2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThese congressional candidates got inspiration from Sanders ....
The Revolution Fizzles!
But, in campaigns for the House and Senate, the revolution is not going well.
These congressional candidates got inspiration from Sanders but little else
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)To wake up hopelessly clueless dreamers and direct them to the real fight over achievable goals
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)impossible dream goal, claiming they were super insightful and others were just naive to seek equality, to want what the naysayers were born to. Endless claims of pragmatic reason and strong conclusions that compromise was required 'do not let the perfect be the enemy of half a loaf, let the mediocre and second rate satisfy you and be happy we allowed you that!'
Oh my lord how they carried on. "Obama can't support marriage equality until at least after the 2012 election' they would proclaim with great certainty 'or he will lose by a landslide'. There were DU posters saying that the morning he came out for equality, just before he won that election they thought he'd lose.
So persons lacking all vision, skill and ability tried to present their own failings as the highest standard for human aspirations and frankly they have been shown to be full of hot air and nonsense.
This is a sweet spoken version of DU's basic 'pragmatic' objections to seeking marriage equality:
"I believe that marriage should be extended to anyone who wants it, no exceptions.
But it's not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, millions of gay couples get insulted and abused by the system everytime they run into things that are considered so normal for "married" couples such as health decisions, inheritance, pension plans, health insurance, etc.
All I am saying, is that going for civil unions first is a way to get these benefits faster than it will take if we ask for marriage."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1584674
Always presenting hopelessness as the only option, defeat the only reasonable thing to expect.
msongs
(67,405 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)Unlike Hillary, Bernie was perfectly happy being a Senator. He started his campaign because there weren't any dems running against Hillary, O'Malley had not yet declared. If O'Malley had declared earlier, or made intentions known, Bernie may never have started his campaign. Bernie is running to help the people, not because he WANTS to be President. Hillary WANTS to be President, period.
Z
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)had accomplished in his brief tenure in the Congress. Of course becoming a US Senator is a huge and rare accomplishment in and of itself but Obama had held office at State level, then he hit the Senate and started running for President without having a long list of accomplishments in the US Senate. Many people claimed that was a big problem, I did not agree.
if you are going to be an ass to people with your comments you can look it all up yourself. Don't go being a jerk and then ask people to prove something to you that if you were actually taking your voting responsibilities seriously you should already be aware of yourself.
If you do not know this information by now you made your choice without regard to Sanders. You want to talk about dreamers? I would rather talk about people who make their decisions without even learning about the other candidate. How is that not just as malicious (or stupid) as you seem to think the dreamers are?
Don't bother to answer I will not be back to address anything you have to say. At this point I have learned that it would not be worth any more time than I have already put into that.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)FWIW, I was #7
Look
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1352247
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Name calling pure and simple
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 27, 2016, 08:37 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I personally can not find an DU person name mentioned, I did not search to see if the name "jerk" is a member.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, not pure and simple. It has always been accepted to describe behavior in coarse manner. The poster was careful not to call the person those terms, but the person's behavior.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may not be the author's most shining moment, but the opposing person seems to be attempting to bury a reaction to willful ignorance with reporting this post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes ya have to vent. As a rant, this is pretty tame.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)I am #3
On Sat Feb 27, 2016, 08:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Look
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1352247
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Name calling pure and simple
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 27, 2016, 08:37 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I personally can not find an DU person name mentioned, I did not search to see if the name "jerk" is a member.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, not pure and simple. It has always been accepted to describe behavior in coarse manner. The poster was careful not to call the person those terms, but the person's behavior.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may not be the author's most shining moment, but the opposing person seems to be attempting to bury a reaction to willful ignorance with reporting this post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes ya have to vent. As a rant, this is pretty tame.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
MuseRider
(34,109 posts)My first alert!
Thanks all. I try to chose my words carefully.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted: two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans" .
That's after 25 years in Congress.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Those silly grass roots candidates who are trying to change things without the corporate blessing of the DemoServative Party.
How awful.
The DemoServative strategy has worked so well. Just look at who controls Congress.
brooklynite
(94,541 posts)...if the Sanders supporters were prepared to cough up $1 Bil to cover the cost of a GE campaign, why can't they chip in for some of these candidates, rather than applaud from the sidelines?