Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

laripu

Some Sanders supporters acting like left wing tea party.

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, I received an invitation in the mail to be a dues paying member of THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA or DSA.

 

Founding Chair: Michael Harrington

 

Honorary Chairs: Barbara Ehrenreich . Dolore Huerta . Eliseo Medina Eugene "Gus" Newport . Frances Fox Piven . Gloria Steinem . Cornel West.

 

Among many other activities, The Democratic Socialists of America are training community activists and future office holders around the Nation. They are active in the universities.

 

From the letter: " Simply put, those of us who see the need for revolutionary political change must be organized before, during and after electoral campaigns if we are to make elected officials respond to us instead of the 1%."

 

Neither is this group brand new. They have been active in the Flint Michigan water crisis ... Anti wage-theft ordinances ... Justice for wounded veterans ... And others.

 

There are similar groups now being formed among the young and university students. And the party conventions have not even started yet.

 

From the letter: "We can't stress enough how important it is to build a visible democratic socialist organization that keeps new activists involved in these kinds of campaigns between elections. We're growing by leaps and bounds, especially in places you might not expect, such as Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. People are hungry for this kind of community. But we don't ignore elections either. Thousands of our members have been working for Bernie, many for more than a year. And local election offer many opportunities to elect candidates committed to the political revolution, or to kick out those who enforce the status quo, like former Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez in Chicago."

 

There's much more, but this movement is not going away. Unlike any other movement around today, the DSA has a powerful reason for being. The growing plutocracy, increasing income inequality and the deprivation they are causing among the bottom 90% are a huge impetus. Everyone is looking beyond the Bernie campaign, recognizing the need to keep the movement alive and growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the "come and join a radical fringe with violent and undemocratic tendencies, noted by factionalism and internecine battles, that has no realistic positions for governance" not make it seem like being a Sandersista isn't the the leftist analogue to the Tea Party?

 

Grab the guns and the pitchforks.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the "come and join a radical fringe with violent and undemocratic tendencies, noted by factionalism and internecine battles, that has no realistic positions for governance" not make it seem like being a Sandersista isn't the the leftist analogue to the Tea Party?

 

Grab the guns and the pitchforks.

 

Bill

Wanting big money out of politics is "radical?"

 

Wanting our elected officials to be loyal to "the people" instead of Goldman Sachs is "radical?"

 

Asking that we educate and address the healthcare of our citizens is "radical?"

 

Those positions are "undemocratic?" :huh: My, how far we've fallen.

 

The Bernie movement isn't "violent." The Nevada convention was an isolated incident by a few pissed off supporters. The behavior has been denounced by the Sanders campaign. Blaming the whole for the actions of a few is like what the conservatives do with Muslims. It's insulting and grossly inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's calling for a revolution. Nevada wasn't isolated. He's not a "peace" guy.

 

Violence gets met with Sanders speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He's stoking the anger for his own ends.

 

This "movement" is a socialist version of the Tea party.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's calling for a revolution.

Yes, a POLITICAL revolution, not an armed revolution.

 

Nevada wasn't isolated.

Please cite those other incidents. I must not have read about them.

 

He's not a "peace" guy.

That's not true. Please cite examples of Sanders being violent or calling for violence. You won't find any.

 

Violence gets met with Sanders speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He's stoking the anger for his own ends.

 

This "movement" is a socialist version of the Tea party.

Not true at all. Bernie is leading a political revolution for change in government. It isn't violent in it's intent. There are radicals in every campaign that could misinterpret Sanders' intent. However, there are radicals in EVERY campaign (Hillary's included).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, because "political" revolutions aren't violent. LOL.

 

Sorry, but I think you're blind to the true nature of your leader.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, because "political" revolutions aren't violent. LOL.

 

Sorry, but I think you're blind to the true nature of your leader.

 

Bill

Political revolutions don't need to be violent. So you have no examples proving Nevada wan't an isolated incident? Or any examples proving Sanders to be violent? :rolleyes: Seems to me that you're the blind one.

 

I've already stated that I'd be open to supporting Joe Biden. I'm just not going to vote for a lying, flip-flopping, pro-war corporatist who's currently under FBI investigation. Call me quirky - I just don't think that's a wise choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since more people have been killed in socialist revolutions than died in Hitler's death-camps (by far), you'll excuse my skepticism that this is America's shining-path forward to a better future.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since more people have been killed in socialist revolutions than died in Hitler's death-camps (by far), you'll excuse my skepticism that this is America's shining-path forward to a better future.

 

Bill

So now Bernie's going to kill people? :lol: Wow.

 

A few carefully placed socialist policies do not equal Venezuela.

 

All Bernie is fighting for is healthcare for all, free college tuition, as well as for pay inequity to be addressed in a way that EVERYONE can pay their bills and stay above water. He wants to force big business and the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. He wants big money out of politics. What's wrong with that? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now Bernie's going to kill people? :lol: Wow.

 

A few carefully placed socialist policies do not equal Venezuela.

 

All Bernie is fighting for is healthcare for all, free college tuition, as well as for pay inequity to be addressed in a way that EVERYONE can pay their bills and stay above water. He wants to force big business and the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. He wants big money out of politics. What's wrong with that? Seriously?

 

Calling for a revolution is his rhetoric, not my invention. I don't believe for a moment that his objectives are are narrow as you suggest (as unrealistic as these may be). He also has no realistic plans for achieving his give-aways.

 

As relevant today as as it was in 1968:

 

You say you want a revolution?

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

 

You tell me that it's evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know that you can count me out

 

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

All right, all right

 

You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We're doing what we can

But when you want money

For people with minds that hate

All I can tell is brother you have to wait

 

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

All right, all right

 

Ah

Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

 

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

 

You tell me it's the institution

Well, you know

You better free you mind instead

 

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

 

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

 

All right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren't being insulted and I didn't call you names. That's some complex you got going there.

 

It's either your way or the highway. Got it.

 

One of two people will be President of the United States on January 20, 2017.

 

Donald J. Trump or Hillary R. Clinton.

 

There is no third choice.

 

If your vote isn't going to be for Clinton, then it will be for Trump no matter who else you cast it for.

 

That's how the cycle keeps repeating itself.

Hillary can't beat Trump. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Calling for a revolution is his rhetoric, not my invention. I don't believe for a moment that his objectives are are narrow as you suggest (as unrealistic as these may be). He also has no realistic plans for achieving his give-aways.

 

As relevant today as as it was in 1968:

 

You say you want a revolution?

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

 

You tell me that it's evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know that you can count me out

 

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

All right, all right

 

You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We're doing what we can

But when you want money

For people with minds that hate

All I can tell is brother you have to wait

 

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

All right, all right

 

Ah

Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

 

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

 

You tell me it's the institution

Well, you know

You better free you mind instead

 

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

 

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

 

All right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

A revolution does not have to be violent from the point of view of those revolting. Non-violence is more effective than violence and more likely to result in the changes we want to see. I am advocating a for a non-violent revolution to eliminate the massive open corruption in our government. You can find sufficient evidence to put a great many republicans in prison for life, yet the democrats don't even bring up the subject, let alone allow charges to be files. With many government officials engaging in these immoral and illegal activities, acting above the law, while the democrats protect and sometimes participate as well.

 

With our election systems being open to massive fraud, with the USSC voiding the 2000 election and appointing bush, it is difficult to see how we can restore the rule of law without a revolution. If you have suggestions what are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about winning this presidential election and getting a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution (as opposed to what will happen if Trump wins)?

 

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about winning this presidential election and getting a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution (as opposed to what will happen if Trump wins)?

 

 

Bill

 

We have no guarantee that Clinton will select a Supreme Court Justice that respects the Constitution. Might I suggest we focus on getting progressives elected in Congress? If Congress swings left, then we should be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have no guarantee that Clinton will select a Supreme Court Justice that respects the Constitution. Might I suggest we focus on getting progressives elected in Congress? If Congress swings left, then we should be okay.

 

 

We have no guarantee the sun will rise in the East. I'll takes my chances.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about winning this presidential election and getting a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution (as opposed to what will happen if Trump wins)?

 

 

Bill

You mean you want far right wing republicans appointed by Hillary? How can you find one that would respect the constitution? Remember Hillary supports Obama, and Obama picked the far right Merrick Garland to appease the GOP. Forget about respecting the constitution, appeasing the GOP is what's important. It's saddening to hear people say that by some magic, Hillary will change her spots and become left leaning and appoint people to the Supreme Court who respect the constitution and rule of law. If you really thought this was important you would not be supporting people who will keep the court far right to further destroy our nation. Beside, in what world is Hillary going to be able to beat Trump?

 

 

We have no guarantee the sun will rise in the East. I'll takes my chances.

 

Bill

It's not called taking your chances when you know the outcome. Hillary will appoint far right ideologues to the court if she gets half a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary can't beat Trump. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump.

 

Simply untrue. Actual nonsense. Here's why:

 

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of Hispanics.

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of African Americans.

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of women.

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of college educated people.

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of the military (I know because I work with many) and ex-military (same reason).

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of real conservatives, the kind that would have voted for Cruz.

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of religious people.

Trump doesn't have the support of a huge majority of immigrants of all stripes.

 

You know who supports Trump? Angry white guys, tea party types. Trump will get about 30% of the popular vote. Trump will lose.

It's not called taking your chances when you know the outcome. Hillary will appoint far right ideologues to the court if she gets half a chance.

 

Again nonsense.

 

People here have been calling her a Republican or a conservative and this is just wrong. Clinton is a moderate, left-of-center Democrat.

 

It is true that Sanders is further to the left than Clinton is, but there's nothing wrong with either of them.

 

This squabbling and over-the-top accusations makes me sick. I left another forum because the conservatives there were doing the exact same thing.

 

I can't stand extremist BS, and that's what I'm seeing here, and it's not different than conservative extremist BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that Sanders is further to the left than Clinton is, but there's nothing wrong with either of them.

 

This squabbling and over-the-top accusations makes me sick. I left another forum because the conservatives there were doing the exact same thing.

 

I can't stand extremist BS, and that's what I'm seeing here, and it's not different than conservative extremist BS.

On my part, I'm trying here to attack the candidates and issues (and refrain from attacking individuals on the forum). I signed up here to discuss left-leaning politics and policies with like-minded individuals. I do see a LOT wrong with Clinton as a candidate, but I try to express those thoughts without getting personal. If I've failed to do that, just let me know and I'll adjust my tone.

 

In no way do I direct any of my negative opinions about Clinton on those who support her. We each have a vote to use however we deem necessary. My criticism of the candidate is just that. I apologize if my words were taken as slamming Clinton supporters - as that is not my intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Democratic my entire life. Respectfully, I submit to you that for some Democrats, this is not about Bernie at all. Only speaking for myself, Hillary lost my vote on Oct 11th,2002 when she voted to Authorize Bush & Cheney to use Military force in Iraq,(submitted by House Leader Dennis Hastert). The weeks before the vote, it was the top story in the news....

Where I lived at the time there were BIG street demonstrations (No, not Anarchists, just 'normal' locals). But I specifically remember Democratic Sen Robert Byrd giving a very long speech pleading with fellow Democrats not to Vote for the bill.Among Democrats, the vote was divided 58% Yea, 42% Nay. I think you know where I'm going with this. I thought, why would Democrats vote With Bush and Cheney, to perform Regime Change in a country, based on known to be sketchy evidence on WMD's.I knew the answer was 9/11, but so I continued to be a happy Democrat going about my business. Voted for Obama (twice) No big deal.

 

Then something happened. I had to bury my father. He made his own arrangements to be buried at Arlington, which I would highly recommend visited for a different perspective). I still am a Democrat, and I strongly feel everyone should do what's right for their own situation. But for me, the position of Commander in Chief really only has one power, to lead military men into battle. If a President had the power to change gun control, set tax policies,change immigration, or any number of these eternal debates, Surely Obama would have done them in 8 years,right?

So her I am again, with a very complicated relationship with Democrats in general and Hillary in specific.

I have been waiting for a credible explanation from her on this one,specific issue. The only one she has put out is that she believed the Intelligence report that came Dick Cheney's office. While this does not put her in the same Camp as Bush, Cheney,Condoleeza, and the rest of the neocons,it does re enforce those hawkish remours, and questions her aptitude for real, disciplined decision making in the military arena. Thousands of US Servicemen died, any many more wounded. It cost trillions of dollars that could have covered many of Bernie's FDR-like ideas. In hindsight, the USofA invaded the wrong country(the missing 27 pages), de-stabilized the entire area, stirred up a religous war between two rival muslim factions, and the water system in the Green Zone is better than Flint. Truely Colossal mistake that we are still trying to deal with.

Respectfully, I just can't vote for her for that specific position. I would be happy with Boxer,Warner, or Sanders, or any of the 42 Democrats that voted correctly that day in 2002.

This was the 1st,and hopefully last serious post. I can only take 20 minutes of serious debate per week, and I just used my quota. Peace and Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ExPDXer, when the next 20 minutes rolls around, I know there are people here who will welcome you back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the "come and join a radical fringe with violent and undemocratic tendencies, noted by factionalism and internecine battles, that has no realistic positions for governance" not make it seem like being a Sandersista isn't the the leftist analogue to the Tea Party?

 

Grab the guns and the pitchforks.

 

Bill

 

And who exactly made this quote you're posting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

People here have been calling her a Republican or a conservative and this is just wrong. Clinton is a moderate, left-of-center Democrat.

 

It is true that Sanders is further to the left than Clinton is, but there's nothing wrong with either of them.

 

This squabbling and over-the-top accusations makes me sick. I left another forum because the conservatives there were doing the exact same thing.

 

I can't stand extremist BS, and that's what I'm seeing here, and it's not different than conservative extremist BS.

I have seen sites which purport to be non-partisan and they rank politicians on a right left scale, considering social and economic positions. They list Hillary and Obama in similar locations of being left on social issues and a bit right on economic issues. I would suggest as well that both the democratic and republican party have been moving to the right for at least the last 50 years. I would further suggest that the democratic party has moved further right than the republican party used to be. So from my point of view, many of the democrats who represent the center of the position are right wing compared to the right wingers I knew in my youth.

 

The terms liberal and conservative are both very baggage laden, thus mean very different things to different people. When I use the term it applies to a set of positions on issues. In particular when I refer to Hillary to be right wing, it refers to her economic positions, not her social issues. I also don't appreciate her philosophy of trying to compromise on all the issues with the GOP. Instead of going in with a good position of what I would want, I think her starting position will be a huge compromise, which the GOP will further compromise till it takes the form of total GOP programs. An example is Obama Care. That program was developed by the Heritage foundation for the purpose of insisting upon all people giving money to a few insurance company CEOs. While at the beginning the companies would be required to provide a modest amount of access to health care, over time, those regulations would be relaxed until the companies had no requirement to do anything at all for all the money they extract from the public. Further evidence of right wing complicity is the fact that the people who tried to get Obama to consider single payer, were arrested.

 

I have not decided who to vote for in November. I won't vote for any republican ever. I did not vote for Obama, instead voting for the Green party candidates. If Hillary wants my vote, she must advocate for the positions I favor. She must have a philosophy of fighting for those issues. Since I am in Minnesota, the state will go for the democrat and my vote won't cause Trump to be elected.

 

I don't know what definition one can use to call Hillary a moderate left of center anything. What policies would you present to support this statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left and right can't be measured against the old traditional definitions in the age of globalism and global communication and disruptive technology.

 

Rich people aren't only getting rich by exploiting people (although that happens too), the richest people are bringing new value into the works that benefits everyone.

 

Global trade treaties are necessary things if you want to equalize workers conditions world wide, which is how you improve workers conditions everywhere. Without that, things will suck everywhere. Protectionism is bad. In a connected world, you can't improve conditions for Americans without also improving conditions for Chinese, Sri Lankans, and Mexicans.

 

Protectionism is xenophobia, whether it's called for by Trump or by Sanders. Hillary should support the TPP.

 

Americans should take advantage of their privileged position compared to the rest of the world, and educate themselves to compete. Sanders' promise of free university education for the best students would be good if we had enough people willing to do the hard work of learning science, mathematics, computing, and engineering.

 

I know there aren't nearly enough. How do I know? I was recruited from Canada for exactly that reason, 19 years ago. Too many Americans look for the easy way to a good income. I got hired at the prevaling wage back then because not nearly enough qualified engineers could be hired.

 

Want a better future? Improve. Make your kids study like the Chinese and Japanese and Israelis.

 

If we all come up together, life will be better for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...