, not buying.

[procon]

175. I have no use for labels.

I dislike it when people on the right try to hang labels on liberals to diminish them, and I feel the same about Dems who try to belittle the opposition with a divisive tag in an effort to prop up their own preferred candidate.

I'm equally interested in both the strengths and weaknesses of all the Democratic candidates. Sanders has an uphill slog ahead of him, but anything is possible and he may yet prove to be a serious contender. I don't know that, but I'll keep looking for someone that has better information at hand.

[BrotherIvan]

189. I tend to ignore posters who try to disguise their agenda

It's not worth the effort.

[cali]

201. well at least a lot of those with agenda are transparent in their faux concern

and bullshit claims to just want to know the truth.

[seabeyond]

206. because you do not agree, you claim it is faux and transparent, and can say what ever the hell

you want

arent you and other, so very fuckin special that you do not actually have to take into account what someone says.

you can call them liars, faux concerns or any other garbage, and feel secure you are awesome smart.

[procon]

214. I don't think I'd miss much either way.

The more I read these threads, the more I daylight I see.

[rurallib]

21. that is a quite cryptic question

which I can't really decode.
If the question is - do all politicians do things to create publicity - that is really a rhetorical question. Of course they do.
It is one of the vehicles that politicians and all others use to get attention.

For instance, what if the president made a major speech at one of the worst exploiters of labor in the world. Isn't that also a stunt?

[cali]

30. lol. +1

[cali]

35. Your op is about as related to a sincere question as a hole in the ground

It's bad rhetoric to attack liberals. and it's transparent as could be.

[ucrdem]

40. Please mention that to Bernie "Clinton Foundation Money A 'Very Serious Problem'" Sanders.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

[RiverLover]

65. He's right.

HRC promised Obama the foundation wouldn't accept donations from foreign countries while she served a Secretary of State. He asked that of her for a reason, so it wouldn't appear as if there were any pay for play.

So she promises him no foreign donations, then what does she do? Sets up her own private email account on a private server & the foundation takes money from foreign countries but its hidden, while she is SoS. They took it in through the Canadian arm of the foundation & funneled it through that way. Hidden.

Its stinks of corruption. Its not a smear, its true. And it leaves a lot of potential stinkbombs to come out after the primary & before the GE if she is our nominee.

[seabeyond]

46. two OPs. honest about grayson, dont hero worship. you have to take it to personal.

not playing that game. done.

you can read comments with people that actually discussed it and i replied, .... taking this conversation seriously, if you want to actually address what i say instead of your fabricated tale.

[cali]

49. Oh, I did address it- and you know it. It's in my first post in this thread

[seabeyond]

73. "and you know it" QUIT. that is irritating as fuck.

[cali]

83. tough. I find your passive agressive word salad irritating as FUCK

we'll both just have to live with our respective irritation.

and way to evade dealing with my facts about Warren and Sanders- something else I find irritating as fuck

[seabeyond]

85. ya ya ya ya ya

and whatever your facts are? your bullshit stops me in my tracks. so meh... to addressing your supposed facts, where ever that conversation happened.

ya. different perspectives and irritants. hey...

getting on with my day. go at it.

[polly7]

88. She provided you with facts. In many posts. nt.

[seabeyond]

89. hey... polly.

[polly7]

90. Heh! And??

Why so dismissive of someone who took the time to find and post information that answers some of your questions?

[NaturalHigh]

155. Jury's in.

On Thu May 14, 2015, 09:35 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

tough. I find your passive agressive word salad irritating as FUCK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6671679

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Nasty personal attack... par for the course for this poster.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 14, 2015, 09:52 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Considering the personal attacks this poster has endured from Seabeyond, I frankly think this is a very reasoned response. Let's be honest - the nasty personal attacks are par for the course for Seabeyond, not Cali.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh boy! Another year of this to go! Thank heavens we don't have the sadly truncated electoral season of the UK.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seabeyond kinda started the whole "fuck" fest in that exchange.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a personal attack.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pintobean]

164. Good stuff.

[NaturalHigh]

195. I was Juror #1.

[Oilwellian]

213. LOL

That was most enjoyable.

[think]

44. The bill to break up too big to fail banks was sincere and so is the opposition to the TPP

There is nothing worse than when leaders who sit on their hands and do nothing when shit is going on.

The TPP as it is written sucks or Warren wouldn't want to rewrite it to include protections for workers here & abroad and protections for the environment in countries we trade with.

As for calling to break up the banks that sold worthless mortgages as AAA investments which helped lead the US into the great recession do you really disagree with doing so?

No they weren't stunts. They are honest efforts to change America for the better.....

[seabeyond]

77. explain to me, the last 24hr tpp. populist dems says it is a stunt. i know the issues....

in themselves, are sincere and what is being run on. that is not my question.

[procon]

81. Knowing that such a bill could never pass the House

and its Republican majority, makes it a stunt. Everyone might sincerely want to see similar bills become law, but in the present configuration of congress it won't happen. If these legislators were sincerely trying to change the status quo, for now, they'll need to find enough GOP support for smaller, incremental changes that might allow them to chip away at big issues like bank reforms until the Dems reclaim the majority.

[seabeyond]

86. and stating sanders is gutting "too big too fail"... is hyperbole.

i had to do a lot of reading and understanding, to see that title was wrong. just the facts, please.

[procon]

100. Yes it is.

Those kind of pie in the sky claims makes me itch to link to a certain School House Rocks video on how bills are passed. If Sanders' website is any indication, once you get past the cheering section and the pep squad, the actual presidential level policies are still MIA.

[Oilwellian]

217. Sanders is a bulldog on this issue

I'm glad he continues to expose Congress for what they are...Wall Street servants. A large majority of Americans, both Democrat and Republican, want to see the big banks broken up. At least Bernie has the gumption to try and does a fine job of exposing Congress, and their unwillingness to do what the people overwhelmingly want. That is a good thing.

[djean111]

66. Sanders is a senator. All he CAN do is introduce bills. What is it you think one senator can do?

If you think introducing bills is a stunt, that is very sad.
But, anyway, introducing bills to do what is RIGHT at least gets this information out in front of people.

Introducing a bill that makes sense is the right thing to do. What do you think Sanders should do - only introduce bills that the GOP will pass? That would sure be ugly.

Obama is a POLITICIAN. Like all the other politicians in Washington. He is nothing but another POLITICIAN.

No, it is not a political stunt to tell the truth. Congress is only allowed to go into a room and read the TPP (15,000 pages) alone, no notes, and they are not to speak of specifics. That is the truth. And, with fast track, they will be able to read it, but not make any changes. Warren did not lie about anything.

You know what is a politician performing a stunt? Obama asking Jamie Dimon to whip votes for him.

[TDale313]

67. I suppose it depends on how you're defining "stunt"

If you have a politician who has been advocating for certain issues/policies for years, and they have a moment where they are actually getting attention and use that moment to talk about or do things to bring attention to those issues, even if they don't have the votes to make those into law just yet, that's not a stunt to me. That's advancing the cause and spreading the message.

But yes, of course Sanders and Warren are politicians, and yes, they will do things at times that disappoint, and no, they don't have a magic wand that will make it all better. But IMO they are right on many, many issues and I am incredibly glad to see these being focused on.

[seabeyond]

79. i chose stunt because that is the word i picked up this morning from populist du'ers describing the

tpp/warren/boxer/"dems" vs obama.

i am seeing certain dems being blamed for blocking tpp then unblocking. i wonder how much is orchestrated by warren/sanders/boxer.... and the why's.

[TDale313]

181. There's a huge amount of anxiety and frustration

Around the TPP for many on the left. Understandably & rightly so, IMO. Decades of watching corporatist policies and horrific "free trade" policies decimate the middle class and poor in this country have left them feeling the game is rigged, and there is a real sense of betrayal, that those we need to be fighting for us are just not. The way the fast track vote went and the almost immediate "compromise" reinforced that. It was a perfect Lucy-and-the-Football moment. Most felt this was how it end up playing out, that the forces pushing this thing were very, very powerful. But some of us allowed ourselves half a minute of hope and feeling good about this "win"- only to find ourselves bruised and flat on our backs again practically as soon as the vote had even taken place. It didn't take organization from the Sanders/Warren/Boxer wing for people to feel like they'd been played here.

[seabeyond]

185. dont you think TRUTH would have been the better option. knowledge teling us it was a political move

to add four items into the vote. we got two of the four items. the dem would vote for it.

then, we do not have the moment i am reading titles.... warren kicked ass, it was blocked. when that is not a truth?

surely, we can insist on factual info.

[TDale313]

219. Anyone who said the vote the other day

Blocked or killed it was naive, not paying attention, or being dishonest. HOWEVER...

I thing Dems in Congress are finding themselves in a very awkward position of trying to serve two masters, and the vote reflected that. On the one hand an increasingly populist and frustrated base (something Sanders and Warren have been giving voice too- but they have a lot of credibility because they aren't new to these issues) on the other the corporate interests who fund their campaigns. It's my impression that many are trying to satisfy both, and that is just not gonna happen.

I give Sanders and Warren credit for talking about more populist issues- for giving them that voice. And for the base for wanting to push things in that direction. It's my suspicion we wouldn't even have gotten the small amount of "fight" we did see without the pushback. The current level of wealth inequality is just not sustainable, and these "free trade" deals are gonna make it far worse. So in the sense that Dems are even feeling the need to try and appease an angry base, we- and Sanders and Warren and others fighting the good fight- are having some impact and deserve some credit, but we're in for the fight of our lives.

[99Forever]

75. Trustworthiness, honesty, integrity.

[seabeyond]

82. ya. pretty sure you are taking this to me personally. not playing that game.

[99Forever]

112. You asked a question and I gave you a honest answer.

Whether or not you accept it for what it is.,is entirely up to you.

[seabeyond]

114. it is not a matter of accepting it. i do not know wtf you are talking about.

[99Forever]

125. That explains a lot.

[hootinholler]

84. What is this populist party of which you speak?

I'm really having trouble following your OP, but, if I got it right, you're asking if Bernie's bill to break up the banks is a stunt.

The answer is no, it's not a stunt. It is the avenue open for Bernie to attempt to effect change. He's a Senator, that's how they do things. Just because a bill will fail, doesn't mean it should be withheld. It registers opinion and gives other senators something to think about.

Because I think that it wasn't a stunt, you're second question is moot.

You may wonder why I don't think it a stunt, and that I will address. The bill and all of Bernie's actions that I'm aware of are consistent with his actions in the past. Bernie has demonstrated with deeds and votes that he is always on the side of the people over corporations and even government. Therefore it is a logical step for him to reintoduce the bill, which I think has been submitted before, but I'm not entirely sure on that one.

[seabeyond]

87. "What is this populist party of which you speak?" du has a populist group. sanders, warren,

grayson are running as populist on an economic justice populist position. using those exact words.

that would be a beginning to understanding what i am addressing.

[hootinholler]

98. Ok, so I answered your question.

Which exact words are being used by whom?

I'm not aware of Bernie using the word populist at all. Economic justice is a possibility, but that phrasing doesn't sound like Bernie to me.

What does sound like Bernie to me are things like: leveling the playing field, economic fairness, addressing income inequality.

[cyberswede]

101. ...and Hillary

Campaign Casts Hillary Clinton as the Populist It Insists She Has Always Been

Hillary Clinton slams inequality in populist speech

Hillary Clinton the Populist Begins Courting the Plutocrats

Hillary's folksy, populist reentry

...or is that a stunt?

Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton's Fake Populism Is a Hit

Is Hillary a populist of convenience?

-------------
But seriously, I love ya sea, but I totally don't get why you seem to have a problem with "populists" - they're not a party, and the DU group is Democrats who are interested in populist reform of the Democratic party - which would actually be a good thing.

[seabeyond]

105. yes. we are aware clinton plays politics. see. didnt even hurt. why?, you ask.

when a group says, they will be to the dems what teabaggers were to the repugs, i am gonna sit up and listen.

my goal and intent is a dem win.

i really do not care which gets in.

my goal and intent is a dem win.

i listened to people during sanders "to big to fail" bill. i did not participate. i educated myself, listened to others and processed the information.

watching the transaction with tpp and all it entails, politically, i had questions. so i asked. so i can better understand peoples positions, so i can better ferret out the truth, so i can better process to come to my concusions.

[cyberswede]

135. I presume those who said

they would "be to the dems what teabaggers are to the repugs" mean they hope to be a strong enough voice that the Democratic Party will have to listen to them and may even move back more to the left.

Do you feel that would harm our chances for a Democratic win?

I feel that the Democratic party, with it's recent shift to center/right, has lost a lot of left-leaning voters, so maybe moving back to the left would actually help our chances.

[seabeyond]

138. then we are hearing two different things. i have repeatedly, consistently stated economics is an

absolute. i cannot be more clear.

that does not address what i am talking about.

[seabeyond]

113. these two cannot articulate my position with the populist movement, any more clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026669120#post88

this is why i feel it is so very very important to have a clear view of the economic populist position understood.

[cyberswede]

141. I'm of the opinion that liberals support both

Do liberals always talk about both? No, but they do support (and often fight for) both. I don't see the two issues as mutually exclusive.

[seabeyond]

147. well. then. a basis for disagreement. but, you understand where me and others are coming from.

and we do see it as a legitimate issue.

[AgingAmerican]

99. For you, it's a stunt

For Bernie, it is a consistent position.

[seabeyond]

107. why are there threads this morning moaning the "dems" stunt. and adament they are done... just done!

[AgingAmerican]

123. Bernie isn't 'The Dems'

nt

[seabeyond]

128. did he participate in it? did warren? and if they did, why are they not "the dems" and how do

we know there is not more going on?

[whatchamacallit]

104. And I thought the "Plan" thread couldn't be topped...

[BrotherIvan]

111. Back for more eh?

Wow.

[seabeyond]

115. two new things happened, that i am processing. are you saying i am not allowed to ask a couple ques?

[BrotherIvan]

116. You are not asking questions

You are seeking negative attention and enjoying playing the victim. It would be much better if you had an actual position and discussed it with facts and logic. People would respond more positively to you.

[seabeyond]

120. yes. two questions. you do not get to fabricate a story.

[BrotherIvan]

127. There are other kinds of attention besides negative attention

And they actually are more fulfilling. Maybe try them out. Look, I'm actually not trying to be mean here, though you might take it that way. There are plenty of ways to feel like you are connecting with people without baiting them in thread after thread.

[seabeyond]

129. again. your conversation is personal. not playing that game.

[BrotherIvan]

133. I was actually trying to talk to you as a human being

But if you want to keep going, fine.

[seabeyond]

136. by calling me a liar? lmFUGGINao

[JTFrog]

223. Yuck. Get over yourself.

There are other ways to respond. And they might be more productive and fulfilling. Maybe try them out. Look, I'm not trying to be mean here, though you might take it that way. There are plenty of ways to feel like you are giving good advice without being an asshole in reply after reply.

[BrotherIvan]

224. Ditto

[hifiguy]

211. it borders on trolling at this point, BrotherIvan.

Do not feed.

[ismnotwasm]

126. Manipulating media is how to get attention

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Both Warren and Sanders choose to be polititions, just as Obama and Clinton did. Saying they don't or wouldn't use the media to multitask goals, or use the political process for the same thing, merely trivializes them and makes them look simplistic. Certainly not world leaders.

[seabeyond]

132. like i do not buy christians have to be oh so protective of their god, i do not feel we dems need to

do the same with sanders or warren. i think they are quite capable of justifying or explaining their reasoning. we do not have to pretend otherwise.

i want to see this race as pragmatically as possible, seeing how there is so much going on and i think it is a real opportunity for our party and for the people.

i LOVE that gerrymandering has come up

can we accomplish anything?

i do not know. but, i am realy really grateful to see the word even being discussed.

[rjsquirrel]

142. As opposed to what?

Of course Sanders and Warren are politicians, not superhero radicals.

You seem unclear on how a democracy works.

[DonCoquixote]

154. your question,answered

i want to know if warren and sanders participated in two political stunts. if so, dont we have to

acknowledge they are politicans as all others are. and they do not get a pass, any more than we would give one to obama or clinton.

There is no pass, nor denying they are politicians. The TPP is a bad idea, regardless of whoever, of whatever race or gender, supports it, period. Full Stop.

A. I angry at Obama, yes. I am suspicious of how silent Hillary is,considering that as Secretary of State, she has to have had some knlwedge of what the TPP entails? Yes.

And just because neither Obama or Hillary are the dominant demographic does not mean they deserve our support when they support a policy that will indeed screw over women and minorities.

Yes, I know, after 2016, American will pat itself on the back and say "we managed to get a woman in, and managed to have three whole elections where the shoe in was not a white male." But we have to look at the long run. Anything that makes it easier to move jobs to Asia will hit women harder, because they already get paid less and have less executives in boardrooms to look after them.

BTW, I do want a democrat to win, and if Hillary is that candidate, I want her to win. However, caution and a refusal to state your principles was the hallmark of our recent loss, where Hillary's candidate, Alison Grimes, the one that was suppoed to take out Turtle McConell, would not even admit she voted for Obama. Is supporting someone cherring rah rah rah, or is it "hey, stop being self-destructive, you know that what you are doign did not work in 2008, did nto work in 2014, and that you really are better than having to hide behind the same overpaid policy wonks that ruined you before." Is it a lack of belief in Hillary to say "Look, you can smash this unpopular TPP to matchwood, and no one, not even Obama, Not even Warren, will be able to say anything, because you alone have that sort of credibility."

[seabeyond]

160. i want to know what happened yesterday. i want to know why some dems are thrown under the bus.

i want to understanding who participated.

i get the issues with tpp.

that is not what i need people to continue repeating to me, ignoring what i am saying.

i do not know why that is so hard. YOU... tell me, why it is not clear, that i am trying to understand the politics of yesterday, and what is happening between both. i now do not believe either, and now waiting, once again to see what is up.

while i watch dems on du throw out hyperbole and moans and groans of done, dammit.

[seabeyond]

167. so, it seems the simple answer was, the dems blocked yesterday to get a couple things they wanted.

then they voted today, once they got what they wanted.

the political move

all i was fucking asking about.

and a whole lot of people not reading what i typed, and conjectured a bunch of bogus fabrication to address.

am i correct? is that what it was about yesterday and the cry of dems betrayed?

i get that.

the rest of the thread, ... bullshit

[Hoyt]

157. I envision Obama sitting back, thinking "Please proceed Senators" while laughing roarously.

[seabeyond]

161. can you expand. i would like to just have conversation from different perspectives. nt

[ieoeja]

168. Scenario: Republicans agree to increase VA spending by 20% if Democrats agree to ...

Scenario 1: Pay for it with a $10,000 federal tax on abortions.
Scenario 2: Approve the TPP.
Scenario 3: Increase military spending by $200 billion.



President Hillary Clinton would respond:

1. "Fuck no!"
2. "Of course, I was a big part of its creation in the first place."
3. "Sure. It's worth it for the Veterans."


President Sanders would respond:

1. "Fuck no!"
2. "Fuck no!"
3. "Sure. It's worth it for the Veterans."


Yes, Sanders is a politician. Yes, Sanders does all the things that politicians do. Yes, Sanders compromises.

But not all compromises are acceptable. You wouldn't consider #1 an acceptable compromise. Most Democrats wouldn't consider options #1 or #2 acceptable compromises.

[seabeyond]

169. i thought i would actually get factual info. i thought your post was going to give me that.

you chose a different path.

searching the board, since not one damn person could answer my actual question, it appears.

the vote that blocked were for dems to get something. (not sure what, but saw they asked for four, got two)

and that is why it passed today.

it would have all been simple to explain, if one chose to, but people preferred just throwing shit.

i take it then, we KNEW what the dems were doing, so all the hyperbole of a couple days ago.... warren won, they block tpa, was just that. hyperbole.

so there should not have been the disappointed... oh man, it was a stunt.

cause it looks to be a strategic political move by dems to get what they wanted. whether one agrees or not.

[ieoeja]

174. The answer to your question *was* in my post.

...{snip}...

"Scenario 2: Approve the TPP."

...{snip}...

Most Democrats wouldn't consider options #1 or #2 acceptable compromises.

Today, they agreed to compromise on option #2. I am fairly certain that, &quot m)ost Democrats wouldn't consider options #1 or #2 acceptable compromises," directly addresses why they consider today's compromise unacceptable.

[seabeyond]

177. you created a scenario, correct? to present to me what happened. why not just give me the

facts of what happened, instead of an example of.

[ieoeja]

179. To demonstrate that even *you* have core principals on which you would not compromise.

And if you have core principals on which you would never compromise, such as pro-choice, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize those whose core principal was compromised today.

[seabeyond]

180. i asked for facts. not a lesson from you, that you thought i ought to learn.

[ieoeja]

182. Well, you got a fact *and* a lesson. I'll deduct the lesson from the bill. n/t

[seabeyond]

187. no. you did not tell me that dems had put up four items to be added on the bill and what the four

items where. nor did you tell me the two items they lost and hte two items they got. if those two items were watered down.

you played a stupid ass game with a cutsey little scenario with sanders and the a vet bull, and a cutsey, how you see clinton proposing. a fuckin game. not fact.

that we cannot even distinguish between that says a hell of a lot.

[ieoeja]

215. Fact: "they compromised on a core principal".

Fact: even if they had gotten all four items to a vote, zero of them will pass in the Republican controlled Senate.

Fact: they gave up a meaningful core principal in exchange for a meaningless vote.

Opinion: you seem to be attempting to compare this to Sanders bringing proposing legislation that he also knows will not pass.

Fact: Sanders has never compromised on a core principal to bring proposed legislation to vote that he knows will not pass.

[stevenleser]

176. That would not happen. Republicans would oppose everything Bernie does and feel no need

to propose any legislation. They are pretty close to a do nothing congress now.

[stevenleser]

170. The short answer is 100% right progressively, and 100% ineffective legislatively is someone

of very limited usefulness. Sure, they are useful for hurling down pronouncements of the "right thing to do" as if from on high, but the usefulness of that is limited.

They are certainly not someone you want to put in the most important position.

The most effective people in Democracies, not just here but abroad as well, are folks who are experts at compromising and cutting deals to get stuff done.

That is not Bernie's skillset. It is as simple as that.

[seabeyond]

173. i'm more open to sanders ability to get past that, stream line to effective if his people would pull

their fingers out of their ears and allow sanders the opportunity to do that. right now, his supporters seems ot be campaigning on this is what he wants. he is honest, trust him, he has integrity. and that is it

that is not gonna fly

i think he is much more capable, and possibly will get better results ignoring his defenders and stepping forward.

[jwirr]

178. As you said - he has been presenting bills like this long before he started running for president.

It is also a longstanding way for the minority party to remind the majority party of what they should be doing. But because Bernie is running for president he should stop doing what he has been doing for the last 40 years? Well I for one do not want him or anyone else who is fighting with us to stop standing up for what we want even if it is going to lose. We sat through 8 years of W without fighting back in any form - no more.

You mention Grayson - what he did is totally against what he preaches. Bernie and Warren have been fighting to change a situation that is destroying our nation - banksters. Isn't that what we elect them to do?

You can call it stunts - I call it fighting back finally.

[seabeyond]

190. the headlines on du was... sanders guts "to big to fail". that was a false presentation of what he

was doing.

that is all i am saying.

yes. it was a political move. wow. big fuckin deal. why run and hide from it. or start bogus shit to pretend we did not have the headlines....

sanders guts "too big to fail".

just like the political move the dems did on blocking tpa. the headlines were bullshit. it was not true. i was asking for the truth in it. and i sure as hell didnt find it from the very people griping.

[jwirr]

198. I did not see the Saunders guts "too big to fail" headline - do you have a link? Also why would he

gut his own bill - whoever posted that did lie.

[seabeyond]

200. gutting wallstreet or banks or whatever they used. and it happened a week ago. in gd.

gotta go

[cali]

203. lol. nice storytelling, sister.

[seabeyond]

207. wtf cali. really. wtf.....

[NaturalHigh]

204. "gotta go"

Too busy to defend your own OP when people start asking for facts?

[seabeyond]

209. what a bullshit statement. i have wasted my day replying to posters to this point. just plain bs

[NaturalHigh]

212. "i have wasted my day replying to posters to this point"

It is your OP, right?

[Oilwellian]

220. LOL

It was forced upon her poor soul to answer questions. I mean, why should she waste her beautiful mind on us populists?

[NaturalHigh]

221. I know. We're not "enlightened" enough.

In all fairness to Seabeyond, I have to say that she has at least been perfectly honest in expressing how she feels about me.

[pintobean]

228. And, it set the tone.

Gee, who could have seen this thread turning out the way it did?

[Bonobo]

237. It worked as intended and I know who will be blamed for being such meanies...

It's all organized by "the people that have been harassing me for the last 3 years here".

It's all going to join the narrative that it is White men doing business as usual to keep women down.

It's the only game in some parts of town.

[NaturalHigh]

208. sanders guts "to big to fail".

Hmm...I must have missed that. Sounds interesting. Do you have a link handy?

[RichVRichV]

194. Simple.

Wait until fast track passes. If they are still voting against it at that point then it wasn't a stunt. Since I can't read minds anything else is conjecture at this point. If it never passes then I would say they succeeded, so it couldn't be a stunt.

[Warren DeMontague]

216. For one, there isn't a "populist party".

I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Also, it's sort of hard to understand exactly what you're asking, in your OP.

That was Barbara Boxer, who had the thing about not being able to take notes, btw.

[Dragonfli]

218. Could you try to take your time and organize your post in better English please?

I know it is hard for those with English as a second language, I am sure you are trying and I don't fault your problems trying to write in a non native tongue, my Spanish is terrible and can empathize, and I hate to criticize, but if you can, slowly, paragraph at a time see if you can do better. I am having trouble understanding you and understanding is the key to proper discussion.

[TheKentuckian]

225. I'm not sure why you are calling doing consistently what you do a stunt. EVEN IF OTHER PEOPLE DOING

THE SAME THING AS A STUNT.

I guess you consider the ERA a stunt because it hasn't passed in all these years?

You can't begin to push issues or an agenda only after you have the strength to implement it. You have to be knocking long before you walk through the door particularly when you are going against the wind.

[dawg]

226. It's important to draw attention to progressive issues and the things we would like to achieve.

Even if they can't pass right now, the American people at least get to see the kind of things we *will* pass if they give us enough votes in Congress to do so.

Without such "stunts" all we are doing is playing defense against the Republicans. We block most of their initiatives. A few get through. The country continues it's inexorable rightward drift.

So I am 100% in favor of putting these issues before the American people and forcing the Republicans (and corporate Democrats) to go on record against things that would help the American people.

But having said that, of course Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are politicians. They are good, progressive politicians, but they are still politicians. We can't allow ourselves to be blind followers of anyone. All men and women are prone to self-interest, hubris, and just plain being wrong at times.

[cui bono]

227. That "woman senator?" you were talking about is Barbara Boxer. My senator.

And that was hardly a stunt. Why would you even call it a stunt?

You pretend you are looking for answers but you've already labeled everything as a stunt. If you are really seeking the truth you need to not already have a bias.

Sanders, Warren and Boxer are not playing a fucking game. They are dead serious about the TPP.
Mers and Warren absolutely did NOT participate in any political stunt.

Do yourself a favor and go read the RS article by Matt Taiibi about Sen. Sanders. That will show you he is not just a politician full of stunts. Then go read any article about Warren and how she stands up for the people against banksters. That will show you she is not just a politician full of stunts.

I have a question for you. Why do you only post OPs such as these about liberal populist Dems? Why not about corporate Dems?

[Dragonfli]

229. K&R I admire your effort, keep posting.

[Bonobo]

232. Do you think she really doesn't know how obvious this whole charade is? nt

[Ken Burch]

233. Would you please quit acting as if something's being hidden?

Bernie Sanders did not switch his vote on TPP...therefore, he pulled no stunt. It's not Bernie's fault that 13 "pragmatic" Democratic senators changed their votes from "nay" to "yea" on the question of beginning debate

Elizabeth Warren didn't change her vote either, so she pulled no stunt.

And I'm not sure what you're pissed off at Grayson about.

If your whole point here is to set up a "Bernie and Liz are just as cynical as HRC, so we might as well just nominate HRC" meme, just do that already. Nobody actually believes you're a disillusioned Sanders supporter.

[marym625]

236. doesn't sound like you are really looking for information

And calling populist in the Democratic party "the populist party" makes this seem more disingenuous.

Sanders is fighting the same flight he has been fighting for decades. His most recent bill to break up the too big to fail is not just for show. To introduce another bill that breaks up the banks, without the caveats to allow certain parts of the game to remain, is an honest and good thing. It's his third bill like it since 2009. And even if it has no chance of passing, each time one is introduced it lays the groundwork for a time when we can end the horror that is the too big to fail banks. It causes more discussion. It helps bring about bills and regulations that will pass. That will erode the power of the very few over so very many.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about with Elizabeth Warren saying she can't take notes on the TPP. She is not the only one who has stated that. They are not allowed to copy, take notes, tell the press or the people. So what is the problem with her saying that?

Just in case you have forgotten, what is now called the populist group within the democratic party, was the main stream democratic party before Republicans left their party and joined ours

Sorry, seabeyond, though we often disagree, I have never had a difficult time following what you are saying. Your op is disjointed.

[seabeyond]

242. people are so busy looking for an agenda, they ignore the obvious.

my post is disjointed because i was confused. i asked a question that i knew i am not allowed to ask because of this fuckin blind bullshit i refuse to participate in. political question. about what that whole tpa 'to do' was about.

first i hear. warren locked it! boxer cant take notes! then.... dems are pulling a STUNT! it isnt blocked. they are voting for it. oh NOES!!11!1!!! i wake up to threads, that those DEMS... pulled a stunt, too old for this, i am done!!!

i wanted to know what people were fucking going on about.

people were so busy calling me out for an imagined agenda, they could not even bother to answer me.

i found the information elsewhere. certainly by no one on this thread.

it was a political move, by the dems, to get some bills included, that is done often in washington.

wow.

so different than the headlines i was reading. right? hence my confusion my bad. looking for what was really going on.

[seabeyond]

243. done. the OP

seabeyond (101,447 posts)

this is a legitimate question, and i actually expect information. respectfully. sanders [View all]

two things i have seen, that i would like addressed.

(btw... saw the womens for sanders. yea. i endorse. and really? pink? we had to do.... pink? what the fuck ever, but thanks.)

i am just getting to know sanders. i see all these people as politicians. i am pragmatic. i like to address the facts. i have seen two things i would like to ask about.

he threw up a bill going after wallstreet? corps? about a week or so ago. i read about it. thought about it. educating myself, i saw that he does this regularly. has no teeth or hope. more a political stunt. yea. i get those. the headlines were... he has whoever shivering, or scared, or baring teeth. i do not remember.

but. for me? that came across as a mere political stunt getting his message out.

we see the warren and tpp/obama drama. now sanders stepping in. not sure about the three way of it. but it is interesting watching obama and warren. very very interesting. i say as a vocal woman. lol

so.

the stunt yesterday. a woman senator? congress woman? saying she cannot take notes of tpp. warren/populist/sanders division of democratic party. also... we have to remember, i have listened and gotten educated on the populist party, their position, their voice. i have heard more than once, look at it how the teabaggers did to the repug party, .....

as a democrat. and being pragmatic, logical. i have to ask.... these political stunts, be it gutting wallstreet or whatever with a toothless bill, and WE BLOCKED TPP... ok no we didnt, 24 hours later.

then throw in grayson and all we know about him, as he is another representitive of the populists......

what makes sanders and warren, anything but politicians. playing the same game?

my questions...

i want to know if warren and sanders participated in two political stunts. if so, dont we have to

acknowledge they are politicans as all others are. and they do not get a pass, any more than we would give one to obama or clinton.