Every Democrat Should Support Bernie Sanders's New Labor Bill

[Uncle Joe]

"The Democratic Party’s official mission is to win elections for its candidates — and “a better deal” for American workers. Strengthening America’s labor unions would advance both of those goals, simultaneously.

Over the past four decades, America’s private-sector unionization rate has collapsed — along with labor’s share of productivity gains. A large and growing body of economic research has demonstrated that this is no coincidence: Unions don’t just grow paychecks for their members, but also put upward pressure on wages throughout their industries. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that weekly wages for private-sector male workers would be 5 percent higher today, were America’s unionization rate still as high as it was in 1979 (changes in the prevalence of gender wage discrimination and female participation in the workforce complicate the comparison for working women). Back then, 34 percent of private-sector workers belonged to a union; today, just 10.7 percent do.

(snip)

It’s possible that these legislators simply haven’t gotten around to it — there is a lot going on right now, and this bill isn’t gonna come up for a vote any time soon. It’s also possible that they object to some little detail in this proposal but are hard at work at their own labor bills.

But if 35 Senate Democrats have no intention of supporting comprehensive labor-law reform of any kind, then 35 Senate Democrats are so deeply committed to protecting the ability of employers to exploit their workers, they’re willing to put their party at an electoral disadvantage for the sake of abetting such exploitation. There’s little reason to believe that this actually the case. But those who haven’t signed onto Sanders’s bill would do well to clarify that it isn’t, posthaste.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/every-democrat-should-back-bernie-sanderss-new-labor-bill.html

[Orsino]

1. And propose amendments to improve it. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

2. If they can improve it more power to them. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

127. Totally agree, but, please, not before some here get in their usual dose of unfair Bernie bashing.

[Jim Lane]

155. So true, so sad, and so predictable.

As soon as I saw this subject line on the Greatest page, I knew what to expect. I knew there'd be discussion of the merits of the bill but that there'd be far more Bernie bashing.

I absolutely knew that, in lieu of addressing the serious problems facing American workers, some people would consider it more important to address the issue of ... Bernie Sanders's party identification.

(Say, did you know that Bernie isn't a Democrat?!)

Now, I'll confess I haven't read every post in this thread. Skimming tells me that I wouldn't learn anything. Just from the OP, I could have written a summary of the responses, I could've included a list of the major participants in the pile-on, and I would have nailed it.

[appalachiablue]

203. Personality over policy is overrated! But very popular, esp. with media.

[Jim Lane]

214. Yes, from the corporate media I expect the superficial. (n/t)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

282. Yes, one of the main reasons we're stuck with that dickwad occupying the Oval Office.

[sheshe2]

270. ...

Just from the OP, I could have written a summary of the responses, I could've included a list of the major participants in the pile-on, and I would have nailed it.

I was able to do the same thing Jim. Twas so easy to see ya'll here. We are missing a few, yet it is early yet.

[ehrnst]

300. ....

[betsuni]

304. Heh!

[treestar]

383. Solution: refer to it as a labor bill

And describe the contents, rather than referring to it as “ Bernie Sanders’ labor bill”. Then it would be about workers and not seem to be anothe rah rah Bernie thread.

[Jim Lane]

386. There's no need to conceal the name of the bill's sponsor to avoid triggering the flames.

The Senate bill really is sponsored by Bernie Sanders (with 12 cosponsors). Describing it as Bernie Sanders's labor bill is therefore completely accurate.

If some people can't see such a phrase without going into Bernie-bash mode and venting their spleen yet again, and telling us yet again that Bernie isn't a Democrat, I'd say that's their problem.

I don't accept an implication that if, say, Cory Booker introduces a bill, we can discuss Booker's bill, but if the sponsor is Bernie then we have to say "a Senator has introduced a bill" because otherwise some people will go on a rant.

The biggest objection to the New York magazine article is that it mentioned only the Senate bill without reporting that Mark Pocan had introduced a companion bill in the House. That's not Bernie's fault, though. When he issued a press release about the bill, he fully credited and quoted Pocan. It was just lazy journalism by New York magazine to focus exclusively on the better-known legislator. In posting the OP, Uncle Joe followed standard practice in using the article headline from the original source.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

403. Jim, you're stating the obvious, obviously (haha)... some people just can't help themselves.

Some of the criticisms of Bernie would be laughable if the stakes were not so high... people are literally dying due to the heinous policies of the Nazi-in-Chief. We need to unite for the 2018 midterm elections if we hope to ever impeach his ass.

[randr]

3. Every Democrat should make Bernie get off the fence

Pick one side or the other, this is war.

[Uncle Joe]

4. What is the war over?

Labels or policy?

[randr]

5. If you haven't noticed the most people who worship Limpballs

and hate the rest of the world have taken over with Russian help and are dismantling our government

[Uncle Joe]

6. I have noticed it's being investigated by Mueller, the FBI and others, so

what does that have to do with supporting Bernie's Labor policy?

[randr]

7. I have no issue with Bernies policies

I think he is a grand stander who has found the "independent" platform as a means of attracting attention.
I was a delegate for Bernie and have become disappointed by his non allegiance to those he would mostly support his causes.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Bernie has if anything been consistent in his policy messaging over decades.

He was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness for decades because his first allegiance was always to the best policies for the people.

Bernie may have the label of Independent but he was the closest political leader for a long time to being an FDR Democrat, too many others ran away toward Reagan's take on the world.

[stevenleser]

15. That's actually not a good thing. Because zero progress has been made on those consistent messages.

He needs to change his approach.

[Uncle Joe]

17. An oak tree doesn't grow overnight stevenleser, perhaps you might consider

that the problem wasn't with Bernie but our pay to play political system made even worse by Citizens United which no doubt intimidated rank and file Democrats from coming out for more progressive policy changes until recently.

[stevenleser]

19. It doesnt grow to an adult status overnight, but it germinates, becomes a sapling, etc. Thats not

the case with Sanders performance.

After however many years he has been in politics, its all still a seed. And people are becoming less inclined to water that seed.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I would say it's more of a sapling at this point.

One-Third of Democratic Senators
Support Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer Plan

At least 16 Democratic senators have embraced the health care system proposed on Wednesday by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which would expand Medicare to all Americans. The move signals that some Democrats are shifting left on health care.

With Republicans in control of Congress, the bill has no chance of becoming law anytime soon. But it could serve as a political manifesto and a possible campaign platform for progressive candidates. In the House, about 60 percent of Democrats have endorsed a “Medicare for all” bill.

Six of the senators are up for re-election in 2018, and several are potential 2020 presidential candidates, including Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/13/us/sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-support.html

[Sophia4]

50. Thanks. The Bernie bashing ignores the fact that Bernie has voted with Democrats

for years and years. And that is what matters.

He will continue to do so I am sure.

[sheshe2]

236. Voted with them.

Do you have a list of his accomplishments?

[ehrnst]

248. Except when he voted against them, most recently with the Russia Sanctions, as well as....

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2019, 09:29 AM - Edit history (3)

Opposed the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h614

Opposed legislation that would've maintained or created over 300,000 small business jobs through loans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll188.xml

Opposed attempts to prevent GOP cuts for benefits for legal immigrants, Medicaid, the disabled, and children safety nets http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed Democratic attempts to increase funding for legal immigrants and child care http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed federal funding to help the homeless http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased funding for nutritional programs for women infants and children http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll708.xml

Opposed funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed allowing breastfeeding on federal grounds http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll426.xml

Opposed legiation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation banning imports from forced child labor http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll474.xml

Opposed funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased education funding http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increases funding for poor students http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation increasing financial aid http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Supported gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll550.xml

Opposed increased food safety and inspection http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

And then there's Sierra Blanca - which Paul Wellstone called "environmental racism." Just google it for the fallout.

[sheshe2]

258. Lest we forget.

No on Russian sanctions.

Oh and the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

[ehrnst]

260. Opposed the Brady Bill in 1993....

And has never, ever expressed a syllable of regret, or that he feels he made any mistakes, or any hint that he might do things differently knowing what he knows now in terms of those votes.

Or anything, for that matter.

[sheshe2]

269. Sierra Blanca

That breaks my heart.

A small very small community, non white had toxic waste dumped on them.

He was at odds with progressives here.

In the late 1990s, when now-U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was a member of the House, he supported a compact between Maine, Vermont and Texas that originally proposed dumping low-level radioactive waste in a small minority community in far-West Texas, putting him at odds with other progressive congressmen.

Though the waste never made it to Sierra Blanca, a low-income, largely Hispanic town in Hudspeth County, Sanders’ efforts have attracted renewed attention online in the lead-up to Tuesday's Texas primary. Critics suggest that the candidate’s role in promoting the compact — which ultimately brought the waste to a different site in West Texas — undermines his otherwise progressive record.

“It reflects very poorly on him,” said longtime environmental justice activist Dr. Robert Bullard, dean of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University and the author of Dumping in Dixie. “Shoving this down people’s throats is not progressive politics. It was business as usual. It’s a classic case of rich people from a white state shifting something they don’t want to a poor minority community somewhere else.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/28/Sanders-Nuclear-Waste-Votes-Divide-Texas-Activists/

[guillaumeb]

261. Well said.

But the bashing is very popular.

[sheshe2]

279. Perhaps you should read more of the thread.

His voting record is listed.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

404. Yes, the Bernie bashing never ends... sad to see, especially at a time we should be uniting

against that POS occupying the White House. Can't take another 2 years of this madness! BLOTUS needs to be impeached, NOW!!

[guillaumeb]

414. The GOP will never impeach their useful idiot.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

415. True, but the point is, if we win back the House and Senate,

impeachment of that a-hole is on the table, big time!

[guillaumeb]

416. Agreed.

Even if it is only the House, 2 years of actual investigation could set the stage for a Democratic President in 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

417. Absolutely, I think we got that one in the bag, but only if we don't get over confident

like we did with Hillary, thinking she would trounce Tiny Hands tRump... we gotta show up this time.

[sheshe2]

194. The bill was first introduced by John Conyers in 2003 in congress

The United States National Health Care Act, or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676), is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by former Representative John Conyers (D-MI).[1] The bill had 49 cosponsors in 2015. As of October 1, 2017, it had 120 cosponsors,[2] which amounts to a majority of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives and is the highest level of support the bill has ever received since Conyers began annually introducing the bill in 2003.

The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare and Taiwan's Bureau of National Health Insurance, among other examples. Under a single-payer system, most medical care would be paid for by the Government of the United States, ending the need for private health insurance and premiums, and probably recasting private insurance companies as providing purely supplemental coverage, to be used when non-essential care is sought.

snip

The bill was first introduced in 2003,[8] when it had 25 cosponsors, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since. During the 2009 health care debates over the bill that became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 676 was expected to be debated and voted upon by the House in September 2009,[9] but was never debated.[10]


On 13 September 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a parallel bill in the United States Senate with 16 cosponsors.[11][12][13] The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act

Bernie was a congressman until 2006, Did he support Conyers bill each and every year he proposed it? It is not a new idea. It was Conyers.

[Uncle Joe]

200. I never said it was a new idea. n/t

[sheshe2]

211. What I find sad is the original authors are never applauded.

Never being credited for their years of work for introducing and reintroducing a bill for years on end. Where was Bernie's support in all his years in congress?

[Uncle Joe]

213. I applaud any and all political leaders that have a hand in or will have a hand in bringing

Medicare for All or Universal Healthcare to fruition here in the U.S.

Having said that, Bernie has been promoting this at least since 1988

[OilemFirchen]

216. What the?

I could have sworn this OP was about a Labor bill.

[Uncle Joe]

217. It was but some people preferred to change he subject. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

224. Nobody changed the subject until you did.

Follow this subthread. It's all about the Labor bill.

Whatevs. Wanna talk about UHC? Did Teddy Roosevelt steal Bernie's idea about that too?

[Uncle Joe]

227. Wrong, post #3 started to change the subject from supporting the labor bill and that wasn't me. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

230. Nope.

That was simply pushing back against your Democrats vs. Sanders title. I think both were unnecessary, but it was you who changed the subject from labor to health care.

Do you want to discuss how Bernie Sanders invented the concept of Universal Health Care or are you done with that diversion?

[Uncle Joe]

240. That was the title of the article.

I never said that Bernie invented the concept of universal health care, so that's a lie

[sheshe2]

259. Ummm

You added the Medicare for all.

See your post #20 to Steve Leser. It was your add no one else's.

[sheshe2]

233. So for 30 years?

Yet nothing.

[George II]

246. "Bernie has been promoting this at least since 1988" Wow. Mayor of Burlington?

Did you know that in Congress the Dingle family (John Sr., John Jr., and now Jr.'s wife Debbie) have been promoting this AT LEAST SINCE 1943? Not a peep about the Dingles. Why not?

In 1943, Dingell’s father, a congressman from Michigan who had played a critical role in enacting the initial Social Security Act of 1935, joined a pair of New Deal stalwarts from the Senate—New York Senator Robert Wagner and Montana Senator James Murray—to propose the rough outline for a single-payer national healthcare system.

https://www.thenation.com/article/congressman-john-dingell-d-healthcare-right/

You might want to read the history of the Dingle family and single-payer proposals.

[Sophia4]

276. It has existed in Germany for long before that.

Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system,[1] with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. Bismarck stressed the importance of three key principles; solidarity, the government is responsible for ensuring access by those who need it, subsidiarity, policies are implemented with smallest no political and administrative influence, and corporatism, the government representative bodies in health care professions set out procedures they deem feasible.[11] Mandatory health insurance originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population.[12] The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population are covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1,100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.[13] Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physicians' associations and sickness funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

I lived in on the economy Germany and loved the healthcare system.

[ehrnst]

286. Yes, it takes a long time to develop and expand a health care delivery system

Much, much longer than four years - like Sanders says.

[George II]

295. The OP is talking about strengthening labor laws, not healthcare insurance.

[Sophia4]

310. Again, Germany is way ahead of us when it comes to labor laws.

We lag far behind our European allies in terms of labor and healthcare laws.

[George II]

315. The US population is also 4X that of Germany and made up of 50 individual states....

....that set many of their own labor laws aside from Federal laws.

It's impractical to compare the United States to any European country, they have entirely different types of government, laws, and demographics.

[Sophia4]

320. But any improvements we make in labor laws have probably been made long

ago in some other country.

Socially and politically, we are really quite backward in many areas, but Americans don't like to admit that.

[ehrnst]

257. Actually, Ted Kennedy was promoting it back in 1971

Kennedy offered his national health-insurance plan in 1971, The “Health Security Act” calls for a universal single-payer plan financed through payroll taxes.

So, no, Bernie wasn't the first, and he certainly wasn't "a lone voice in the wilderness..."

https://khn.org/news/kennedy-health-care-timeline/

You're welcome.

And Bernie seems to think that this issue is his 'brand.' He has accomplished nothing towards acheiving it in 30 years.

Ted Kennedy learned and moved on, and worked with HRC to get CHIP into existence. Sometimes you need to stop yelling and roll up your sleeves and get something done.

[sheshe2]

266. I miss Ted.

An imperfect person. Yet...



Dayum I miss them both.

[sheshe2]

280. Yes.

I see you applauding Bernie and no one else.

[ehrnst]

301. Why do you think that he couldn't get Ted Kennedy, who had proposed it in 1971

to join him? If anyone was going to be on board with Single Payer, it was Ted.

Perhaps Ted learned some things? Ted went on to do many great things in getting health care more accessible.

He didn't just keep on doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

[Sophia4]

275. Their work is not forgotten.

[ehrnst]

262. And Ted Kennedy introduced a single payer bill in 1971. Truman in 1945.

1945 was probably the last window of time where it could have been started and developed like much of Europe did, before our current system got baked into the economy and public expectations.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/november-19-1945-harry-truman-calls-national-health-insurance-program

[Sophia4]

33. We should all help water the seed.

Criticizing those who are watering that seed is counterproductive.
I note that Kirsten Gillibrand and other Democratic liberals are also supporting this bill and movement.

Those who care more about the Democratic brand than Democratic policy should feel reassured by the list of Democrats supporting the bill.

[Uncle Joe]

64. +1

[stevenleser]

81. That depends what you mean by watering the seed

Throwing up legislation against a populace that doesnt support it is not watering the seed, it's tilting at windmills.

Going out and convincing people to change their minds is what you need to do. And I don't see Bernie or those who support him going out and doing that.

What I see from Bernie is throwing up the legislation and then saying, look how great and progressive I am and how terrible others are for not tilting at the windmill with me. That isn't going to get it done.

[Sophia4]

87. Actually, Bernie is out there making speeches and working.

In fact, there are several videos of his public comments on TV and in speeches to groups here on this website.

And he is just one example of people working together to improve our country.

He is not the only one making speeches and supporting working people and labor unions.

[stevenleser]

121. And he is having zero success. And knowing that he is throwing up legislation that has no chance

of succeeding.

[JCanete]

142. public awareness is not zero success. Democrats adopting more liberal positions, deciding

to not take pac money, etc. is not zero success. Sanders isn't a force of nature. This takes a movement and he's but one piece of it but his piece does in fact appear to matter.

[stevenleser]

197. The public isn't aware, the public doesn't support the idea, zero progress. nt

[JCanete]

283. The public isn't aware of what? That's pretty flippant and inaccurate, given that all of the

democratic frontrunners are taking note of a liberal base that wants things that they are going on record in favor of. I'd say you're way off.

[stevenleser]

381. Neither flippant, nor inaccurate. He is having zero effect. nt

[JCanete]

384. we could go back and for like that forever and wouldn't that be fun, but clearly this isn't a

discussion we're having.

[sheshe2]

263. "Making speeches."

We need policy not speeches before adoring crowds.

[Sophia4]

274. In his speeches he speaks about his ideas about policy.

[sheshe2]

277. My late Senator Kennedy

He didn't go out and give speeches about his ideas to adoring crowds traveling state to state. He was in the Senate doing what us Massites elected him for. He fought for us and our healthcare and his podium was in the Senate. We elected him to serve the people of Massachusetts. Yes, he served the country as well, beautifully and gracefully until the day he died.

[Eliot Rosewater]

105. No progress AT ALL on any front by this approach. I think there was one, a veterans bill

which is great, but how many years in our government?

[Uncle Joe]

141. Here you go

How Bernie Gets Things Done in Congress Without Being Bought Off

Senator Bernie Sanders is one of the most productive members of Congress. Although his insistence on being an Independent induced criticism from both Republicans and Democrats—and few thought he would last long without bowing to one political party—Mr. Sanders has defied naysayers with a career spanning nearly three decades.

Dubbed the ‘amendment king,’ Mr. Sanders passed more amendments than any other member of Congress during his 16 years in the House of Representatives—despite Republicans holding a majority between 1994 and 2006. He kicked off his political career with an amendment to start a National Program of Cancer registries, which is now maintained by all 50 states. In 2001, he successfully passed an amendment to the general appropriations bill which banned the importation of goods made with child labor, and passed an amendment to increase funding by $100 million for community health centers.

“During this time, Sanders took on powerful adversaries, including Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, the Export-Import Bank, and the Bush Administration,” wrote Matt Taibbi in a 2005 Rolling Stone article. “And by using the basic tools of democracy-floor votes on clearly posed questions, with the aid of painstakingly built coalitions of allies from both sides of the aisle-he, a lone Independent, beat them all.”

When Mr. Sanders was elected to the Senate in 2006, he continued pushing amendments through legislation, including securing $10 million in additional funds for the Army National Guard, providing financial assistance for childcare to people in the armed forces, exposing corruption in the military industrial complex, support in treating autism in the military’s healthcare system and ensuring bailout funds weren’t used to displace American workers.

(snip)

http://observer.com/2016/03/how-bernie-gets-things-done-in-congress-without-being-bought-off/

[ehrnst]

220. The Observer - Kushner's publication. Note the shivs to Hillary, written during the primary, natch.

You left the part that bashes her out of your snippet. Thing is, I actually read posts, including the links before I reply.

No question who the Observer was pulling for in this article, was there?

When you absolutely have no other source for a list of good things about your favorite politician, I guess you go to the Observer.

And of course they included the trusty moniker "Amendment king!" That's like calling someone who adds some extra icing roses to wedding cakes and a pastry chef.

[Uncle Joe]

223. Here you go

"Bernie Sanders was the roll call amendment king from 1995 to 2007"

"Sanders served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2006 and has been in the Senate since then. Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2007 and of the Senate from 2015 to present.

In 2005, Rolling Stone named Sanders the "amendment king" of the House. At the time, the title held true with a specific qualification: amendments agreed to by record votes. (Amendments can also be passed with voice votes, in which the volume of yeas and nays dictates passage, or by unanimous consent, in which no one raises an objection.)

(snip)

A campaign ad for Sander said, "Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member."

That’s a very specific way of slicing and dicing Sanders’ effectiveness as a lawmaker, but it’s accurate. From 1995 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress, Sanders passed the most roll call amendments (17) out of anyone in the House of Representatives.

We rate his claim True."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

[ehrnst]

228. Like I said...

Calling someone the "amendment king" as proof of their ability to legislate is like saying that a person putting some extra icing roses on a wedding cake is proof that they are a "pastry chef."

What it says to me is that he doesn't participate in the crafting of the actual bill, which is the hard work - requiring working closely with others, research, and compromise but prefers to come in after it's all done to put something on it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just don't confuse it with crafting legislation, or misrepresent it as statecraft.

But hey - the fact that you went to the Observer for an article that is clearly bashing Hillary, written during the primary shows the ability to distinguish propaganda from journalism, right?

Like you said, that internet allows you to bypass the "corporate" journalistically vetted and editor checked media to get to the information that you want.

[sheshe2]

264. 'amendment king'

Sad, 30 years. That is all you got.

[sheshe2]

281. Who exactly are you accusing of being bought off?

"How Bernie Gets Things Done in Congress Without Being Bought Off"

What Democrat are you accusing of being paid to play? Please name them. That is a serious accusation. Name them.

[betsuni]

290. Bought off?

In what world would Democrats be bought off illegally and get away with it? Ridiculous!

[sheshe2]

342. "How Bernie Gets Things Done in Congress Without Being Bought Off "

You are implying that every Democrat in congress is bought and paid for? Please correct me if I am wrong here. Thanks in advance.

[EffieBlack]

41. Exactiy

The point of doing all of this, I assume, is to make change. If, after 30 years, you’re still on the outside shaking your fist and yelling about “The Establishment,” you haven’t been very effective. You need to change tactics and approach or find something else to do with your time.

[mcar]

218. And Nancy Pelosi, who actually has gotten things done

is denigrated here and told she needs to step aside.

[ehrnst]

232. The ACA is the closest we've gotten to universal health care.

She persisted.

She got it done.

[Uncle Joe]

252. I haven't seen anyone on this thread denigrating Nancy Pelosi or suggesting

that she should step aside.

[mcar]

299. I didn't say this thread

I said here, as in DU.

[NurseJackie]

323. But, but, but... "if it didn't happen in THIS thread, then it didn't happen at all!"

and

The accuracy of your statement and observation cannot be truthfully denied... UNLESS one very carefully splits hairs to interpret "here" as being confined only to this particular thread. People who play word-games like that don't give us much credit. Plus, on top of that, it tells me that they already know the weakness of their arguments or positions... so they resort to those types of maneuvers.

[mcar]

325. I'm so tired of the word games

[NurseJackie]

221. Amen!

[sheshe2]

267. Amen

[NurseJackie]

288. And...

[sheshe2]

265. In EIGHT SHORT YEARS.

This BLACK MAN DID THIS.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

[TheSmarterDog]

206. He needs to join the party.

His attacks on Democrats & The Democratic Party never help enact a liberal/progressive agenda.

[sheshe2]

245. Ding Ding Ding!!!!

[Snotcicles]

21. +1. nt

[EffieBlack]

43. "He was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness"

No. He wasn’t.

Maybe he’s the only one you listened to, but he surely wasn’t out there all alone. Not even close

[Uncle Joe]

68. There were others, Paul Wellstone comes to mind but the vast majority

moved to the right and focused more on political expediency than promoting bold progressive policies that while could be most beneficial to the public could also pose significant personal political and monetary costs to the politician.

Such was the power of both T.V. propaganda particularly pre-Internet and big money's grip on "We the People."

They either lost faith in FDR or Harry Truman's greater visions, never believed in them in the first place or were willing to trade those ideals off for an illusory "pragmatism" that in reality was both politically costly and in fact a slow sentence of national entropy.

[EffieBlack]

92. Are you familiar with the Congressional Black Caucus?

Bernie didn't invent liberalism and he's not unique.

And he's definitely no Paul Wellstone.

[Eliot Rosewater]

106. It irks the holy hell out of me to see Wellstone mentioned in this thread.

for the same reason I see you are annoyed by it.

[ehrnst]

118. Me too.

It's irritating to see his name invoked as holy by those in the far left who were TRASHING him for "selling out" the minute he announced that he was running for re-election, and started agreeing with HRC that single payer wasn't going to be the way to go for universal health care coverage.

They can't claim him after that.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/seduction-paul-wellstone/

[Uncle Joe]

119. No one else has spoken for so long against the corporate powers that be and our

own oligarchs dominating our government than Bernie has through the years.

[EffieBlack]

132. You can't possibly be serious.

But at least we know your answer to my question. No, you aren't familiar with the CBC.

[Uncle Joe]

146. I am deadly serious

Your assumption is also incorrect, I know what the Congressional Black Caucus is, but nice try.

[EffieBlack]

151. I have no doubt you are serious

And you probably know what the CBC is. But my question was whether you are familiar with them.

But you inadvertently answered. Thanks.

[ehrnst]

187. Oh NOES - another "race charged post"

Last edited Fri May 11, 2018, 07:52 PM - Edit history (2)

somebody brought RACE into a discussion of social justice, AGAIN!!

You tell EffieBlack how wrong she is, Uncle Joe, and how she just doesn't understand what progressive really is.

Go on...



But do go on about how "no one" was talking about these things before Bernie was.

Rural Vermont was such a hotbed of social justice action, that Bernie went there instead of staying with SNCC.

[ehrnst]

154. Nope. Black Congressional Caucus.

Bernie didn't invent progressive ideas.

And certainly many others were speaking out that weren't in office.

When someone is in office, one expects more than simply yelling and finger wagging. One expects actual legislative progress from a legislator.

Such as from the Black Congressional Congress.

In anniversary celebrations, the caucus will highlight legislative markers that include: getting set-asides for minority-owned businesses written into federal law, establishing a federal holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and getting Congress to pass sanctions against South Africa during apartheid.

“We do not suffer in silence. We work outside the box,” Waters said. “We use every strategy that is available to us.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-its-40-years-congressional-black-caucus-has-seen-mission-challenges-evolve/2011/03/30/AFWkOI9B_story.html?utm_term=.0fbbe1ef1cc0

[ehrnst]

115. Can you give some examples of Democrats who

"moved to the right and focused more on political expediency than promoting bold progressive policies?"

Names, please, not paragraphs avoiding the question, but I won't hold my breath.

And the far left was trashing Wellstone as "moving right" and being a "sell out" from the minute he announced that he would seek a second term.

Then they have the nerve to suddenly deify him and claim him as their own now he's dead. Revisionist history at it's worst.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/seduction-paul-wellstone/

[Uncle Joe]

122. That's what the DLC was all about moving the party to the right to win politically

that was supposed to be the "pragmatic" approach.

This was greatly influenced by Reagan's political success and influence.

I have never trashed Paul Wellstone.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never deified him either.

[ehrnst]

123. Um... the DLC no longer exists.

I asked for names of those Democrats you accuse of having "moved to the right and focused more on political expediency than promoting bold progressive policies?"

Don't have any actual names? I figured as much. I can guess why...

I never said or implied that you trashed Wellstone. Did you find a sale on strawmen?

[Uncle Joe]

126. We are talking about history and I never said the DLC still existed but it

ran from 1985-2011.

(snip)

Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy has resulted in concession after concession to the opposition and promotion of a free-market economic agenda favorable to corporations and entrepreneurs, including those seeking to privatize public services, while alienating traditionally-allied voters and working-class people.

Other critics cite that the low turnout of organized labor in the 1994 election after Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement into law resulted in the Republican Party gaining a majority in the 1994 House of Representatives elections and 1994 Senate elections that would last for twelve years until 2006.

Author and columnist David Sirota has strongly criticized the DLC, who he claims have sold out to corporate interests. In 1980, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) founded the Democratic Business Council to compete with the Republican National Committee for donations from businesses and corporations. Sirota has also argued that the term "centrist" is a misnomer in that these politicians are out of touch with public opinion. Sirota's article "The Democrats' Da Vinci Code" argues that truly progressive politicians are more successful in so-called "red states" than the mainstream media have previously reported.[18]

Others contend that the DLC's distaste for what they refer to as "economic class warfare" has allowed the language of populism to be monopolized by the right-wing. Many argue that the Democrats' abandonment of populism to the right-wing, shifting the form of that populism from the economic realm to the "culture wars", has been critical for Republican dominance of Middle America. (See, for instance, Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?.)

Still other critics believe the DLC has essentially become an influential corporate and right-wing implant in the Democratic party. Marshall Wittmann, a former senior fellow at the DLC, former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, and former communications director for Republican senator John McCain, and Will Marshall, a vocal supporter of the war in Iraq, are among those associated with the DLC who have right-wing credentials.

Finally, detractors of the DLC note that the DLC has received funding from the right-wing Bradley Foundation as well as from oil companies, military contractors, and various Fortune 500 companies. However, the DNC proper has also benefited from funding by corporations like these via the Democratic Business Council."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

I also never said that you said I trashed Wellstone, where do you see that?

[ehrnst]

133. You can't name them, can you?

Nice evasion. You can't back up your accusations, so you try desperately to change the topic to the DLC - complete with long copy and paste.

You know people can read what you wrote, right?

I have never trashed Paul Wellstone.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never deified him either.

So, yes, you not only accused me of saying you trashed Wellstone, you accused me of putting those very words in your mouth.

Don't let hate consume you, Uncle Joe. It'll get you all confused.



I worked with Paul Wellstone, so I know a bit about what I'm talking about. He was lumped in with the DLC by self-described "progressives." Surprised?

[Uncle Joe]

147. If you can't figure out the majority of the party as it was dominated by the DLC there

is nothing I can do to you help you.

From your post #115

And the far left was trashing Wellstone as "moving right" and being a "sell out" from the minute he announced that he would seek a second term.

Then they have the nerve to suddenly deify him and claim him as their own now he's dead. Revisionist history at it's worst.

I'm to the far left so I believe you were referring to me or someone of my political persuasion and I don't know of anyone to the far left that trashed Paul Wellstone and then deified him.

[ehrnst]

148. So you admit you were wrong about my "putting words in your mouth."

Good.

But yer gonna double down that on the DLC vs Paul Wellstone, even though the far left was pretty much calling him in 2001 what you are calling the DLC now.

There is nothing I can do for someone who pontificates on history they have not really understood.

[Uncle Joe]

149. Perhaps you can show me these articles pertaining to the far left trashing Paul Wellstone? n/t

[ehrnst]

150. Well, if you had bothered to read my posts before replying...

You would have found one right here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10604097


Don't let hate consume you, Uncle Joe. It'll get you all confused.

[betsuni]

268. You know, repeating things over and over doesn't make them true.

[appalachiablue]

202. Very helpful, quite a lot covered, thanks Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

208. It's good to see you appalachiablue

Peace to you.

[Uncle Joe]

153. 1. One article doesn't encompass all the far left.

2. Does the article have any merit whatsoever?

I believe Paul was a good man but the same corporate dominated system; that Bernie has railed against for decades apparently stymied Wellstone per that article.

People ask why has Bernie remained an Independent instead of joining the Democratic Party, well if this article has any merit, that would be prima facie evidence as to the logic behind Bernie's reasoning.

Bernie's primary proposals were also at least originally championed by Wellstone, I would think you would be most motivated to support these policies?

At the time, these seemed merely the first of what promised to be a long series of dust-ups between Wellstone and the Washington establishment. He was already on record committing himself to the pursuit of two measures absolutely anathema to the Beltway gang, namely the public financing of political campaigns and a government-financed single-payer health care system. To get anywhere at all with such an agenda, Wellstone realized, he would have to work with citizens’ groups and organizers across the country to rally public pressure. His chief role as senator, he said in those first months, was to begin working “with a lot of people around the country—progressive grassroots people, social-action activists—to extend the limits of what’s considered politically realistic. I have always been a community organizer, and I can do that here.”

You have been asking me which individuals moved to the right, pretty much the whole party dominated by the DLC shifted insofar as those two and other issues are concerned.

[ehrnst]

156. You wanted a link. I gave you a link.

Mother Jones coalesced the talk on the left. I was there.

If a politician today was to reach across the aisle and work in teams like Paul did, he or she would be smeared as a "neocon." Paul was more concerned with getting things done for his constituents and his country, and not his ego or for the crowds at rallies.

Paul didn't start from the assumption that he was the smartest person in the room, and was open to learning - which led him to change on some issues. Perhaps it was because of his respect for education, being a educator, that gave him a willingness to learn. I find his thoughtful change to be more "ethical" and reality based than simply telling everyone that disagreed with him they were corrupt, in an attempt to "own" an issue. Paul actually evolved, he didn't just pay it lip service.

So, you're saying that the "whole Democratic party dominated by the DLC" "moved to the right and focused more on political expediency than promoting bold progressive policies."

That's a straight white male pov if I ever heard one. No other group has the entitlement to ignore progressive successes concerning everyone else.

[Uncle Joe]

162. The party was dominated by the DLC, that's a historical fact, denying it won't make it go away.

The DLC and for that matter America's oligarchs and mega-corporations in general have no problem with social changes, now economic that was a different matter.

However what many people either forget or never knew is that economic turmoil greatly exacerbates other societal stress points as well.

The middle class has been shrinking for well over 30 years, and we're becoming a nation of extremes.

That's a woke American POV.

[ehrnst]

164. "Woke"

You sure whipped that out quick when someone mentioned white male privilege -like someone covering for an embarassing off color joke that no one is laughing at. Now we know yer "woke!"

And yer back to yer lecturing, because your vision of Paul got corrected, and you got nothing but going after the Democratic Party with insults:

People ask why has Bernie remained an Independent instead of joining the Democratic Party, well if this article has any merit, that would be prima facie evidence as to the logic behind Bernie's reasoning.

Bernie Sanders is no Paul Wellstone, and neither are you - as your posts are "prima facie evidence." Paul was a genuine progressive who put action above yelling and red faced ranting. He loved being a public servant, and didn't feel a need to be a gadfly. Paul had the social intelligence that made it possible to work with his peers. People liked working with Paul - they didn't steel themselves for it. Hillary is a progressive in the mold of Paul Wellstone. Ask Al Franken.

Don't be consumed by hate, Uncle Joe. It will give you high blood pressure.

[ehrnst]

171. "Hillary was never a progressive"?

Well, unless you count all the advocacy she accomplished for women, children, LGBTs and people of color.

But that's not really relevant to some "progressives." Amirite, Uncle Joe?

Unlike many who simply yelled about it, she actually got affordable health care into existence.

Google CHIP.

You brought race in to this discussion.

Interesting that it was missing completely in your rants about the Oligharchy, economic turmoil, social changes, and mega-corporations, all those "priority" issues for progressive white men.

The DLC and for that matter America's oligarchs and mega-corporations in general have no problem with social changes, now economic that was a different matter.

Race and gender justice - those silly "social changes" seem to be simply an irritating distraction to your "woke" ideology. Interesting that you get defensive when that's brought up, isn't it?

And keep that blood pressure down - it's a real problem among the white male demographic. Especially in the South. Just keep on telling people how "woke" your far left white male idea of "progressive" is. Laughter is the best medicine, for anyone listening to you, anyway.

And as for your 2007 article from Vanity Fair, as someone once posted, One article doesn't encompass all the far left." and "Does the article have any merit whatsoever?" (see what I did there?)

[Eliot Rosewater]

176. Hillary was not only very progressive but she on her own and she and her

husband have accomplished more of the progressive agenda than any senators I can think of and between them have helped more people in need in ONE day than any 1000 progressives combined will do in their lifetimes.

Now what I just said is a fact so I dont expect it to gain much traction with some

[ehrnst]

183. But she apparently is distracting from actual progressive issues that matter to

hetero white men who are not earning what they think they should be earning.

She forgot the "priorities" I guess. How can anyone be a "progressive" without understanding the PRIORITIES!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

185. Remember she once refused to bake cookies

[ehrnst]

190. OMG, yes. That neocon witch wouldn't even bake cookies.

Who the hell does she think she is?

And that cackle...

[Uncle Joe]

186. 1. Bernie's progressive proposals are more encompassing, they're universal,

all the groups you listed plus everybody else.

2. Keep playing the fault line politics of division over substance and unity only serves to empower Trump and the Republicans.

3. I agree with the article's take from Vanity Fair but I never said it encompassed anything.

[ehrnst]

189. Oh, right. All other issues

- the ones that don't directly affect straight white men - are not "universal."

They're "identity politics."

The ones that can't be solved with more earning power are inconsequential, and a distraction.

Got it.

[Uncle Joe]

198. Universal is universal, that doesn't mean anything less than that can't be good or needed but

Medicare for all is universal, free education is universal, 15$ minimum wage is universal, fighting against global warming climate change is universal.

[ehrnst]

199. Yep, I hear Bernie was the very first person to have those positions.

I forgot. What has he accomplished again on those issues? Remind me.

But I haven't forgotten his dismissal of any issue that doesn't affect straight white men directly as "identity issues."

That's a old tune, different verse.

But in Vermont, where it's 98% white, why does one really need to worry about that?

And yes, he's "consistent." Creationists are consistent - they consider it to be an article of faith not to change when presented with evidence that doesn't support their bias, and pride themselves on refusing to budge an inch. What's that saying about a foolish consistency?

[Cha]

178. "Don't be consumed by hate ehrnst".. you need to look in the

mirror, stat.

[Eliot Rosewater]

181. Sometimes I read this board and I laugh my ass off.

[mcar]

226. Not so "woke" after all

HRC not a progressive? Prove that claim, please.

[Uncle Joe]

235. Hillary was liberal in some policies but most conservative in others, of course

her track record of actual government service in the Congress wasn't near as long as Bernie, so some of her political ideas or positions must be taken from when she was the First Lady and Secretary of State.

As First Lady, Hillary came out strongly for the crime bill in the 90s with language that focused on the punitive aspects of it, now Bernie did vote for that same bill while in the Congress because it did add protections for women and banned assault weapons but at the same time he also strongly condemned that same punitive "justice" portion lamenting our world record setting number of prisoners with too great a proportion minorities being railroaded to prison.

As Secretary of State Hillary for all practical purposes supported or at the very least gave tacit approval of a military coup against the democratically elected government of Honduras. The resulting chaos, instability and violence led many Hondurans to even risk sending their children on a dangerous trek to cross our border.

[ehrnst]

239. "for all practical purposes supported or at the very least gave tacit approval"

which is it?

Did anyone tell Obama that she did this? I'm sure he had nothing whatsoever to do with foreign policy, let alone this issue and must be blameless. He was just POTUS.

Bernie signed it, but he, you know, supported the Good things about about - but Hillary only supported the BAD things about it. Got some sources for that?

Do you think that HRC plotted to thwart him - you know, she had SO much control over the bill.

And you said that he "

And your icon Al Gore stood behind President Clinton as he signed it. Do you think that he knew what was in it?

But FLOTUS publicly supporting her husband's policies, especially after she was told to get in line or he wouldn't be re-elected? Beyond the pale!



She later said that there were parts of the bill that were a mistake.

Bernie gets testy when questioned about his questionable votes: http://freebeacon.com/issues/sanders-gets-testy-chuck-todd-brings-voting-record-guns/

[ehrnst]

254. Again...

She later said that there were parts of the bill that were a mistake, when asked about it.

I know, I know... you say she only supported the BAD parts, and Bernie the GOOD parts - but he didn't seem to find the bad parts distasteful enough to vote against it. Whereas she had been told to be the good supportive wife, or Bill wasn't going to get re-elected. But hey - it's Hillary, so you know she really wanted to screw people over, right?


However, Bernie gets testy when questioned about his votes on guns: http://freebeacon.com/issues/sanders-gets-testy-chuck-todd-brings-voting-record-guns/

More on that: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

And can you explain how these votes by Bernie are progressive? I don't recall him ever apologizing for or regretting any vote, let alone these. I know you think that voting for a bill with a possible bad outcome for the underserved is not NEARLY as bad as a FLOTUS having an opinion on it, but these are things he didn't vote with Democrats on.

Opposed the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h614

Opposed legislation that would've maintained or created over 300,000 small business jobs through loans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll188.xml

Opposed attempts to prevent GOP cuts for benefits for legal immigrants, Medicaid, the disabled, and children safety nets http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed Democratic attempts to increase funding for legal immigrants and child care http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed federal funding to help the homeless http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased funding for nutritional programs for women infants and children http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll708.xml

Opposed funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed allowing breastfeeding on federal grounds http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll426.xml

Opposed legiation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation banning imports from forced child labor http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll474.xml

Opposed funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased education funding http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increases funding for poor students http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation increasing financial aid http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Supported gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll550.xml

Opposed increased food safety and inspection http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

And then there's Sierra Blanca - which Paul Wellstone called "environmental racism." You can fine plenty about that on those internets.

[George II]

249. Sanders is being praised for voting FOR the crime bill and Clinton is being bashed for a bill....

....that she was in no position to vote for or against?

Unbelievable.

[Uncle Joe]

250. It all has to do with intent, Hillary as First Lady was certainly in a position to influence.

Bernie was focused on the women's protection and assault weapons ban while condemning the punitive criminal and sentencing aspects, Hillary in her support was about "predators."

[George II]

256. "Reasons" notwithstanding he DID vote for the bill, didn't he? For whatever reason....

....his yes vote had the same effect as any other Congressman's vote.

And say what you will, Hillary Clinton did NOT vote for that crime bill.

[sheshe2]

278. Please show me where Bernie was focused on womens protections.

Prior to his vote, when and where did he do anything legislatively to protect women. Links to where he advocated for women.

As for assault rifles...lol.

[ehrnst]

289. Hillary in her support was about "predators"?

“I think that it had some positive aspects to it,” she said, citing the violence against women act. “So if we were to have the balance sheet on one side there are some positive actions and changes.

And of course, Bernie's "motives were pure." He can't be held accountable for actually voting for the bill, when he could have protested it with a nay, as he has done with other bills he didn't approve of.

But Hillary is a woman, and well, you know - "crooked" so she can't be trusted no matter what she says, right?

"My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society, kids who never got the chance they deserved," Clinton continued in the statement. "And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities. We haven’t done right by them. We need to. We need to end the school to prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle-to-college pipeline."

Whereas Bernie has yet to express a syllable of regret for his opposition to the Brady Bill. Or any number of times he opposed the Democrats on bills such as I have listed in another post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10605896

Don't let hate for Hillary consume you, Joe. It's the opposite of mellow.

[betsuni]

291. +1

[ehrnst]

293. So one's vote doesn't matter - intent does.

How do you explain his "intent" in voting against the Brady Bill?

I mean, if you want to hold Hillary to her "intent" as FLOTUS that long ago, why not Bernie?

Oh right - different standards for Hillary.....

[betsuni]

298. "intent"

Because Hillary is never, ever, ever, allowed to not be evil?

[ehrnst]

255. But reasons!!!!!!!!!!

[ehrnst]

287. Actually she was a more effective lawmaker in the Senate in her 3 years than Bernie

was in nine.

Here’s what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that passed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/

And even as FLOTUS, she was able to get more done for affordable health care than Bernie has to this day. CHIP

That must have been very frustrating for him.

Also, I find it interesting that you move the goalpost for judging a politician from "intent" to how many votes or activities that politician has had. But of course there are very different standards for Hillary, right?

[mcar]

222. That is my recollection of Wellstone, ehrnst

How lucky you were to have worked with him.

[ehrnst]

231. I consider it an honor to have had the opportunity.

[ehrnst]

112. Indeed.

I think for some, Bernie is only voice that they hear, and seem to think is the only source of progressive ideas.

I recall some on DU saying that Bernie must have been the "inspiration" for JOHN LEWIS' sit down on Gun Safety legislation.

As if.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

134. You got that right... Bernie's more of a Democrat than most Democrats! He has the highest percentage

in terms of voting the Democratic Party line..
but, but, but he needs to change his party affiliation, policies be damned!! Gimme a fuckin' break!!!

[OilemFirchen]

152. "A lone voice crying out in the wilderness for decades..."

Uh huh.

What do you think about these planks for a Presidential candidate's platform?

• Creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans.
• Reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand".
• Reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs.
• Cutting the budget of the Department of Defense by as much as fifteen percent over the course of his administration.
• Instituting an immediate nuclear freeze and beginning disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union.
• Supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Deal–era farm programs.
• Creating a single-payer system of universal health care.
• Ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment.
• Increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all.
• Applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act

[Uncle Joe]

159. Those were good policy proposals but it doesn't change my point.

No one in the Congress has so forcefully spoken out against the wealthy and powerful's economic and political domination or stranglehold over our government for a such long duration as Bernie Sanders.

No candidate in modern history has run for President depending solely on the good will of the American People for financial support while eschewing Big Money; which has hamstrung so many politicians in power over the past few decades to put the best interests of the public on the back burner because they need to raise money to run for reelections.

All in deference to mega-corporations and Wall Street.

P.S. If that's Hillary's planks that you're posting I believe it was greatly influenced as well by Bernie at the convention.

[OilemFirchen]

161. None of that is true, either.

And those were Jessie Jackson's 1988 planks. Back when demi-god Sanders (who endorsed Jackson) was Mayor of Vermont.

Some revolutionary, huh?

[Uncle Joe]

163. Who are you trashing Jessie Jackson or Bernie Sanders?

[OilemFirchen]

165. Who are you making false claims about?

[Uncle Joe]

167. Which one are you criticizing Jessie for having it on his platform or Bernie

for endorsing him?

[OilemFirchen]

174. I'm criticizing YOU.

Are you really not getting this?

[Uncle Joe]

175. Because of the "lone voice in the wilderness?"

"voice crying in the wilderness
One who expresses an unpopular opinion or idea. He was a voice crying in the wilderness as he tried to expose the vast corruption within the organization. She felt like a voice crying in the wilderness as she tried to warn others about the impending economic collapse."

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+lone+voice+in+the+wilderness

[OilemFirchen]

188. "Lone":

1 a : having no company : solitary
b : preferring solitude
2 : only, sole
3 : situated by itself : isolated

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone

[Eliot Rosewater]

177. You have to understand there are a TON of armchair folks now who

support a certain NON Democrat who dont do much of anything other than make noise

The REAL work is being done by DEMOCRATS everyday

[OilemFirchen]

182. Of course.

I'm just trying to determine if it's youth, ignorance or cult of personality that accounts for this rather embarrassing perspective on this one man.

Whatever it is, it's not at all helpful.

[Eliot Rosewater]

184. And while purity is demanded by those who dont know what they are doing, Paul Ryan

is working to take food away from millions


Farm bill.

Trying to kill poor people.

I cant talk about it anymore, too angry.

[ehrnst]

294. Indeed. (nt)

[ehrnst]

195. Yes, I hear he invented progressive politics.

Someone continuing to "crying out in the wildernes for decades" when they were elected to go make those policies a legislative reality, and didn't, isn't really saying much for a public servant, is it? John the Baptist at least baptized people.

Whereas Hillary was actually getting affordable health care into existence with her craven, suspicious working closely with progressive allies like Ted Kennedy.

I wouldn't call that running away. I'd call that getting the progressive job done...

[ehrnst]

212. "A lone voice" except for...

Don't insult these people with your dismissal of them. Read and learn.

Roger Baldwin (1884–1981). A pacifist and social activist, he was a founder, in 1917, of the American Civil Liberties Union (originally the National Civil Liberties Bureau), created to defend the rights of antiwar conscientious objectors, and served as its executive director until 1950. Under his leadership the ACLU litigated many landmark cases, including the Scopes Trial, the Sacco and Vanzetti murder trial and the challenge to the ban on James Joyce’s Ulysses.

John L. Lewis (1880–1969). Joining his father as a miner at 16, Lewis became active in the United Mine Workers of America, working his way up to president, a post he held from 1920 to 1960. Under Lewis the UMWA committed money and staff to organizing drives in the rubber, auto and steel industries, helping to create a national wave of industrial unionism. In 1938 Lewis was elected president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) at its founding convention and became a major public face of the nation’s growing and increasingly militant labor movement. In 1948 the UMWA won a historic agreement with coal companies establishing medical and pension benefits for miners, financed in part by a royalty on every ton of coal mined.

Norman Thomas (1884–1968) was America’s most visible socialist from the 1930s through the ’50s. Ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1911, he became a crusader for the "social gospel" as the leader of several churches and head of a settlement house in Harlem. His pacifism and opposition to World War I led him to join the Socialist Party. After writing about reform issues for Christian publications, he joined The Nation as associate editor. In 1922 he became co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy and was a founder of the National Civil Liberties Bureau. He ran for governor, mayor, State Senate and City Council on the Socialist Party ticket. Starting in 1928 he ran for president six times, gaining a public voice as an articulate national "conscience" and spokesman for democratic socialism. Thomas was one of the few public figures to oppose the internment of Japanese-Americans. He helped start the racially integrated Southern Farmers Tenants Union, campaigned for labor rights, birth control and allowing Jewish victims of Nazism to enter the United States. At his eightieth birthday celebration, in 1964, he received plaudits from Martin Luther King Jr., Chief Justice Earl Warren and Vice President-elect Hubert Humphrey. An early critic of the Vietnam War, he gave a famous antiwar speech in 1968, proclaiming, "I come to cleanse the American flag, not burn it."

A.J. Muste (1885–1967). Like Thomas, Muste graduated from Union Theological Seminary. He began his career as a Dutch Reformed Church minister but soon became a Quaker as well as a leading pacifist, antiwar activist, socialist and union organizer. In the early 1920s he led Brookwood Labor College, a training center for union activists, and during the 1930s he led several key sit-downs. From 1940 to 1953 he headed the religious pacifist organization Fellowship of Reconciliation and helped found the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a militant civil rights group that pioneered the use of civil disobedience and trained many movement activists. In the 1960s he led delegations of pacifists and religious leaders to Saigon and Hanoi to try to end the war in Vietnam.

A. Philip Randolph (1889–1979) founded the first African-American labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, in the 1920s. A leading socialist writer, orator and civil rights pioneer, he built bridges between the civil rights and labor movements. He edited the socialist newspaper The Messenger. In an early editorial, Randolph wrote: "The history of the labor movement in America proves that the employing classes recognize no race lines. They will exploit a White man as readily as a Black man…. They will exploit any race or class in order to make profits. The combination of Black and White workers will be a powerful lesson to the capitalists of the solidarity of labor." Randolph helped bring African-Americans into the labor movement while also criticizing union leaders for excluding blacks. In 1941, as the country was gearing up for war, Randolph threatened to organize a march on Washington to protest blacks’ exclusion from well-paid defense industry jobs. The strategy worked. In June 1941 FDR signed an executive order that called for an end to discrimination in defense plant jobs, America’s first "fair employment practices" reform. Randolph led the 1963 March on Washington, in which more than 250,000 Americans joined together under the slogan "Jobs and Freedom."

Walter Reuther (1907–70) rose from the factory floor to help build the United Auto Workers into a major force in the auto industry, the labor movement and the left wing of the Democratic Party. He helped shape the modern labor movement, which created the first mass middle class. He led the 1937 sit-down at the General Motors factory in Flint, Michigan, a major turning point in labor history. After World War II he pushed for a large-scale conversion of the nation’s industrial might to promote peace and full employment. In 1946 he led a 116-day strike against GM, calling for a 30 percent wage increase without an increase in the retail price of cars and challenged GM to "open its books." In 1948 GM agreed to a historic contract tying wage raises to the general cost-of-living and productivity increases. During his term as UAW president, from 1946 until his death in 1970, the union grew to more than 1.5 million members and negotiated model grievance procedures, safety and health provisions, pensions, health benefits and "supplemental unemployment benefits" that lifted union members into the middle class and helped cushion the hardships of economic booms and busts. In the 1960s he led the labor movement’s support for civil rights, was an early opponent of the Vietnam War and an ally of Cesar Chavez’s effort to organize migrant farmworkers. Reuther became president of the CIO in 1952 and helped negotiate the 1955 merger of the AFL and CIO.

Saul Alinsky (1909–72) is known as the founder of modern community organizing. He taught Americans, especially the urban poor and working class, how to organize to improve conditions in their communities. Trained as a criminologist at the University of Chicago, he realized that criminal behavior was a symptom of poverty and powerlessness. In 1939, to improve living conditions in a Chicago slum near the stockyards, he created the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, an "organization of organizations" comprising unions, youth groups, small businesses, block clubs and the Catholic Church. It engaged in pickets, strikes and boycotts to improve neighborhood conditions. His Industrial Areas Foundation trained organizers (including Cesar Chavez) and built grassroots groups in different cities, challenging local political bosses and corporations. He codified his organizing ideas in two books—Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971)—which influenced several generations of progressive movements and activists.


Ella Baker (1903–86). After graduating from North Carolina’s Shaw University in 1927 as valedictorian, Baker began a lifelong career as a social activist. She served as a mentor to several generations of civil rights activists without drawing much attention to herself. In 1940 she became an organizer for the NAACP, traveling to many small towns and big cities across the South and developing a network of activists. In 1957 Baker moved to Atlanta to help Martin Luther King Jr. organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), running a voter registration campaign. After black college students organized a sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, on February 1, 1960, Baker left the SCLC to help the students spread the sit-in movement. That April she helped them create the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) at a conference at her alma mater.

I.F. Stone (1907–89) was an investigative journalist whose persistent research uncovered government corruption and wrongdoing. After a career as a reporter for several daily newspapers (including PM, a left-wing newspaper in New York City), he was Washington editor of The Nation from 1940 to 1946. In 1953, at the height of McCarthyism, he started I.F. Stone’s Weekly, keeping the newsletter going until 1971. He was under constant attack during the cold war for his opposition to Senator Joseph McCarthy and for his reporting about the excesses of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. Stone was one of a handful of journalists who challenged LBJ’s claim that the North Vietnamese had attacked a US destroyer in the Tonkin Gulf, which had given the president an excuse to go to war in Vietnam. He wrote fifteen books, including, at age 81, The Trial of Socrates (1988). He inspired generations of muckraking reporters.

Rachel Carson (1907–64) was a marine biologist and nature writer who helped inspire the modern environmental movement, especially with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. The book exposed the dangers of synthetic pesticides and led to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides. The movement led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and many environmental laws. She laid the groundwork for the growing consciousness of humankind’s stewardship of the planet and a new radical thinking about the environment, most prominently by Barry Commoner, another biologist, whose first books focused on the dangers of nuclear testing and whose The Closing Circle (1971) examined the link between capitalism’s thirst for growth and environmental dangers.

Harry Hay (1912–2002) co-founded America’s first major gay rights organization in 1950. Educated at Stanford, Hay became a Communist Party member in Los Angeles in the 1930s and ’40s but left in 1951 because it did not welcome his homosexuality. In December 1950 he organized the first semipublic homosexual discussion group, which soon became the Mattachine Society, known then as a "homophile" group. In 1952 the group led the defense of Dale Jennings, a gay man arrested in an entrapment case. The following year he helped start ONE, a magazine addressing homosexual rights. Hay later was often at odds with younger gay activists who wanted to join the political and cultural mainstream.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–68) helped change America’s conscience, not only about civil rights but also about economic justice, poverty and war. As an inexperienced young pastor in Montgomery, Alabama, King was reluctantly thrust into the leadership of the bus boycott. During the 382-day boycott, King was arrested and abused and his home was bombed, but he emerged as a national figure and honed his leadership skills. In 1957 he helped launch the SCLC to spread the civil rights crusade to other cities. He helped lead local campaigns in Selma, Birmingham and other cities, and sought to keep the fractious civil rights movement together, including the NAACP, Urban League, SNCC, CORE and SCLC. Between 1957 and 1968 King traveled more than 6 million miles, spoke more than 2,500 times and was arrested at least twenty times while preaching the gospel of nonviolence. Today we view King as something of a saint; his birthday is a national holiday and his name adorns schools and street signs. But in his day the establishment considered King a dangerous troublemaker. He was harassed by the FBI and vilified in the media. The struggle for civil rights radicalized him into a fighter for economic and social justice. During the 1960s King became increasingly committed to building bridges between the civil rights and labor movements. He was in Memphis in 1968 to support striking sanitation workers when he was assassinated. In 1964, at 35, King was the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Some civil rights activists worried that his opposition to the Vietnam War, announced in 1967, would create a backlash against civil rights; but instead it helped turn the tide of public opinion against the war.

Bayard Rustin (1912–87) was one of the nation’s most talented organizers, typically working behind the scenes as an aide to Muste, Randolph and King, in large part because they feared that his homosexuality would stigmatize their causes and organizations. Randolph appointed him to lead the youth wing of the 1941 March on Washington movement. Rustin was upset when Randolph called off the march after FDR issued an executive order banning racial discrimination in the defense industries. Rustin then began a series of organizing jobs in the peace movement, honing his skills with the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the American Friends Service Committee, the Socialist Party and the War Resisters League. In 1947 he began organizing a series of nonviolent acts of civil disobedience in the South and border states to provoke a challenge to Jim Crow practices in interstate transportation. Between 1947 and 1952 Rustin traveled to India and Africa to learn more about nonviolence and the Gandhian independence movement. Rustin spent time in Montgomery and Birmingham advising King about nonviolent tactics. Coming full circle, Randolph named him chief organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, diplomatically bringing together fractious civil rights leaders and organizations.

?John Kenneth Galbraith (1908–2006) was the century’s leading progressive American economist. His many books and articles helped popularize Keynesian ideas, especially The Affluent Society (1958), which coined the title phrase but also warned about the widening gap between private wealth and public squalor. In The New Industrial State (1967), the Harvard professor criticized the concentration of corporate power and recommended stronger government regulations. Active in politics, he served in the administrations of FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ, including as Kennedy’s ambassador to India.

David Brower (1912–2000) was a pioneer of the modern environmental movement. Brower began his career as a world-class mountaineer. He served as the Sierra Club’s first executive director from 1952 to 1969, expanding the group’s membership from 7,000 to 77,000 members. He led campaigns to establish ten new national parks and seashores and to stop dams in Dinosaur National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park. He was instrumental in gaining passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which protects millions of acres of public lands in pristine condition. He founded Friends of the Earth and then the League of Conservation Voters, mobilizing environmentalists for political action. In 1982 he founded Earth Island Institute to support environmental projects around the world.


Betty Friedan (1921–2006). Her book The Feminine Mystique (1963) helped change American attitudes toward women’s equality, popularized the phrase "sexism" and catalyzed the modern feminist movement. In the 1940s and 1950s she worked as a left-wing labor journalist before focusing her writing and activism on women’s rights. She co-founded the National Organization for Women in 1966 and the National Women’s Political Caucus (along with Gloria Steinem, Fannie Lou Hamer, Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm) in 1971.

Michael Harrington (1928–89). His book The Other America (1962) exposed Americans to the reality of poverty in their midst. In his 20s, Harrington joined Dorothy Day’s Catholic Workers movement, lived among the poor at the Catholic Worker house and edited the Catholic Worker from 1951 to 1953. The Other America catapulted Harrington into the national spotlight. He became an adviser to LBJ’s "War on Poverty" and a popular lecturer on college campuses, at union halls and academic conferences and before religious congregations. Inheriting Norman Thomas’s mantle, he was America’s leading socialist thinker, writer and speaker for four decades, providing ideas to King, Reuther, Robert and Ted Kennedy, and other leaders. Harrington wrote fifteen other books on social issues and helped build bridges between left intellectuals and academics and the civil rights and labor movements. He encouraged activists to promote "the left wing of the possible." He founded Democratic Socialists of America, which remains the nation’s largest socialist organization.


Cesar Chavez (1927–93). Building on his experiences as a farmworker and community organizer in the barrios of Oakland and Los Angeles, Chavez did what many thought impossible—organize the most vulnerable Americans, immigrant farmworkers, into a successful union, improving conditions for California’s lettuce and grape pickers. Founded in the 1960s, the United Farm Workers pioneered the use of consumer boycotts, enlisting other unions, churches and students to join in a nationwide boycott of nonunion grapes, wine and lettuce. Chavez led demonstrations, voter registration drives, fasts, boycotts and other nonviolent protests to gain public support. The UFW won a campaign to enact California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law in 1975, giving farmworkers collective bargaining rights they lacked (and still lack) under federal labor law. The UFW inspired and trained several generations of organizers who remain active in today’s progressive movement.

Harvey Milk (1930–78) was elected to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 1977, making him the first openly gay elected official in California and the most visible gay politician in the country. He moved to San Francisco in 1972 and set up a camera shop in the city’s Castro district, quickly getting involved in local politics. Called "the mayor of Castro Street," Milk was a charismatic gay rights activist who built alliances with other constituencies, including neighborhood and tenants’ groups. He became an ally of the labor movement by getting gay bars to remove Coors beer, which unions were boycotting for Coors’s opposition to union organizing in its breweries and the Coors family’s support for right-wing causes. As city supervisor, he orchestrated passage of a law that prohibited discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation. In 1978 he led the opposition to a statewide ballot measure (the Briggs initiative) to ban homosexuals from jobs as schoolteachers. On November 27, 1978, he was killed by Dan White, a disgruntled former city supervisor who disagreed with Milk and Mayor George Moscone, whom he also assassinated that day.

Ralph Nader (1934–). Since 1965, when he published his exposé of the auto industry, Unsafe at Any Speed, Nader has inspired, educated and mobilized millions of Americans to fight for a better environment, safer consumer products, safer workplaces and a more accountable government. Thanks to Nader, our cars are safer, our air and water are cleaner and our food is healthier. He raised awareness about the dangers of nuclear power and helped stop the construction of nuclear power plants. Nader played an important role in milestones such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund program, the Environmental Protection Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Nader built a network of organizations to research and lobby against corporate abuse, training tens of thousands of college students and others in the skills of citizen activism. He has written many books, all focusing on how citizens can make America more democratic. During the 1970s and ’80s Nader topped most polls as the nation’s most trusted person.

?Gloria Steinem (1934–) helped popularize feminist ideas as a writer and activist. Her 1969 article "After Black Power, Women’s Liberation" helped establish her as a national spokeswoman for the women’s liberation movement and for reproductive rights. In 1970 she led the Women’s Strike for Equality march in New York along with Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug. In 1972 she founded Ms. magazine, which became the leading feminist publication. Her frequent articles and appearances on TV and at rallies made her feminism’s most prominent public figure. She co-founded the National Women’s Political Caucus, the Ms. Foundation for Women, Choice USA, the Women’s Media Center and the Coalition of Labor Union Women. In 1984 she was arrested, along with Coretta Scott King, more than twenty members of Congress and other activists, for protesting apartheid in South Africa. She also joined protests opposing the Gulf War in 1991 and the Iraq War in 2003.

Muhammad Ali (1942–). Born Cassius Clay in Louisville, Ali became an Olympic gold medal boxer in 1960, three-time heavyweight champion of the world, a highly visible opponent of the Vietnam War and a symbol of pride for African-Americans and Africans. He called himself "the greatest," composed poems that predicted the round in which he’d knock out his next opponent and told reporters that he could "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." In 1964, soon after winning the heavyweight championship, he revealed that he was a member of the Nation of Islam, changing his name. Two years later, Ali refused to be drafted into the military, stating that his religious beliefs prevented him from fighting in Vietnam. He said, "No Vietnamese ever called me nigger," a statement suggesting that US involvement in Southeast Asia was a form of colonialism and racism. The government denied his claim for conscientious objector status, and he was arrested for refusing induction. He was stripped of his heavyweight title, and his boxing license was suspended. He reclaimed the crown in 1974 by beating George Foreman in the so-called Rumble in the Jungle. For his boxing skills and political courage, he was among the most recognized people in the world in the 1960s and ’70s.

Bill Moyers (1934–) served as JFK’s deputy director of the Peace Corps, LBJ’s press secretary, publisher of Newsday and commentator on CBS. But he had his greatest influence as a documentary filmmaker and interviewer on PBS for three decades before retiring earlier this year. Following in the footsteps of broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, Moyers used TV as a tool to expose political and corporate wrongdoing and tell stories about ordinary people working together for justice. Like Studs Terkel, he introduced America to great thinkers, activists and everyday heroes typically ignored by mainstream media. Reflecting the populism of his humble Texas roots and the progressive convictions of his religious training (he is an ordained Baptist minister), Moyers produced dozens of hard-hitting investigative documentaries revealing corporate abuse of workers and consumers, the corrupting influence of money in politics, the dangers of the religious right, the attacks on scientists over global warming, the power of community and union organizing, and many other topics. Trade Secrets (2001) uncovered the chemical industry’s poisoning of American workers, consumers and communities. Buying the War (2007) investigated the media’s failure to report the Bush administration’s propaganda about weapons of mass destruction and other lies that led to the war in Iraq. A gifted storyteller, Moyers, on the air and in the pages of The Nation and elsewhere, roared with a combination of outrage and decency, exposing abuse and celebrating the country’s history of activism.

Barbara Ehrenreich (1941–). In twenty books and hundreds of articles in mainstream newspapers and magazines as well as progressive outlets, she has popularized ideas about women’s rights, poverty and class inequality, and America’s healthcare crisis. Beginning with The American Health Empire (1971), Complaints and Disorders: The Sexual Politics of Sickness (1973) and other books, she exposed the way the healthcare system discriminates against women and the poor, helping efforts to change the practices of hospitals, medical schools and physicians. In The Mean Season (1987), Fear of Falling (1989), The Worst Years of Our Lives (1990) and Bait and Switch (2005), she exposed the downside of America’s class system for the poor and the middle class. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (2001), a bestselling first-person account of her yearlong sojourn in low-wage jobs, documented the hardships facing the working poor and helped energize the burgeoning "living wage" movement. She is co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America.



https://www.thenation.com/article/fifty-most-influential-progressives-twentieth-century/

Now go ahead and say, "Well, I was talking only about the time that Bernie was in office" or some other new qualifier, in order to move the goalposts... And continue to insult the many who gave their voices, and often their lives to change the world on these issues.

[George II]

247. Excuse me? He's now campaigning against mass incarceration, which is the result...

....of legislation he voted for!

"consistent in his policy messaging over decades"?

[sheshe2]

251. So what has he actually accomplished in all the decades he has been in office?

Uncle Joe
12. Bernie has if anything been consistent in his policy messaging over decades.

He was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness for decades because his first allegiance was always to the best policies for the people.

Wow. Consistent.

....................

Obama came into office in a crisis mode. The beginning of a great depression.

He had not been in office as long as Sanders,

Here are his accomplishments in 8 short years. All 500 of them. All this with a Senate that said on day one they would make him a one term President.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

[ehrnst]

296. I agree. I think that we should be discussing this in terms of his labor policy

And that brings up why he voted against legislation creating 300,000 new jobs via small business loans:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2118/text

I mean, if we're going to hold Hillary forever to account for her Iraq resolution vote, then we need to hold Bernie accountable for this - especially in light of his current bill.

And please tell me again about how this shows Bernie is more of a "real FDR Democrat" than all of those actual Democrats you say have "run towards Reagan?"

[betsuni]

302. +1

[mcar]

307. I'd like to know why he voted against that bill

[ehrnst]

331. You know, that's way more benefit of the doubt before rushing to judgement

that Uncle Joe gives to any action, vote or statement by Hillary.

[mcar]

339. Hillary always has bad "intent"

So even on bills she had no ability to vote for but elected officials did, she's still to blame for her bad intent, while some who actually voted for the "bad" bill are blameless because....

I got nothin'.

[ehrnst]

378. Confirmation bias is powerful, isn't it? (nt)

[JCanete]

324. context would be nice here. Was there a

competing bill? Do you have an article discussing the implications of this measure? There's a hell of a lot in that thing. It's hardly focused on a specific problem. Any number of those funding proposals could have been the issue. There is quite a bit of military spending included here, unless my cursory read-over has failed me.

[ehrnst]

328. This was a reply to Uncle Joe.

Last edited Sat May 12, 2018, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Uncle Joe, in various posts in this thread, expressed that there was no need whatsoever to hear about the context of Hillary's votes before determining that her intent, if not her actions, was suspect. She is always self-serving, on the wrong side of ethics, as all the Democratic Party since the DLC, according to UJ.

However, he gives Senator Sanders the full benefit of the doubt that whatever the context, whatever the vote, whatever the bill, Bernie's motives are pure, because if Bernie cast a questionable vote, then "intent" is what is important. When Hillary made a long speech about her actual intent, that doesn't matter - she voted yes, period, she's a warmonger.

I am simply applying UJ's same rules to Bernie's vote on this. I want him to justify Bernie's vote on these issues, since he justified Bernies vote on the Crime Bill, with Bernie's "good intentions."

It would have been refreshing if more on that excoriated Hillary on everything that she did asked the same questions you just did upon hearing that she voted yes on the Iraq Resolution, and as FLOTUS, did the unforgivable act of publicly supporting her husbands agenda.

That said, I invite you, since Uncle Joe has not responded, to research the bill, and report back to us the context of that questionable vote.

I promise I will give it at least the same benefit of the doubt and careful consideration that Uncle Joe (among others here on DU) gave to anything presented in evidence of context or intent of Hillary's support of her husband's policies.

[JCanete]

332. okay, I missed the context of your point when I read it, and won't speak for Uncle Joe.

That said, warmonger I would absolutely not stretch to. However, casting the wrong vote giving the wrong person powers to do something that was illegitimate...is certainly the case here. The intel was not conclusive and was in controversy with experts.

None of that shines a light on motive though, and again, I wouldn't ascribe negative motives to Clinton here, and even if it were political survival(again, I am not reducing her decision to that), there would still be a reasonable case to be made for such a move, even though the cost was tragic. Its always a question of what costs might even be higher, and sometimes, I can appreciate a pragmatism that tries to keep the sane people in the seats of power to keep things more even keel as a strategy. There was a drumbeat among the American public to go hit somebody after 911 and challenging a narrative of fear-mongering in the wake of that would not have been the politically safe decision. Whether the results were preferable to other alternatives is worthy of debate because its hard to know who would have survived the ensuing midterm.

[ehrnst]

333. Hater of jobs, I would not absolutely stretch to concerning Bernie's vote on that bill

Last edited Sat May 12, 2018, 05:16 PM - Edit history (2)

However, casting the wrong vote keeping $300,000 jobs from being produced with small businesses loans is not friendly to job creation ...certainly the case here.

See how that works when applied to anyone else?

In the same light -casting the wrong vote on a bill that victimized the wrong people is certainly the case with Sander's vote on the Crime Bill, and goes beyond "supporting it." But a simple statement that he was voting for the parts that "were good" absolves him of any taint of "wrong" in that vote, and any consequences that came from that vote.

As for Hillary's "voting to give power for illegitimate actions" you claim... your statement is exhibit one in what Uncle Joe did. Ignoring her statements made at the time of the vote concerning her intent and expectations is exactly the inverse of what he did with Bernie's crime bill vote (which could have been a protest "no" vote, as he did with the Iraq resolution).

Joe's insistence that "intent" is what was important, not the "cost" of his vote, is utter hippocrisy when the opposite standard is applied to Hillary.

Here is the context for her Iraq resolution vote that you don't seem to need in order to damn her for it.

“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

There is a big long list of "wrong votes," as you put it, against progressive Democratic legislation including opposing the Brady Bill. If we are going to hold Hillary (but not Biden, oddly) to account for "the cost" of the Iraq resolution, why not Sanders for "the cost" of the Crime Bill?

So, I will give that same consideration to the "context" you might provide for Sanders opposing the Brady Bill, and the bill that included the loans for small business that were to create 300,000 jobs.

Ok?

I await your report.

And if you can't find "context" or "intent" to justify those two votes opposing legislation for progressive outcomes - there are more examples to research.

A lot more:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10605896

That list doesn't include his support for a $1.2 trillion stealth fighter that’s considered by many to be one of the bigger boondoggles in Pentagon history. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html

And if you want some "context" for Bernie's "political survival votes" for US intervention in Iraq, Somalia,
Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia., including House Resolution (S Con Res 21) of 4/29/99 which "authorizes the president of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with the United States' NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, google

Jeremy Brecher resignation letter to Bernie Sanders

[JCanete]

336. That's fair, so Sanders literally took those details to task when he spoke about the

crime bill, as you would say Clinton took the time to explain herself before voting for the War Powers resolution . One major difference I see is that the resolution was total garbage, and that Clinton's justification was proven to be wrong.

No diplomatic angle was attempted or achieved. She trusted the President to act in a way that did not represent the rhetoric leading up to this moment, given that the very claims were based on falsehoods and were being disputed by experts and that the hyperbole was off the charts.

There may have been a practical side, but not a positive side. That said, while I understand this being a bridge too far for some voters I recognize the complexity of governing in Washington enough to take her vote with some stride, nor do I place the debacle that was Iraq at her feet.

Whereas the Crime Bill did actually have some positive provisions in it that were hard to vote against. I'm not sure how I feel about Sanders vote on it. It seems like a political splitting of the baby to criticize all of what he found problematic in the bill and then to still vote for it for the good provisions, though it does sound as if he voted often during the amendment process to undercut the draconian provisions. But they stood, or many stood.

I think to some degree you can only criticize politicians by comparisson. So who were the congress people on the right side of this bill? Who refused to vote for it given those issues? In a race between Sanders and them, it would be a totally legitimate knock against him and badge on their record as far as I'm concerned, given just how horrifying any legislation that feeds into our prison industrial complex is to me. But politics, and races, remain comparrisons between candidates in the running. This wouldn't exactly have been a way to distinguish his record and Hillary's.

I agree with you though, we can't have one standard for the person we like and another for the person we don't. Our Revolution came into being with Sanders blessing and the fact that it can take dark money does not sit well with me. Whatever the advantages of that set-up, that detail should have been a deal breaker. If I had an opportunity to ask him about this i would.

[ehrnst]

379. "I think to some degree you can only criticize politicians by comparisson."

Last edited Sun May 13, 2018, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Bernie seem to be excused from that, apparently.

Except when he is compared favorably to someone, then that is used as evidence that the other politician, however similar, is "corrupt."

Same with any politician who disagrees with him on anything whatsoever - even strategy to get to the same goal.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. Thank you... needs to be said.

[Uncle Joe]

144. Thank you InAbLuEsTaTe

peace to you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

170. Thanks Uncle Joe, but there won't be peace for me 'til BLOTUS is impeached...

but I'll take a beer instead!!

[Uncle Joe]

173. I could drink to that.

[Uncle Joe]

166. A direst result from decades of the corporate media conglomerates propaganda brainwashing.

Image, celebrity, style, the horse race, scandal and superficial fluff has been the order of the day with them, non-stop coverage.

Substantive in depth coverage of the critical issues of the day that can and does mean life and death to millions of Americans is sluffed off during election season as so much dead skin.

To the CMCs which make mega-bucks during campaign season, it's all one big reality T.V. show.

People are worried about the Russians and rightfully so but our own corporate media conglomerates all but created Trump, he's their monster.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

180. You absolutely NAIIIILED IT again Uncle Joe...

Substantive in depth coverage of the critical issues of the day that can and does mean life and death to millions of Americans is sluffed off during election season as so much dead skin.

That's why Bernie is a BEAST when it comes to shining the light of truth on those critical life and death issues and, thus, he deserves to be heralded not chided.

People are worried about the Russians and rightfully so but our own corporate media conglomerates all but created Trump, he's their monster.

Truer words could not be spoken... for example, the media gave the Nazi-in-Chief wall-to-wall coverage of his campaign stump speeches spewing his vile filthy lies, while - WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY BETWEEN HOW THE MEDIA TREATED TINY-HANDS VS. BERNIE... THIS IS NOT A RE-LITIGATION OF THE 2016 PRIMARY - they could barely be bothered to report on anything to do with Bernie... yet he STILL managed to come from 60 points behind to win 23 states!! I say this ONLY to make the point that you're DAMN RIGHT the Shitstain-in-Chief is a media creation. It's the reason he "won" the election, as much as, if not MORE than any other, though, as you rightfully point out, those other reasons, like Russian collusion, are also important factors and should not be minimized.

[appalachiablue]

209. +1 And esp. this. Few mention how non-stop media coverage greatly aided DT.

"People are worried about the Russians and rightfully so but our own corporate media conglomerates all but created Trump, he's their monster."

[grantcart]

191. Your the one who is shooting bullets, lol "Every Democrat should follow"

The Democratic Party supported unions before Bernie Sanders came up with "I am too important to be a Democrat" shtick and will be supporting unions long after Bernie Sanders is longer to bash the Democratic Party as being "pretty bad".

Fourteen Senators are cosponsoring this bill and you frame it as a bill that is all about Bernie and Democrats should follow him.

You bring him up as the guy who Democrats should just shut up and follow.

Well I am not a fan.

I used to be a fan but when President Obama was fighting the well funded, strident, racist antagonism against a President who tried and brought more benefits to the poor and middle class in a generation was Bernie supportive?

No

“I’m not Obama’s biggest fan,” he explained. “I supported him, I’m an independent, but I’m critical of many aspects. When Obama came to office, there were 700,000 people a month who were losing their jobs. A month. So to say that 88,000 is not good, yeah, but compared to what.”

He is not a Democrat, he doesn't support the Democratic party but always with an asterisk.

I really don't have any problem with Bernie. He is a second tier politician on the national level who will never rise higher than he is today. He has been a good prophet on some of the evils in our system. He has been spectacularly ineffective in getting anything passed. When he ran for President only one of his friends and associates in the Senate endorsed him, and it was thin soup at best.

It is your adolescent fawning framing of Sanders that continues the war. I have never started nor supported any thread that was against or diminished Sen. Sanders but these daily devotional threads with their inaccurate and supine framing draws the antagonism, you are the problem.

Then having provoked indignation by your perfidy you claim the innocent.

Stop the civil war.



You want to stop this divisive crap then here is the way that you start your OP



Title: Progressives unite to promote Unions

First paragraph:

14 Senators including 13 prominent Democrats and Senator Sanders have sponsored . . .



Framing it as Sanders is the object of devotion and Democrats should just follow Bernie is the aggressive action and you took it.

By the way it isn't a law that will actually help Unions

The catch, of course, is that President Trump and the Republican-led Congress aren’t likely to entertain these traditionally liberal goals — and they have virtually no chance of soon becoming law.

To actually pass anything is going to require group cohesion and discipline, not the self appointed self promoting who continually says "you have it all wrong, give me your party and I will fix everything". It turns out that politics, is in fact, a team sport.

[Cha]

219. Well said, grant!

Thank You!

[ehrnst]

234. That'll leave a mark.

[Cha]

253. It should.. it's a brilliant

analysis!

[sheshe2]

241. Woah.

Awesome totally on mark post.

The Democratic Party supported unions before Bernie Sanders came up with "I am too important to be a Democrat" shtick and will be supporting unions long after Bernie Sanders is longer to bash the Democratic Party as being "pretty bad".

Fourteen Senators are cosponsoring this bill and you frame it as a bill that is all about Bernie and Democrats should follow him.

You bring him up as the guy who Democrats should just shut up and follow.

Well I am not a fan.

itle: Progressives unite to promote Unions

First paragraph:

14 Senators including 13 prominent Democrats and Senator Sanders have sponsored . . .



Framing it as Sanders is the object of devotion and Democrats should just follow Bernie is the aggressive action and you took it.

Boom.

Thank you grantcart. I for one am so happy to see you back on DU.

Awesome post, you nailed it.

[brer cat]

242. Very well said, grantcart!

[SunSeeker]

284. Great post, grantcart.

[EffieBlack]

292. Apparently, you are not aware that Bernie Sanders invented politics

[NurseJackie]

311. Brilliant! Perfect! Absolutely TRUE!! That's the BEST summary and description...

... and analysis of him that I've ever read!

Thank you!

[sunRISEnow]

317. Thank you for spelling this out so clearly and succinctly. A joy to read.

[emulatorloo]

319. Thank you for laying it all out so clearly.

[pnwmom]

419. The war is over DT/Russian attempt to destroy American democracy. n/t

[malaise]

8. K & R

Get thee to the greatest page

[Trumpocalypse]

9. That depends

Is this bill viable and something that Sanders really want to accomplish or is it something that he wants to use as a weapon to attack Democrats and launch his next Presidential campaign using the infrastructure & resources of a party that he refuses to join?

[Uncle Joe]

13. The choice is totally up to them, some of them have joined him on this.

You might try looking at this way, Bernie is and has been trying to give the Democratic Party powerful weapons to fight the Republicans with, if they would accept them.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. So if he wants to lead the Democratic party

why doesn't he join it?

[Uncle Joe]

18. I believe Bernie has long felt he could help the Democratic Party more as an Independent

It gave him more freedom to speak his conscience.

[NurseJackie]

26. ...

[Me.]

37. Gotta Join You In That

Last edited Fri May 11, 2018, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

[lunamagica]

66. Make a little room for me

[Sophia4]

47. Please note that leading Democrats, especially women, are supporting this bill

also.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/bernie-sanders-and-other-democrats-are-starting-to-lean-into-labor-issues.html

[Uncle Joe]

53. +1

Peace to you Sophia

[NurseJackie]

55. Okayyyy? Well, that's nice. But it doesn't make what I'm laughing at any LESS amusing.

47. Please note that leading Democrats, especially women, are supporting this bill
also.

Okayyyy? Well, that's nice. But it doesn't make what I'm laughing at any LESS amusing.

[appalachiablue]

215. 12+ Dems. incl. Harris, Gillbrand, Warren support the bill. I know, good.

Slate, 'Bernie Sanders and Other Democrats Are Starting to Lean into Labor,' May 11, 2018
Senator Bernie Sanders and a group of potential Democratic presidential contenders including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand are introducing the Workplace Democracy Act, a major labor bill updating the 1935 National Labor Relations Act with new provisions on organizing rights and the gig economy.

- National Labor Relations Act, 1935 (NLRA) :
Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRA) in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector practices, which harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the economy. https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act-nlra

[Eliot Rosewater]

109. If that comment wasnt so sad, to look around at our current circumstances and

REMEMBER what happened RECENTLY...dear god

[pandr32]

130. I'm laughing with you

[KPN]

32. Exactly.

[ehrnst]

329. Why would a Democrat not be free to speak their conscience? (nt)

[KPN]

335. There you go again. Making stuff up.

But go ahead. Let me hear it. Speak you conscience.

[ehrnst]

380. What did I make up? Your post is right there.

Uncle Joe stated that Bernie being a Democrat Politician would suppress his being able to fully "speak his conscience."

You agreed, I asked why, and you got testy.

There - I spoke my conscience, and I'm a Democrat.

Your turn - if you weren't agreeing with uncle Joe, what did "exactly" refer to?

[ehrnst]

394. Playing games? You avoided answering my question

about what you agreed with when you posted "exactly" didn't you?

Look in the mirror. Your constant claims that anyone who disagrees with you is "playing games," sound a bit like projection.

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Sorry but that sounds like double talk.nt

[Uncle Joe]

51. Perhaps if one doesn't take in to account the power of the

the corporate media conglomerations, the less than 1% in their propaganda and lobbying abilities respectively combined with decades of pre-programming of the American People to think a certain way.

[Trumpocalypse]

75. Now that's really double talk

[EffieBlack]

48. You don't think Bernie's strong enough to speak his conscience if he were a Democrat?

Who would stop him and why would he let them?

[Uncle Joe]

62. I believe he would have but the age of television's power pre-Internet and

social political dynamics as shaped by Reagan's influence on the Democratic Party at the time, a boomerang effect was more likely against the party.

But Reaganism has largely worn off and the Internet has greatly passed the power of free speech on to the American People so that we may deliberate among ourselves without corporate conglomerate filters and propaganda spin.

[lunamagica]

67. What?

[Uncle Joe]

69. The powers that be don't have as strong a grip on the major political parties today

as they did in 90s or even 00s thanks in large part to the Internet

[lunamagica]

71. See? that was easily said in one sentence. I suspectthe post was so

convoluted because it does not answer Effie's question

[ehrnst]

73. But the misinformation that is willingly lapped up by both far right and far left

has a greater grip on politics now, thanks to the internet.

Russian Oligharchs and right wing corporate interests' propaganda landed on Lefty FB pages and it was - and in some cases still - embraced as though it was gospel.

[Uncle Joe]

117. That's why we need major education reform focusing more on critical thinking skills and

free college for every American.

We need to lift the American People up instead of dumbing them down as the corporate media conglomerates have been intent on doing with their decades old focus on image, celebrity and the salacious at the expense of covering the critical issues affecting the vast majority of the people.

That's not propaganda it's a matter of record for anything willing to look or even just pay close attention.

[ehrnst]

120. How does "free college" that stop the propaganda?

And how does "free college" talk sense into the far left that should know better than to swallow the bait whole?

Education doesn't neccessarily innoculate people from that kind of hate and willful ignorance - look at the numbers of republican doctors and lawyers.

[Uncle Joe]

124. I said education reform as well including putting a focus on critical thinking skills. Also I never

said it was a total panacea, but ignorance certainly makes swallowing BS propaganda all the tastier.

[ehrnst]

125. You are still avoiding the question....

How does education reform knock some sense into the rock hard heads of those on the left who are guzzling down the propaganda like it's candy, even when told that it came from Russian sources?

Hate isn't cured by "education reform." Neither is willful ingnorance and confirmation bias.

The internet is here, and it's got that dark side that will work against an educated electorate. It's not all "free speech taken out of the hands of the oligharchicalcorruptcorporatists.

You think they're not there, too? Really? Twitter is just as vulnerable to propaganda as "the corporate media," but many seem to have convinced themselves that's not possible....

[Uncle Joe]

143. I have tried to answer your question improve critical thinking skills and college education would

help but there is no panacea against absorbing false information no matter the source, Internet, TV, radio or publications.

The best people can do is educate themselves, keep an open mind and gather all the facts they can on any particular subject.

Having said that having the good sense to recognize long time corporate domination over our government and traditional news sources, TV, radio and publications is in no way, shape or form a dismal of what Russia has done.

[ehrnst]

196. So you agree that the idea that "free college" isn't any sort of

solution for the enormous hunger for confirmation bias, especially on the left.

Where not listening to new evidence, and clinging to one idea is "consistent."

Like the anti-vaxxers.

[mcar]

308. Huh?

[betsuni]

313. Well, that makes no sense.

[pandr32]

131. Excellent question

[awesomerwb1]

52. Sorry bro

But that's just silly.

[OilemFirchen]

179. Here's a quick test for you:

1) Jerry Rubin or Jerry Brown?
2) Abbie Hoffman or Tom Hayden?
3) Paul Krassner or David Halberstam?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

229. Well I'm not laughing UJ... I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Cha]

272. I'm sorry.. that's just so wrong..

he's not helping.

I love our Democratic Party and the leaders we have.. Hillary would have made an excellent President. She's so Progressive.. a progressive who knows how to get stuff done!



http://www.ibtimes.com/michelle-obama-hillary-clinton-honor-10-women-international-women-courage-awards-photos-554589

[ehrnst]

303. She was and is a real leader. (nt)

[Cha]

337. Hillary has the experience and

history of record to prove it. It's always been about helping others.. women and children most especially included. It's a shame for those who can't even acknowledge that.

[sunRISEnow]

316. HRC has worked in charitable organizations for over 5 decades. Boots on the ground.

Facts can't be changed with a story told.

[Cha]

338. Exactly so, sunRISEnow..

[betsuni]

273. LOL

[ehrnst]

306. So, Democrats don't have freedom to "speak their conscience?"

Why?

[betsuni]

309. No! Democrats get moneys and have to do what the money-givers tell them to do.

All the money-givers are very bad. Democrats are all very bad. Therefore, Democrats have no conscience and are somehow worse than Republicans because money-in-politics. The end.

[ehrnst]

330. Oh, right. I forgot.

Nevermind.

[stevenleser]

14. It's a weapon. There is a lot of work to do to improve the image of Labor Unions in this country

I am very pro-Union, but even half the grass roots Democrats I speak to about unions are at least suspicious of them if not downright hostile. There is a marked lack of support for improving the position of unions right now.

This bill is a way to assert he is holier than thou knowing it has no chance of passage.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

25. Well, the Democrats could actually get behind it.

That would be the first step for trying to get it passed.

And are you indicating that submitting a bill to get a discussion going in the country to put pressure on government isn't a strategy that has been used in the past and has worked?

[Sophia4]

42. Democrats are getting behind this. See my post #38 below your post # 25.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

82. Saw that

I was talking more about people here who seem to think anything Sanders does is horrible.

[Sophia4]

84. I'm with you. No wonder we lose elections.

We are united on the issues but at odds on the candidates. How stupid can we get.

[Sophia4]

44. Bernie is in the Senate -- actually working to improve America.

And he is working with his Democratic friends to do that.

Liberals of all shades from green to blue and in between need to unite on issues such as labor and the environment.

Let's focus our struggle on defeating conservatives, not on putting those we believe to be errant liberals in their place.

[appalachiablue]

201. +1 Lotsa time spent on individuals, candidates when policy advocacy is vital too.

[Sophia4]

38. Read the list of Democrats supporting this bill and then decide.

"Senator Bernie Sanders and a group of potential Democratic presidential contenders including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand are introducing the Workplace Democracy Act, a major labor bill updating the 1935 National Labor Relations Act with new provisions on organizing rights and the gig economy. From the Washington Post: "

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/bernie-sanders-and-other-democrats-are-starting-to-lean-into-labor-issues.html

[Trumpocalypse]

74. Good to know

Thanks for the link!

[H2O Man]

10. Recommended.

Thank you for this.

[disillusioned73]

11. K&R..

but, what did he have for breakfast?? That is the important question..

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. K and R

[NCTraveler]

24. Did he introduce this when Democrats held the chambers?

What was their reaction?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

27. Did Clinton introduce one as Senator when Dems held the chamber?

What's the point? Things are shitty. He wants to change them.

Pissing on him because he doesn't have a D after his name seems petty. But, hey, you do you.

[NCTraveler]

28. What does Clinton have to do with the op....

At all.

What does she have to do with my comment, at all?

My question still stands because you simply decided to go CDS.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

76. What does his prior presentation of the bill have to do with it?

It's a problem now. He's trying to solve it now. Don't know why that's such a horrible thing.

[NurseJackie]

29. Nobody is doing that.

Pissing on him because he doesn't have a D after his name seems petty.

Nobody is doing that.

[NCTraveler]

31. Clinton isn't mentioned in the article in the op...

or in my reply.

CDS is real among righties.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

77. So I'm a "righty"

Nice.

[NCTraveler]

86. I know of few others who randomly trash Clinton...

I’m the middle of debates that have nothing to do with her.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

89. Again. I made that point to show the non sequitur nature of your comment.

What does it matter if he proposed the bill before (he did)? And if it does, why don't we condemn other Dems that didn't do that when they had the chance.

But that apparently flew over your head. I'm sorry it was too complex for you.

[NCTraveler]

91. And there is the customary follow up.

The CDS is strong.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

93. And there is the continuous lack of getting it.

Have you sought help for your SDS?

[NCTraveler]

96. What is SDS?

Oh dear.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

100. Oh, come on.

You can't be that unclever.

[NCTraveler]

102. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

[hlthe2b]

99. what is "CDS"?

[NCTraveler]

101. Credit Default Swap nt

[hlthe2b]

104. thank you...

[StevieM]

169. They were joking. CDS means "Clinton Derangement Syndrome." (eom)

[hlthe2b]

172. Yes.. I clued in finally... But thanks

[Cuthbert Allgood]

78. Yes. I see all kinds of strong support on this thread

for what he's doing. Nobody is saying it's a bad idea.

[NCTraveler]

88. It's hard for my to trust a wealthy white man....

Who worked relentlessly to block a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people because of his labor concerns. I know someone else like that, they didn’t release their taxes either.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

90. Yes. Bernie Sanders is exactly the same as Donald Trump.

You've unlocked the secret.

By the way, this is why Dems can't have nice things.

[NCTraveler]

94. "This is why Democrats can't have nice things."

CDS

[Cuthbert Allgood]

98. SDS

[hlthe2b]

103. Honest to gawd: "safety data sheet", "Students for Democratic Society", "Saturday Down South"?

I give up...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

107. CDS is a "clever" abbreviation for those that blame Clinton for everything.

So, I'm going with SDS.

[hlthe2b]

114. Ok... I finally get it.

[NCTraveler]

30. Just checked to make sure.

Clinton wasn't mentioned in the op, the article, or my response.

Just can't get away from thinking about her. Living rent free in your mind.

Your post here is making me rescind my hands off the career politician with no accomplishments proclamation.

Just tired of CDS being used like this.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

79. I used it to make a point that what you said was just as unconnected

Sorry you couldn't follow along with that.

[emulatorloo]

140. Nah, you engaged in 'whataboutism' to deflect from the topic. 'BUT WHATABOUT HILLARY!!1!'

As others have told you, Clinton was not mentioned in the article in the OP.

[KPN]

39. He's introduced it several times going back to 1999 when he was a Congressman.

[NCTraveler]

45. So it's not a new labor bill? You are outlining that the headline is deceptive.

Did he introduce it when Democrats held both chambers? That was the question.

Link?

[KPN]

58. Lol!!!! You have to be kidding! Bernie has introduced the Workforce

Democracy Act in one form or another several times going back over two decades and you're calling the headline deceptive. He and Pocan introduced identical versions in the House and Senate on the same day 3 or 4 years ago. Headline deceptive? To me, that says you aren't objective about Senator Sanders, in which case, I see no value in engaging further with you on this. I'd just be wasting my time.

Links: just google Workforce Democracy Act.

[NCTraveler]

60. He and Pocan introduced this one.

Was this introduced when Democrats last held the chambers? You are the one saying yes. I would like to read about it.

You are the one who outlined the headline as being deceptive.

I’m sure he did introduce it back then. He is a legislative rockstar.

[KPN]

63. I did not say yes. I responded to your assertuion that the headline was deceptive.

[NCTraveler]

65. It says it's his new labor bill.

You say he has repeatedly introduced it, including when Dems held both chambers.

Again, I’m sure you are correct about the legislative juggernaut. Just looking for a link to your claims.

[KPN]

72. Oh, I get it. Keep saying the same false thing over and over again

and eventually the other person will believe it.

BTW: just in Jan 2018 alone, Dems in the House and the Senate introduced 102 and 46 bills respectively that have gone nowhere. Now, what's your objective point about Senator Sanders' bill?

[ehrnst]

85. Not the same thing.

Not all those bills were 'symbolic.'

Many were researched and their authors expected them to pass.

Also, you say he has repeatedly introduced it "in one form or another," including when Dems held both chambers. Not seeing that in the records

Can you provide a links to documentation on that?

And doesn't that make this even more of "symbolic" bill that he doesn't really think or intend to go anywhere? If he can't write a bill "in one way or another" that Democrats will pass, why does he think a GOP led congress will pass it?

And really, what does that say about his writing of that bill that it can't even get passed in Dem led congresses?

[KPN]

225. Stop making stuff up.

I never said anything of the sort.

You have no idea what is symbolic or not amendments by those bills.

Just made up stuff to fit your world.

[mountain grammy]

113. Thank you.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

80. So do you have SDS?

I mean, first it's "HE DID DO THIS BEFORE SO IT'S BAD" and now it's "HE DID THIS BEFORE SO IT'S BAD."

Do you have any problem with the actual policy behind the bill or are you just pissed that it's Sanders proposing it? Don't worry. I know the answer.

[Sophia4]

46. Here.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/bernie-sanders-and-other-democrats-are-starting-to-lean-into-labor-issues.html

[NCTraveler]

49. You say "here" as if it answers the question I asked.

I read it and don't see where it does. Can you quote the answer to the question from the article you are posting?

If I read it correctly, what you have done here is deceptive at best. I would like for you to point out the quote from your link because I really don’t think this is an “at best” move by you. I would like to say otherwise.

[Sophia4]

57. Democrats are now supporting the bill.

This bill helps clarify the Democrats' views on labor unions, and perhaps that clarity will help raise the blue wave this November.

Democrats have been too weak when it comes to VISIBLY supporting labor in recent decades. I am comparing the Democratic Party of today to the Democratic Party of my childhood in the 1940s and 1950s and even 1960s. We have become far to weak about the rights of labor.

And today, the difficulties of labor extend way beyond the traditional shop floor. Today, labor concerns involve at-will employment and low wages as well as a low minimum wage, problems that affect even professionals, agricultural, food workers and clerical workers as well as traditional factory workers.

Some of these workers have been unionized for decades. Some have not.

[NCTraveler]

59. So it was simply deceptive.

The question stands.

I am glad he has people with more legislative experience onboard. Always nice to see.

Was this introduced when Democrats held the chambers?

[Sophia4]

108. Bernie has been in Congress, first the House and now the Senate, for at least 22 years.

He was mayor in Vermont from 1981 - 1989 and then started in the House in 1991. He has a lot of legislative experience.

Kirsten Gillibrand has been in Congress 11 years I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand

Elizabeth Warren first went to Congress in 2011 -- only seven years ago although she worked in D.C. for years before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

And Kamala Harris is in her first term in the Senate. She was elected in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

So of the names specifically mentioned in the article I found, Bernie has the most congressional experience although there are Democrats with more congressional experience than Bernie.

[sheshe2]

358. I am pretty sure I asked you up thread for a list of his accomplishments.

Sophia4
108. Bernie has been in Congress, first the House and now the Senate, for at least 22 years.

You listed links to three women, yet failed to link Sanders. He was first elected to congress in 1990 then the Senate in 2006. That makes Bernie a 28 year veteran not 22 and part of Washington's establishment. So besides amendments what are his accomplishments?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

[Sophia4]

365. How do you define "accomplishments"?

Most senators and members of he House represent their constituents.

Getting re-elected is proof of a senator's accomplishments.

Here is a statement I found on line about his work in Congress:

In Congress, Bernie has fought tirelessly for working families, focusing on the shrinking middle class and growing gap between the rich and everyone else. Bernie has been called a “practical and successful legislator” and he was dubbed the “amendment king” in the House of Representatives for passing more amendments than any other member of Congress. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Bernie worked across the aisle to “bridge Washington’s toxic partisan divide and cut one of the most significant deals in years.” In 2015, Democratic leadership tapped Bernie to serve as the caucus’ ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee.

https://berniesanders.com/about/

More information here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

[sheshe2]

368. Yes I know...

I posted the wiki links to you.

Votes
In 1993, Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, which mandated federal background checks when buying guns and imposed a waiting period on firearm purchasers in the United States; the bill passed by a vote of 238–187.[84][85]

In 1994, Sanders voted in favor of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons". He was nevertheless extremely critical of the other parts of the bill.[86][87] Though he acknowledged that "clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them", he maintained in his intervention before the House that the government's ill-thought policies played a large part in "dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence". In this same intervention, he argued that the repressive policies introduced by the bill were not addressing the causes of violence, stating that "we can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails".[88]

In 2005, he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[89] The act's purpose was to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. In 2015, Sanders defended his vote, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."[90]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_SandersFrom fact check

LARGELY ACCURATE

• Voted for NRA-backed laws to give gun manufacturers legal immunity
• Voted to allow guns on Amtrak
• Voted against comprehensive immigration reform in 2007
• Opposes plans to raise visa caps to let more immigrants move to America legally
• Opposes the Export-Import Bank
• Voted to dump Vermont’s nuclear waste in a majority Latino community in Sierra Blanca, Texas

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/22/fact-checking-viral-graphic-critical-bernie-sander/

I define it not by rhetoric and speeches but actions and bills that are actualy brought to the floor. Actions speak louder than words.

[ehrnst]

137. Actually, Democrats have already been doing this for months

But Bernie wasn't out in front of it, so maybe it didn't register:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-have-rolled-out-an-ambitious-plan-to-help-rebuild-labor-unions_us_59fa0968e4b01b474047ba3f

[demmiblue]

34. We need to support labor. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

36. I agree demmiblue.

Peace to you

[demmiblue]

54. I live in Michigan... the arseholes here are hard at work destroying unions.

Unions are our collective legacy for the championing of worker's rights... we NEED to protect their voices.

[ehrnst]

97. I don't know of any Democratic politicians that don't.

I don't think that signing onto this one bill is the one thing that shows whether or not a rep supports labor...

[OilemFirchen]

193. Ya know, I think I read something about that somewhere...

Oh, that's right! It's in here: THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

The Democratic Party believes that when workers are strong, America is strong. Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions. We will fight to pass laws that direct the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union if a simple majority of eligible workers sign valid authorization cards, as well as laws that bring companies to the negotiating table. We support binding arbitration to help workers who have voted to join a union reach a first contract.

A major factor in the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits have been under attack at all levels. Donald Trump would make matters worse by creating a race to the bottom where the middle class is fighting over fewer and fewer good-paying jobs. In fact, Trump rejected some attempts by his own employees to unionize and has personally hired union-busting firms to undermine workers’ rights.

Democrats believe so-called “right to work” laws are wrong for workers—such as teachers and other public employees who serve our communities every day—and wrong for America. We will continue to vigorously oppose those laws and other efforts that would eliminate dues check-off procedures, roll-back prevailing wage standards, abolish fair share requirements, restrict the use of voluntary membership payments for political purposes, attack seniority, restrict due process protections, and require annual recertification efforts. We oppose legislation and lawsuits that would strike down laws protecting the rights of teachers and other public employees. We will defend President Obama's overtime rule, which protects of millions of workers by paying them fairly for their hard work.

The Democratic Party believes consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors who have been mistreated should never be denied their right to fight for fair treatment under the law. That is why we will support efforts to limit the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment and service contracts, which unfairly strip consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors of their right to their day in court.

[ehrnst]

205. OMG!!

They totally stole that from Bernie.

[OilemFirchen]

210. ... at the direction of their Corporate Overlords.

Sneeky bastids.

[sheshe2]

360. OMG.

OilemFirchen
193. Ya know, I think I read something about that somewhere...

Oh, that's right! It's in here: THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

Who knew??? Oh wait...Democrats knew what was in that platform.

[KPN]

40. K&R. We do.

[ismnotwasm]

56. The bill is DOA.

As the article points out. This is my states Democratic platform on labor
https://www.wa-democrats.org/issues/labor

This is what we are facing at the Supreme Court level:

A Supreme Court case could make Washington a “right to work” state. Unions are fighting back.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article210803254.html


So while yeah, the bill that will go no-where sounds great there is other game afoot. Real sick of the implications that Democrats aren’t fighting. And that’s the polite me speaking

[Eliot Rosewater]

111. Been watching this for decades, I finally figured out what is going on but dont dare

say so here.

[Blue_Tires]

61. Why? I mean, aside from empty symbolism?

That bill is going nowhere in a GOP-controlled congress and even if it did Trump would just veto it

[Cuthbert Allgood]

83. So no Dem should do anything in Congress right now? Right?

[ismnotwasm]

95. They are. This here is from last year

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-have-rolled-out-an-ambitious-plan-to-help-rebuild-labor-unions_us_59fa0968e4b01b474047ba3f

My union leaders expect to LOSE the upcoming Supreme Court case—so you can thank everyone who made trump a reality

[ehrnst]

136. But they're not Bernie!

[ehrnst]

135. Strawman again?

The dualistic thinking that if a Dem has issues with this bill, that = they DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW."

Because really there are only two options, right?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

138. If the argument is that it is just empty symbolism because there is no chance it will pass,

how does that no apply to everything that any Dem puts forward. Nothing a Dem puts up is going to pass this Congress.

And I never said they don't want to do anything. I was pointing out a flaw in someone's argument.

Do follow along.

[ehrnst]

145. "So no Dem should do anything in Congress right now? Right?"

Your words, yes?

Do try to remember what you've posted.

It's just above, if you need to be reminded.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

192. Right

If trying to put forth a book now in this Congress is just symbolic for Sanders because it won't pass, how is it any different for any Dem?

This isn't that hard of a point. You can't be this obtuse.

[DLevine]

70. K&R

[mountain grammy]

116. K & R and thank you.

[MineralMan]

129. If and when we regain majority control in Congress,

such a bill will be possible to pass. Until then, it is not.

Let's win in November. Then, we can introduce bills like this at a time when they actually have a chance to become law.

[Jim Lane]

158. Let's introduce bills like this now so that people have a reason to vote Democratic in November.

"You'll be better off with us than with Trump and the GOP" is a start, but it's only a start. It needs to be fleshed out with specifics.

Democratic candidates (incumbents or challengers) who think this bill will be popular in their states or districts can endorse it, and challenge their Republican opponents to take a stand on it. Republicans dodge the question or come out in opposition and, boom, campaign issue.

[JNelson6563]

139. No bill co sponsors?

The beauty of co sponsors is that they all work hard to raise support for their bill.

In this case of course we have those who fear the wrath of the Bros signing on but they save themselves. They won't invest any time making sure it passes.

And of course, MOST IMPORTANTLY, there is only one name on that bill. The only name that matters to Bernie, his own.

[sl8]

321. Cosponsors:

From the link in the OP:

...
This week, 14 Senate Democrats signaled that they understand this. On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that aims to increase America’s unionization rate by:
...
Thirteen of Sanders’s Democratic colleagues have signed onto this legislation — including virtually every suspected 2020 hopeful in the upper chamber (Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris are all represented). And yet, a wide array of (self-identified) progressive senators — including ones from states with strong labor presences — have not signed onto the bill.
...

Although, GovTrack shows only 12 cosponsors:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2810/details

[Garrett78]

160. One can't help but wonder how much more support there would be for this were Sanders not attached.

And the "no chance of passing" argument doesn't work for me. Nothing Democrats propose has a chance of passing right now, but we still need to make a push. The last thing we want to do is feed into the narrative that Democrats don't stand for anything or that Democrats aren't fighting back.

By putting forth legislation, even with Republicans in control, we send a message to would-be-voters and put forth a blueprint for what we could follow once we (hopefully) take back control.

Kamala Harris is my choice for 2020 and she's behind this legislation.

[TheSmarterDog]

204. This "new" labor bill just repeats every Dem party platform from the last 25 yrs.

[JesterCS]

271. So they should be easy to convince to support it

Honestly, the anti Bernie smearing is getting quite old. The fanatically anti Bernie posters are more and more like Freepers and their disdain for Obama



Edit: wasn't meaning you personally, didn't want to have any misunderstanding

[TheSmarterDog]

285. And the fanatically pro Bernie posters seem to think his every utterance is gospel.

Attacking Democrats & The Democratic Party never helps enact a liberal/progressive agenda.

[George II]

318. They don't need to be "convinced" to support it, we've been supporting it since years before....

....Sanders ever mentioned it.

It's basically in the DNA of the Democratic Party.

[George II]

237. Why?

[jalan48]

238. Why wouldn't they?

[JustAnotherGen]

243. It's a nice gesture

But nothing is happening with this until next year.

[ucrdem]

305. This sounds like a shakedown, which I think in fact t is.

The message is that if a Democratic politician doesn't want to get primaried, he or she should sign onto Bernie's latest bill, which like other Bernie bills is a fund-raising prop for Bernie. And if anyone thinks he doesn't mean business there's that last presidential election where the Democrat got primaried into oblivion. And now the master has a small army of clones ready to step up to the plate. The first sentence gives away the game: if you want to win your next election, you should get with the program. Or else.

[NurseJackie]

312. Of course... that's exactly what it is. Everyone knows it.

I'm so weary of all these "or-else!" threats. Or else we'll primary you. Or else I'll vote third party. Or else we'll burn it down.

All I'm saying is that people who say (or threaten) such things have nothing to offer on the merits of their arguments or policy ideas. Every indication is that they are arguing from a position of weakness and these tactics of bullying and disruption and destruction do not speak very well about them.

I mean, it serves no good purpose for anyone to do anything that intentionally HARMS the Democratic party; or that SMEARS the Democratic party; or that DIMINISHES the Democratic party; or that DIVIDES the Democratic party; or that WEAKENS the Democratic party; or that REDUCES the number of ACTUAL Democrats holding office; or that creates DISTRUST among Democratic party members.

[ucrdem]

314. That's good to hear.

We've come a long way in two years!

[Jim Lane]

322. What you call "shakedown" used to be called "the political process"

We have primaries. If a Democratic incumbent displeases enough people by his or her actions in office, then, yes, there will be a primary challenge. If the dissatisfaction is sufficiently widespread, then the incumbent will lose the primary. This also applies if a politician holding one office seeks the Democratic nomination for a different office.

One common basis for voters' belief that they could do better is how that politician has acted as a legislator (votes, co-sponsorships, actions in committee, etc.). When I'm voting in a primary, that's certainly something I look at.

Various organizations are constantly emailing me asking me to sign petitions for this or that, asking Congress to protect Mueller or oppose Haspel or restore net neutrality. The hope, obviously, is that an incumbent who hears from enough people will thereby be influenced to vote that way, out of a fear that otherwise he or she will pay the price in a primary or general election. Describing such basic politics with the pejorative term "shakedown" is absurd.

In the case at hand, the OP reports on a pending bill and opines that Democrats should support it. There's no express reference to primaries, but that's not an unreasonable inference. If a nominally Democratic legislator (say, Dan Lipinski) fails to support a lot of good bills, then, yes, that's a factor that weighs in favor of a primary challenge. When EMILY's List endorsed the pro-choice Marie Newman in her primary against Lipinski (an opponent of reproductive rights), was that a "shakedown"? I'd say No. It was politics. My only regret is that Newman fell a bit short.

[Me.]

326. Bernie Sanders Should Support All Democrats

[ucrdem]

327. It turns out this isn't a Bernie bill at all, and his name isn't on it.

It's a House resolution sponsored by Mark Pocan of WI (D) and two other reps:

https://pocan.house.gov/sites/pocan.house.gov/files/Workplace-Democracy-Act.pdf

So the article in the OP misrepresents a piece of Democratic legislation as a Bernie bill that Democrats themselves are unwilling or incapable of producing:

Every Democrat Should Support Bernie Sanders’s New Labor Bill
By Eric Levitz


If Democrats want to give workers a better deal, there are few better things they can do than promote unions (i.e., organizations that were invented to do just that).

Alternatively, if Democrats decide that they don’t actually care about helping workers — and their sole policy goal is to pass laws that make it easier for them to win elections — there are few better things they can do than promote unions.


This week, 14 Senate Democrats signaled that they understand this. On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that aims to increase America’s unionization rate . . .

The link goes to Pocan's HR site. So the OP is in fact a deceptive crock of baloney using a Democratic bill to bash Democrats and sell Bernie. I guess I should have known.

[TheSmarterDog]

334. Standard Bernie: Finds a parade & puts himself in front to pretend he's leading it.

[ucrdem]

340. Yep.

Just another honesty malfunction in Revolutionland.

[Jim Lane]

351. Standard Bernie-bashing: Accepts falsehoods as long as they put Bernie in a bad light.

In this subthread, see posts and links by sl8 and myself for a more accurate picture.

[TheSmarterDog]

376. What falsehood? Bernie does this all the time.

In NY, Cuomo & the Democrats have been working for years to get free tuition for NY residents. And they passed the Excelsior Scholarship last year & Cuomo signed it into law.

And guess who was there insinuating himself into the signing ceremony trying to take credit for it? That's right: Bernie Sanders.

He had literally nothing do to with it - he couldn't have. He's not a NY lawmaker - but he was there making self-aggrandizing speeches about it.

[Jim Lane]

377. The falsehood is the repeated assertion that Bernie hasn't introduced a bill.

I'm talking about the false Bernie-bashing over the labor bill.

I have no information about your new attack on him, concerning college tuition. Should I look into it and respond to you? Well, given the inordinate amount of time I've spent doing research and posting links about the labor bill, on top of what Uncle Joe and sl8 had already done; given how little impression the facts seemed to make on those determined to find fault with Bernie; and given how infrequently any Bernie-basher on this board has ever admitted error or has even been willing to concede the slightest degree of merit to Bernie Sanders on any subject whatsoever -- I decline. It's just not a good use of my time. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to college tuition, you may go on believing whatever nasty things about Bernie you want to believe. Enjoy.

[TheSmarterDog]

382. Got it: St Bernie can do no wrong.

And his worshipers will attack anyone - especially actual Democrats - pointing out that he's wearing no clothes.

[Jim Lane]

387. Your post is both horseshit and a personal attack on me and many others.

Let's look at what actually happened here -- as any reader can see. There was a smear against Bernie, charging that he had claimed credit for introducing a bill when actually no bill existed. That lie was conclusively refuted through actual links.

From that, you somehow get --
* that I consider Bernie a saint;
* that I think Bernie can do no wrong; and
* that all "Bernie supporters" are "Bernie worshippers" (presumably because we are "cultists" as some on DU like to say).

Do I have to spell out why this is horseshit? There was one particular assertion about Bernie. The assertion was either true or false. I showed that that particular assertion was false.

There's only one basis I can see for getting from the refutation of one false criticism to the conclusion that I must believe all criticisms to be false. That basis is the all-or-nothing approach that has become so common. For many DUers, the orthodoxy is that Bernie Sanders is Evil Evil Evil, so any criticism of him is welcomed with open arms and total gullibility. In that mindset, the only possible alternative position is that Bernie is a saint who can do no wrong. Therefore, anyone who rejects the total condemnation of Bernie must be one of his worshippers.

I have the honor to point out that the conclusion is absurd.

Furthermore, your post clearly implies that I'm not applying any intellectual standards or engaging in any independent thought when it comes to a criticism of Bernie, but that I am merely exhibiting an unthinking knee-jerk reaction. I regard that as both a personal attack and a falsehood.

[ucrdem]

389. Baloney. All you showed is your willingness to defend dubious claims.

The OP mislabels someone else's bill Bernie's and links to Pocan's site without so much as mentioning his name once. It's a bogus claim in a dishonest article and that kind of deception should trouble all of us.

[Jim Lane]

390. This is incredible. Literally.

You write, "The OP mislabels someone else's bill Bernie's...."

You have been shown that the official website of the United States Congress identifies the Senate bill as one that is sponsored by Bernie Sanders.

Are the staffers who maintain the website also mislabeling the bill?

Mark Pocan, from what little I know of him, is a fine legislator, but he has a limitation. As a member of the House, he cannot introduce a bill in the Senate. That's why the two of them are working together, as shown by their press releases.

The House bill is Pocan's bill. The Senate bill is Bernie's bill. Those are the facts.

[ucrdem]

391. Click "Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act" in the 5th paragraph.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/every-democrat-should-back-bernie-sanderss-new-labor-bill.html

You're welcome.

[Jim Lane]

393. "On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act...."

That statement is literal truth.

Yes, I know that the author linked to Pocan's website, instead of to Bernie's website. It's an odd choice, given that each legislator has the text of the bill on his website, and each has a press release that identifies the other as the sponsor of the bill in the other chamber.

And, as I have already stated, the omission of Pocan's name from the article was bad journalism -- and was not Bernie's doing, but rather Levitz's.

The key point where we disaqree, as far as I can tell, concerns the statement I quoted in the subject line: "On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act...."

That statement is true. It conflicts with your preconceptions, and with your agenda of smearing Bernie at all costs, so you refuse to acknowledge it... but facts are stubborn things.

You've made it abundantly clear that no inconvenient reference to the real world will wean you away from your cherished delusion. Therefore, you may now have the last word. I'm doing interacting with you about this.

[ehrnst]

395. So you call someone "delusional" when you have no arguments left?

I'll bet that gets you mad props over on JPR.

You're on DU, in case you forgot.

[Eliot Rosewater]

398. I have been reading this thread and BY GOD we better hope these folks are in a VERY

small minority or Mussolini will remain in power COUNT on it.

[Jim Lane]

400. I completely agree with you.

It's unfortunate that we have some folks who are still sowing discord on the left by their ceaseless Bernie-bashing -- to the point where falsehoods are eagerly embraced, provided only that they can be employed to smear Bernie Sanders. Aside from its fundamental dishonesty, this kind of foolishness can only help Trump.

Cheer up, though. People like that are a minority, at least among Democrats. Polls consistently show that Bernie is viewed favorably by something like 70% of the grassroots Democrats. In this respect, DU is, I'm happy to see, not representative.

For people with normal reading comprehension ability, my post ends here.

Now, for the rest of you: No, I am not saying that Bernie is viewed favorably by more Democrats than is any other public figure. No, I am not saying that 70% of grassroots Democrats want him to be the nominee in 2020. No, I am not saying that "St. Bernie" can do no wrong. If you want to disagree with something I wrote, you'll have more credibility if you confine yourselves to what I actually wrote.

[ehrnst]

405. "For people with normal reading comprehension ability, my post ends here. "

Last edited Tue May 15, 2018, 08:05 AM - Edit history (3)

Now you're calling people who don't agree with you deficient in reading comprehension. Somebody hit a nerve, didn't they?

Can you provide links to these "Polls [that] consistently show that Bernie is viewed favorably by something like 70% of the 'grassroots Democrats."

And can you tell us what the percentage of "grassroots Democrats" are on DU as opposed to the "non-grassroots Democrats?" I'm sure there's no poll, but your mental capability should be able to construct some sort of model.

And while you're at it, could you define "grassroots Democrat?" Is that donors to Our Revolution? And what does "favorabilty" outside of Vermont mean? Approving of the job he's doing? Favorability compared to other politicians? Do the polls you cite ask about their knowledge of the issues that he champions? Do they ask about whether they "favor" him over others to run for POTUS in 2020?

Please quantify both those things, when you share the links.

We would be most grateful. Even those of us with sub-"normal reading comprehension."



I guess this poll isn't "grassroots Democrats"

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Bernie_Sanders

[Jim Lane]

411. Such data have been posted on DU several times, but here you go.

In this Quinnipiac poll from January 2018, Question 9 asked: "Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?" Among poll respondents who self-identified as Democrats, the results were:

Favorable 76%
Unfavorable 11
Hvn't hrd enou 10
REFUSED 2

A similar Quinnipiac poll, conducted two years ago, asked the same question (see Question 20) but categorized the respondents a bit differently. In that poll, Bernie's 82% favorable rating was among Democrats and Democratic leaners. I haven't bothered to investigate the details of this particular poll. Based on my general knowledge: If you ask people their party affiliation, about a third or more will say "independent". If you then follow up with the independents by asking which party they usually support, some will continue to decline to choose a party, but many will admit that they usually vote either Democratic or Republican. Those are the ones classified as leaners. The difference between the 2016 and 2018 results isn't large, and may be nothing more than variance, but it's also possible that Bernie has a somewhat stronger appeal to Democratic-leaning independents than he does to self-identified Democrats.

Incidentally, other results from the 2018 poll are also interesting. As one commentator wrote in "'Bernie Bros' Phenomenon Debunked in New Poll":

So Sanders has higher favorables and lower unfavorables among blacks and Latino/as than among whites. And higher favorables and lower unfavorables among women than among men.

Either you have a very robust theory of false consciousness to explain this or maybe you should reconsider the idea that Bernie speaks only to and for white bros.

By "grassroots" I meant the millions of registered voters who identify as Democrats. This is the group that Quinnipiac, an experienced and respected national polling organization, randomly sampled. The term "grassroots" distinguishes these millions from far smaller and atypical groups, such as DNC members and other party officers, elected officials, or people who choose to participate in online political message boards.

With regard to that last group: If someone were to devote the effort to reading every post on DU over, say, the past month, and as to each poster making an informed guess as to how that person would rate Bernie Sanders, I'm sure that his Favorable rating would be far less than 76% and his Unfavorable rating would be far higher than 11%. That's one illustration of how DU membership is unrepresentative of nationwide Democrats.

You ask a number of questions about matters as to which I made no assertion. I suggest you contact Quinnipiac for more information or to suggest additional questions for their future polling.

You conclude:

I guess this poll isn't "grassroots Democrats"

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Bernie_Sanders

Your guess is correct. The YouGov page is titled "WHAT AMERICA THINKS OF BERNIE SANDERS" and gives no party breakdown -- just a single figure (47% having a "positive opinion" of Bernie). I infer that that's his rating among all adults or all registered voters or whatever population YouGov uses, not just among Democrats. The sample therefore includes many Republicans who oppose Medicare for All (indeed, who would like to see even the ACA repealed), who applaud Trump for withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and for violating the Iran nuclear deal, etc. Obviously those people will, like many DUers, have a negative opinion of a progressive like Bernie Sanders.

[ehrnst]

412. Ah, yes, the the Quinnipiac poll from January.

of 1,212 self-identified registered voters,

PARTY IDENTIFICATION %

Democrat 32
Independent 39
Other/DK/NA 5

76% of 388 of poll participants, which my calculator puts at about 295. Not seeing that as a sweeping trend. Context is important, Larry Gross's completely unbiased "Truthdig" analysis notwithstanding...
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us01172018_demos_udww76.pdf/

And a "similar" poll other from "two years ago," early in the primaries - which, if you want to compare the two, means he's dropped in favorability since that time.

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02172016_Ut34wgb.pdf/

Since you're going back two years, here's another shows that Bernie's favorability among his own constituents has dropped.

https://morningconsult.com/senator-approval-rankings-september-2016/

September 2016
87% Approve
12% Disapprove


https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/23/senator-rankings-jan-2018/

January 2018
68% approve
26% disapprove


Yes, the poll that I posted previously was not "grassroots Democrats" - the point being that you had not defined "grassroots Democrats" other than the 295 Democrats in the January 2018 poll.

Now you have defined that as "registered Democratic voters" then it won't be difficult to find other polls that "consistently show Bernie is like 71% approval rating."

I await those.

[Jim Lane]

413. If you "await" further links, you can keep right on awaiting.

I interpret your statement as meaning: "Jim, you've provided two links that confirm the statement you made, but now I want you to provide additional links for that (although I've provided nothing to counter them). I also want you to address a new subject (trend) that I've introduced in lieu of seriously disputing what you actually wrote."

Under the circumstances, I decline the invitation to sign up as your unpaid research assistant. Frankly, I've wasted far too much of my time in this thread as it is. Another reason is my conviction that there is simply no conceivable set of data that would alter your tenaciously held beliefs.

Have a nice day.

[ehrnst]

418. Thought so.

You got nothing.

"Go google it yourself, I'm not going to do it for you!" is what I hear a lot when I ask Trump supporters for backup for their claims.

"Under the circumstances, I decline the invitation to sign up as your unpaid research assistant." Same thing. More syllables.

[Jim Lane]

420. This is hilarious.

I provided links to two separate polls by a reputable national pollster, each with results supporting my assertion (that Bernie Sanders is popular among Democrats, specifically with favorability numbers of 76% and 82%).

You have provided zero links to any poll result concerning Bernie's favorability rating among Democrats, either nationally or in Vermont, either now or two years ago.

Yet you write:

"Go google it yourself, I'm not going to do it for you!" is what I hear a lot when I ask Trump supporters for backup for their claims.

On my scorecard, it says that I've backed up my claims with evidence and you've blown smoke.

Of course, as I pointed out before, DU is not representative of Democrats generally, at least when it comes to Bernie. There are those whose epistemology begins and ends with "If it's negative about Bernie Sanders or one of his supporters, it must be true." On their scorecards, you're probably a brilliant polemicist who's utterly routed a Russian troll. So congratulations from here in Saint Petersburg.

[ehrnst]

421. You provided 2 polls, one from two years ago, and a biased analysis of one of them.

Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster, but I never claimed to have seen various polls of Democratic voters that showed Bernie "at like 71% approval rating," you did.

When you make a claim, it's up to you to back it up, not me.

You may find this helpful:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

On my scorecard it says you're desperately blowing smoke because I point out that your two polls (one from two years ago) do not consistent popularity indicate, let alone prove. Clearly you can't find any more of those polls that support your claim of showing registered Democratic voters' level of approval for Bernie "consistently being like 71%"

Clearly the polls I shared on his dropping approval rating among his own constituents, as an example of what I was looking for in the way of using polls for substantiating one's upset you.

There are those whose epistemology begins and ends with "If it's negative about Bernie Sanders or one of his supporters, it must be by a hater." So there's that.

On their scorecards, you're probably a brilliant polemicist who's utterly routed a Russian troll. So congratulations from here in Saint Petersburg.

That response to my pointing out that you haven't shown evidence of your claims is a bit outsized, don't you think? Hilarious even. As the old saying goes, "Would you get down offa that cross, someone can use the wood."

[ehrnst]

423. Actually my request was rather clear

That you provide evidence of your claim that polls of Democratic voters "consistently" showing approval of Bernie "at like 71%"

Two polls, one outdated clearly doesn't support that.

"Seriously disputing what you actually wrote," is not what I did. I asked for confirmation of your statistic.

You then whipped out Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and tried to misrepresent my request.

Another reason is my conviction that there is simply no conceivable set of data that would alter your tenaciously held beliefs.

Actually, it appears that there is simply no conceivable set of data that supports your claims of Democratic voters "consistently" showing approval of Bernie "at like 71%," or at least none, outside the two (I'll give you a pass on the two year old one) polls, that you can find. That is what I was asking you to substantiate, which you misrepresent as me claiming those polls gave a different number than 71%. I suggest perusing our thread if you don't believe me. But I think you know that you resorted to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

It's one thing to believe someone is popular, but to try to justify that belief as being based in "data" is rationalization. In the future, may I suggest that you don't believe everything you think, and before you quote statistics, you should be prepared to cite them. Otherwise you fall into the trap that so many MAGA enthusiasts do when you ask them how, exactly, the economy is booming now that he's POTUS? "Go google it yourself!" or "prove it's NOT!" are both evasions that they deploy as well.

And yes, I brought up Sanders' declining popularity among his constituents, because 1) that'srelevant to the topic (trend). 2) It was an example for you of substantiating a claim (Sanders approval among his constituents has dropped since 2016) with data from a poll. I didn't "demand that you address it," though your highly emotional reaction for pointing that out certainly does so.

Have a nice day.

[Jim Lane]

401. ROFLMAO at "mad props over on JPR."

I was among the minority of JPR members urging a vote for Clinton in the general election. Currently I am among the minority urging progressives to work within the Democratic Party instead of following the minor-party route.

For my efforts, I've been called a Hillbot. It's been intimated that I'm being paid by the DNC. The "mad props" have been, shall we say, less frequent.

You seem quite content to stay in your little bubble with people who agree with you on everything, most notably the importance of bashing Bernie Sanders at every turn. That's fine. I'd like it if there were more people on JPR supporting the Democratic Party, but I think you're probably making the right choice by staying here.

[ehrnst]

406. As the saying goes...

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Please do continue on with your floridly worded insults to anyone expressing other than praise, and falsely equating it with hate, for the Junior Senator from Vermont. Cheer up, your own bubble, as we say, awaits your next post with bated breath.

[Gothmog]

396. You do know that the term "introduce" has a specific meaning?

One can not introduce a bill if they are not the author of that bill. In the real world, the term "introduce" has a specific meaning. Sanders did not introduce this bill

[Jim Lane]

399. You should share your boundless wisdom with Congress.gov

The Congressional website lists Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Senator who introduced S.2810. I hope that, first thing Tuesday morning, you will call this error to the staffers' attention, since you know so much more than they do, and that you will tell them who did introduce the bill in the Senate.

You write, "One can not introduce a bill if they are not the author of that bill." Yes, the term "introduce" has a specific meaning. No, that isn't it. Bills are usually written, in whole or in large part, by staffers who take their direction from the Member(s) who will be introducing the bill. Those authors don't get the publicity, though. In many years of researching federal legislation, I have never seen anyone other than a member of Congress identified as the person introducing a bill.

[Gothmog]

424. Has sanders gotten any majors bills passed yet?

What are sanders' legislative accomplishments in the real world?

[Gothmog]

397. Has Sanders ever introduced a major bill that was adopted?

[NurseJackie]

407. If I wanted to find out what his major legislative accomplishments were, where would I look?

There must be a website or something. Most lawmakers have a "yay-me" page (even if it's modestly tucked away in a not-so-obvious spot) that boasts about things like that. I'm interested in reading the list of Bernie's legislative milestones.

[Gothmog]

408. I remain curious about sanders legislative accomplishments

[NurseJackie]

409. I would have thought that at least ONE of his vocal followers would have responded.

One would imagine that they'd be eager to share any details of Bernie's major legislative accomplishments. If not an actual list, at least a link to where the information can be located. But so far... nothing. Just silence.

[sl8]

341. Sanders sponsored the Senate bill, Pocan sponsored the House bill.

The article cited in the OP was referring to the Senate bill, S. 2810, sponsored by Senator Sanders.

You're referring to the House bill, H.R. 5728, sponsored by Rep. Pocan.



S. 2810 : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2810

H.R. 5728 : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr5728



From Rep. Pocan's site, https://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-and-sanders-lead-democrats-in-introducing-workplace-democracy-act

Pocan and Sanders Lead Democrats in Introducing Workplace Democracy Act

May 9, 2018 Press Release

WASHINGTON, DC (May 9, 2018) – Today, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02) joined U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and their colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to introduce legislation that would strengthen the middle class by restoring workers’ rights to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.
...

From Sen. Sanders' site, https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-pocan-lead-bill-to-restore-workers-rights

Sanders, Pocan Lead Bill to Restore Workers’ Rights

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

WASHINGTON, May 9 – With public support for unions at 61 percent, the highest in 15 years, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and their colleagues in the Senate and House introduced legislation Wednesday that would strengthen the middle class by restoring workers' rights to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. The legislation has been endorsed by virtually every major union in America.
...

More at links.

[ucrdem]

343. There is no Senate bill, just a number. There IS a House bill, Pocan's, that the OP links to.

Eventually. The article is a deceptive sham and typical of that communications effort.

[sl8]

345. You're saying that Senate bill S. 2810 doesn't exist?

The link for S. 2810 at GovTrack:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2810

The link for S. 2810 at Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2810?q=%7B"search"%3A%5B"2810"%5D%7D&r=1

Neiter site has the text yet, but they should have it in a couple of days. Other information is listed, including cosponsors (Senators, not Representatives) and a link to the entry in the Congressional Record where Sanders introduced the bill. In the Senate.


You provided a link to the unnumbered draft of the House bill, from Pocan's site. Here's the unnumbered draft of the Senate bill, from Sanders' site:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/workplace-democracy-act-2018?inline=file

[Jim Lane]

347. ucrdem simply has it wrong

Thanks for providing the bill number.

Anyone who, with an open mind, goes to Congress.gov, inputs that bill number (S.2810), and clicks on the link for the text will find this:

As of 05/12/2018 text has not been received for S.2810 - A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and for other purposes.

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

This hypothetical open-minded reader could also click on the link for "Cosponsors" and find a list of 12 Democratic Senators (as in, Democratic-with-a-D-after-their-names-because-that's-all-that-counts Democrats) who have cosponsored Bernie's bill. The list includes several Senators who've been favorably mentioned on DU as possible nominees for President. Are they actually imbeciles who are cosponsoring a bill that doesn't exist? Call me crazy but I say No.

[ucrdem]

348. The SB number exists but the text does not, which is why the OP doesn't link to it.

Instead it links to Pocan's site which has the text of Pocan's bill. But the article doesn't once mention Pocan, and hides the link to his site under text about Bernie:

On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that aims to increase America’s unionization rate ....

Under that text about Bernie is a link to Pocan's HR site, which links to the text of Pocan's -- not Bernie's -- resolution.

That strikes me as dishonest.

[Jim Lane]

350. On what basis do you assert that the text does not exist? (eom)

[ucrdem]

353. What part of "As of 05/12/2018 text has not been received for S.2810" do you not understand?

Oh and thanks for the link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2810/text?q=%7B"search"%3A%5B"S.2810"%5D%7D&r=1

[Jim Lane]

357. Why can't you read more than one sentence?

The link explains the process. It's not up on the website because it hasn't yet been received from the GPO. That process can take a little time. That's quite different from "It doesn't exist."

If you go to Amazon and order a complete boxed set of Gilligan's Island episodes, and Amazon confirms it's been shipped but you don't have it yet, does your non-receipt of the package prove that the package doesn't exist? No, it does not. That would be faulty logic.

Here are a couple more official links for you: The "Actions Overview" page states that the bill was introduced in the Senate on May 9, and the "Committees" page reports that the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Some staffers in Washington, along with 12 Democratic Senators, certainly seem to think that the bill exists. If they're all wrong, perhaps you should get on a plane to DC on Monday morning and give them the benefit of your knowledge (from undisclosed sources) that the bill actually does not exist.

[sl8]

356. The text exists, but Congress.gov and GovTrack don't have it yet.

They don't have the text for the House bill yet, either. That's standard for any bill - it takes them 2-3 days to receive and publish the text.

As far as the magazine article giving a link to the draft of the House bill, I'd say that's sloppy reporting. Since they're reporting on the Senate bill, they should have given a link to the draft of the Senate bill instead.

The Senate bill does exist and it does have Sanders' name on it.

[ucrdem]

359. Pocan has the House bill on his House site. Bernie has no bill. That's why Levitz links to

Pocan's bill and calls it Bernie's bill. But it isn't Bernie's bill; it's Pocan's. That's deceptive.

https://pocan.house.gov/sites/pocan.house.gov/files/Workplace-Democracy-Act.pdf

[sl8]

361. I already gave you the link to the Senate bill draft on Sanders' site. n/t

[ucrdem]

363. Levitz (OP) links to Pocan's bill but calls it "Bernie Sanders's New Labor Bill."

That's deceptive.

[Jim Lane]

344. Your own link refutes your post

Thanks for the link. Did you, by chance, READ it?

Some people, predisposed to swallow any criticism of Bernie Sanders, would read your post as saying that the bill was in the House, not the Senate, and that Bernie was trying to steal the credit that rightfully belonged to Representative Mark Pocan. You clearly assert that it isn't a Bernie bill.

Your assertion is false.

The link you give to Pocan's website is to a press release by Pocan titled "Pocan and Sanders Lead Democrats in Introducing Workplace Democracy Act". Here's the first graf:

Today, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02) joined U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and their colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to introduce legislation that would strengthen the middle class by restoring workers’ rights to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. [emphasis in original]

You see, for a bill to be enacted, it must be passed in both the House and the Senate. Rep. Pocan is aware of this. Another difference between him and some DUers is that he considers formal party affiliation to be less important than getting good things done for the people. (What a concept.) Therefore, he is willing to work with Bernie, with each of them introducing the bill in his respective chamber of Congress.

The New York magazine piece should, of course, mention Pocan, but that it doesn't isn't Bernie's fault. What the headline illustrates is that Bernie, by having run a surprisingly successful national campaign (going from single digits in the polls to over 40 percent of the votes), acquired some star power. He can attract media attention to an issue more effectively than he could three years ago.

This is just how the media game is played these days. People on DU who constantly cavil about any attention being paid to Bernie, in connection with some issue or other, should recognize that fact. Some Democratic backbencher, with a big blue D after his name and everything, could introduce a good bill, and New York magazine would yawn. Bernie's involvement helps to publicize progressive ideas. To the non-Bernie-bashers, that's a good thing.

[ucrdem]

346. The article doesn't link to Bernie's bill because it doesn't exist. Pocan's does.

Yes, they should have mentioned all that, instead of trying to pass off a tacky sales job as news.

And here's the link the article never gets around to supplying. Note the words "Text: Not available yet":

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2810

Guess they were hoping we wouldn't check.

[Jim Lane]

349. Your assertion is still false.

See the link and excerpt I gave in #347.

The Congressional website lists the Senate bill; gives its bill number, title, and short description; names its sponsor (Bernie); and names 12 Democratic cosponsors.

Is it your position that the staffers who maintain the website passed around a really good bong and then just made up some stuff about an imaginary bill that doesn't exist? That seems improbable. About all that theory has going for it is that it enables people to throw mud at Bernie Sanders yet again.

The excerpt in #347 explains why you can't read the text just yet. I'm guessing that the text will be available in a few more business days, at which point I will look forward to reading your retraction of your erroneous attack on Bernie.

[ucrdem]

352. From your link: "As of 05/12/2018 text has not been received for S.2810." A number is not a bill.

And now may I politely say I rest my case.

[Jim Lane]

354. Read the whole thing.

The link explains why "has not been received" doesn't equate to "doesn't exist."

Before you rest your case, you might explain why 12 Democratic Senators cosponsored a bill that didn't even have any text. They know that there's text, even though it's not yet up on the website.

Howzabout a little bet here. Based on the information on the website, it's clear to anyone who doesn't hate Bernie Sanders that there is a bill, and its text will probably be online soon. Let's return to the website in a week (around 10:00 p.m. EDT on Saturday, May 19. If there's no text, I lose. If there is text, you lose. Loser donates $50 to Oxfam America in honor of the winner.

I've given up thinking that I'll change the minds of any of the diehard Bernie-bashers, but at least this way some hungry people will get fed as a result of this silliness. Deal?

[ucrdem]

355. Look if Bernie's bill was available Levitz would have linked it. It isn't so he linked to Pocan's

and tried to pass it off as Bernie's without ONCE mentioning Pocan in the entire article. That doesn't trouble you?

[Jim Lane]

362. Sigh. Another reading comprehension fail.

You point out, correctly, that the New York magazine piece doesn't mention Pocan, and you ask, "That doesn't trouble you?"

I refer you to my post #344 in this very thread (responding to a post of yours). In my post I wrote, "The New York magazine piece should, of course, mention Pocan...." I trust that answers your question.

Still, we appear to be making progress. Although you haven't acknowledged your error, let alone retracted your smear of Bernie, you have at least retreated from "Bernie's bill doesn't exist" to "Bernie's bill isn't available." I guess I'll have to settle for that.

As for Levitz, your criticism of him is overstated. It is not the case that he took a Pocan bill (which, you insinuate, Bernie had nothing to do with) "and tried to pass it off as Bernie's...." As Pocan's press release makes clear, it's a joint bill. It's Pocan's bill in the House and Bernie's bill in the Senate. Thus, there's no "passing off" involved. The part about Bernie is accurate as far as it goes. Levitz's error is in failing to report the other half of the story.

[ucrdem]

367. Okay deception doesn't trouble you. It troubles me. nt

[Jim Lane]

371. Your post is a flat-out lie about my position.

Not only did I not express the view you falsely ascribe to me -- I stated and then took the trouble to repeat the exact opposite.

[sheshe2]

369. Oh Jim.

sigh

[Jim Lane]

372. Glad to see you in this subthread, sheshe2. Maybe you can clarify something for me.

According to this page on the Congress.gov website, S.2810 was introduced by Bernie Sanders and was co-sponsored by Senators Gillibrand, Warren, Brown, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Harris, Merkley, Markey, Booker, Wyden, Leahy, and Van Hollen.

Do you agree with ucrdem's charge that these 12 Democratic Senators have cosponsored a Senate bill that doesn't actually exist?

[sunRISEnow]

373. So, Bernie is proposing something, but hasn't done anything? Is that what I get from this?

Last edited Sun May 13, 2018, 12:57 AM - Edit history (1)

It happens enough with Bernie that he talks about stuff, but that is about as far as it gets. The Democrats are the ones doing the stuff.

[Jim Lane]

374. That's what you would get from the posts of the Bernie-bashers.

If, instead, you were to rely on the facts, you would get something different:

Bernie has indeed proposed something. As for "hasn't done anything" -- he's worked out the text of a specific bill, he's posted it to his website, he's introduced it in the Senate, he's secured 12 Democratic cosponsors, he's coordinated with Representative Mark Pocan who's introduced a companion bill in the House (also with cosponsors there), he's issued a press release to publicize the issue and try to drum up further support (a press release in which he also credits and quotes Pocan), and he has in turn been credited and quoted in Pocan's press release.

That's this week's activity. (Incidentally, every single statement in the preceding paragraph is supported by links provided in posts in this subthread by sl8 and myself.)

If the Senate sponsor were anyone other than Bernie Sanders, no one would be taking seriously the charge that he's not "doing the stuff."

[sunRISEnow]

375. Thank you for the information Jim Lane.

[sheshe2]

364. Nailed it.

[ucrdem]

366. Thanks sheshe!

And I think this horse is good and dead!

[sheshe2]

370. Hey you.

The horse has been flogged. Done.

[mvd]

385. K&R. This is just one of many things he has proposed

He's certainly not all talk. And now that more Dems are coming aboard, he's also doing well getting people behind them. There's still a ways to go, but the party is looking better than before.

[NanceGreggs]

402. Every Democrat ...

... should support fellow Democrats.

And some people aren't Democrats - but only profess to be so when convenient.

[NurseJackie]

410. That's always bothered me. Loyalty and a willingness to commit are important to me...

... anyone who is lacking in those basic qualities give me cause for concern and distrust.

[ehrnst]

422. +1000 (nt)