The Progressive Revolution Is Being Led by a Black Woman

[Uncle Joe]

If Nina Turner is tired and stressed out when I catch up with her in April, in her cluttered, Washington, D.C., office at Our Revolution, she doesn’t show it. She rarely works less than 12 hours a day, and her hectic schedule essentially keeps her on a plane; she has just flown into D.C. after a canvassing event the day before and is headed out of town to another one the following day.

(snip)

Since its inception, the organization claims 75 electoral wins out of the 175 candidates it has endorsed so far. Its reach has also ballooned in a short period of time, with more than 600 Our Revolution chapters around the country.

Seven candidates whom the organization endorsed won in the primaries this past May, with Stacey Abrams, the first black woman to win a major-party nomination for governor in U.S. history, being the most notable. The other six are two U.S. House candidates, one city council seat, two state House seats and one state Senate candidate.

Many of the people Our Revolution endorses are running for office for the first time. The idea is to start from the beginning and groom a new generation of talent. Much of the country’s attention is focused on nationwide races, but Turner believes that real change starts at the local level.

(snip)

https://www.theroot.com/the-progressive-revolution-is-being-led-by-a-black-woma-1826453201

This is a good read

[OnDoutside]

1. Turner is poison, and no friend of the Democratic Party. We've seen

enough videos of her hate towards the Dems without reading this crap too.

[Uncle Joe]

2. What some see as hate others see as intervention

"There is little place in the political scheme of things for an independent, creative personality, for a fighter. Anyone who takes that role must pay a price." Shirley Chisholm

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/shirley_chisholm_138543

[George II]

8. Shirley Chisholm said that as a member of the Democratic Party, not someone outside...

...the party trying to change a party of which she wasn't a member. Using Shirley Chisholm to define Nina Turner is a stretch.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Regardless, whether working from the inside or out for their cause they share something else

in common.

(snip)

Chisholm began exploring her candidacy in July 1971, and formally announced her presidential bid on January 25, 1972,[2] in a Baptist church in her district in Brooklyn.[5] There she called for a "bloodless revolution" at the forthcoming Democratic nomination convention.[5] Chisholm became the first black major-party candidate to run for President of the United States, in the 1972 U.S. presidential election, making her also the first woman ever to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination (U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith had previously run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1964).[2]

Her campaign was underfunded, only spending $300,000 in total.[2] She also struggled to be regarded as a serious candidate instead of as a symbolic political figure;[17] she was ignored by much of the Democratic political establishment and received little support from her black male colleagues. [32] She later said, "When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black. Men are men."[9] In particular, she expressed frustration about the "black matriarch thing", saying, "They think I am trying to take power from them. The black man must step forward, but that doesn't mean the black woman must step back. "[5] Her husband, however, was fully supportive of her candidacy and said, "I have no hangups about a woman running for president."[18] Security was also a concern, as during the campaign three confirmed threats were made against her life; Conrad Chisholm served as her bodyguard until U.S. Secret Service protection was given to her in May 1972.[33]

(snip)

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

[George II]

32. Not "regardless", look at what Shirley Chisholm accomplished in her political career, both locally..

...and nationally.

Speaking of her in the same breath as Nina Turner is insulting.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Everything is relative, Nina Turner is still an ongoing force and the analogy

in regards to the racial/gender challenges faced by both and their treatment by the status quo establishment is most apt.

[George II]

38. Yes, everything is relative. Shirley Chisholm achieved what she did in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Uncle Joe]

39. And Nina Turner is fighting the good fight during the age of Trump and increased corporate supremacy

over the American People.

[Demsrule86]

201. No she isn't in my opinion. What has she done or said about Trump and Republicans?

[sheshe2]

223. She is?

She did?

How so?

[Demsrule86]

200. Nina Turner burned her bridges and I saw a recent interview with her and see no

possibility of ever supporting her or her organization. She doubled down...not much about monster Trump but plenty of complaints about Democrats.

[OnDoutside]

25. Attacking the Democratic Party is not a positive for unity. The USA has the greatest ever threat to

democracy, and Turner doesn't give a shit. Purity politics above Real World Politics.

[Uncle Joe]

45. One person's attack is another person's constructive criticism. n/t

[OnDoutside]

63. In this case, the "another person" is Donald Trump.

[Blue_Tires]

178. If you can't differentiate between the two, then God help you.

[LanternWaste]

182. No. They are two wholly separate concepts.

No. They are two wholly separate concepts.

Pretending otherwise simply to conflate two unlike constructs merely illustrates the flaws in your premise, not to mention your oft-malleable conclusions.

[Uncle Joe]

212. They are separate concepts but perception can and does play a major role in

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2018, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

mistaking or obfuscating one for the other.

Whenever there is an intervention a couple of the emotions experienced by the subject is denial that there is a problem and hostility toward the interveners.

[Hortensis]

144. No, she has personality problems. People who CAN

achieve change do it by allying with others. Goodness knows almost everyone in the Democratic Party is strongly progressive (even to a much lesser degree most of the blue dogs), plus a bunch of left-leaners not registered with a party.

As soon as you identify someone as hostile and divisive toward other progressives instead of building alliances, you know you have a nonachiever. It's not the claimed ideals but the progress achieved that counts.

Elizabeth Warren, btw, is among the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus. She's also a strong progressive with an impressive list of achievements. HER achievements created the big excitement and new awareness that mainstream Democrats wanted big change and that our party could strive for more than the polls were showing. The polls hadn't been asking the right questions.

This excitement meant the possibility of more power both for Democrats to get elected and to pass 8 years of even more progressive legislation against helpless Republicans. Unfortunately, she didn't run for president and the person who tried to take her place has never been a big achiever. To put it mildly. And here we are.

Uncle Joe, go look up FDR's first woman labor secretary, Frances Perkins. SHE was a dynamo creating progressive, revolutionary-size changes with the power of the presidency and congress. I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren might be another Perkins if we gave her the power.

[Uncle Joe]

146. FDR's ( The most successful Democrat and one of our greatest Presidents) Second Bill of Rights

(snip)

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and renumerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

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

And yes Frances Perkins had a major hand in crafting these proposals but today and for the past few decades many of those critical issues had been left by the wayside as too many Democrats had rushed to the supposed "middle" to meet the Republicans after Reagan

https://bestpossiblelife.wordpress.com/category/legislation/new-deal-legislation/


These are the issues and policies that Bernie and Nina have championed.

Thanks for the reminder about Frances Perkins, Hortenis

Peace to you

[Hortensis]

147. No, we did NOT, but which would be the greater insult?

To assume you believe that, or not? In case you really do,

Liberals/Democrats didn't just create but have protected and advanced against constant conservative attacks ALL progressive legislation for as long as progressive government has existed: with Perkins unemployment insurance, Social Security, minimum wage, child labor laws, and dozens of other labor and union protections, as well as EVERY progressive advance that has come after.

In every era from our Revolution to today, the dissident left has been a destructive nuisance that has had to be overcome in order to advance. Those who refused to ally and obstructed what wasn't always good enough for them in every era, like their attempts to repeal (and someday replace) the ACA in this one, have no more claim to America's progressive programs than today's Republicans have to Abraham Lincoln.

And when we've failed to advance, it was entirely because suckered voters believed subversive messages from the dissident left as well as the right, and now Russia, and failed themselves and their nation.

As for Sanders, he's now an elderly man after decades in government, and his one big accomplishment that will live on is what happened on and came after November 8, 2016. That is what he will go down in history for. His purpose for Republicans, conservative billionaires, and Putin, and wittingly or unwittingly for those who have supported him after our convention, was and is as a weapon to aim at Democrats.

And such a pathetic cliche of a weapon, Uncle. Minor dissidents seeking power ALWAYS claim the people in power are corrupt sellouts, just as predictably as mouthwash commercials claim to make mouths fresher. That's every bit as big a red flag that should have been keenly examined as Trump's authoritarian bragging of "I alone can fix it."

No need to examine these cliches' records for competence achievement and clues to future performance, though, if it's really first and foremost about dissidence and opposition to the Democratic Party, not progress.

And back to Stacy Abrams. Stacy is a proven, competent Democrat, by her record. I'm glad she's trying to draw from across the spectrum, but the likelihood that she can be a successful governor, even though she will be working with Georgia's large Republican majority in the legislature, was why I voted for her. She's no dissident destroyer.

[Uncle Joe]

149. It's good that you would bring up Stacey Abrams to help make my point again. What do

believe she meant by this?

Is Stacey being "destructive?"

(snip)

The realty is, Democrats cannot win by pretending to be Republicans, Republicans see through it and Democrats see through it. I want to win by turning out voters who want the best lives possible. And that’s how I ran this campaign, and that’s how we’re going to win in November.

(snip)

Absolutely.

And part of what we were facing when you and I spoke a few years ago was that we were nearing the end of the campaign and there hadn’t been the investment in voters everywhere. There hadn’t been that deep investment in lifting up their voices.

That’s what we have done differently in this campaign. But we have not only done that for young African-Americans. We had one of the highest turn out of Latino voters in Georgia history. We had a high turnout among Asia-Pacific Islanders.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/stacey-abrams-democrats-cant-win-by-pretending-to-be-republicans

And just for he record it wasn't Bernie running for election on November 8th 2016

[Blue_Tires]

173. Pissing on Obama and the Clintons isn't creative or independent

it's needlessly contrarian, binary, petty and short-sighted...

[murielm99]

3. OR is a hate group.

Do they make appearances on Fox News? I would expect nothing less.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Do you mean like this guy?

[George II]

11. Have you seen what Our Revolution has done to DEMOCRATIC candidates that they didn't support?

[NurseJackie]

15. I have. That group does more harm than good. It's not a fucking "intervention"... GMAFB!

The harm that "OR" does do is completely intentional... and considering the group's origins, I'm not at all surprised.

[George II]

17. Sad that they attack DEMOCRATIC opponents on the basis of their race!

That is unconscionable in my eyes.

[Skidmore]

23. Yes, and undoubtedly

Jill Stein is in the OR mix somewhere. Has the stench of her trollery about it. Never read that Turner disavowed Stein.

[Uncle Joe]

36. "I believe that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for" guess who said that in response

to Stein's overtures?

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

[Skidmore]

69. Actions speak louder

than words. I don't care for either one, nor do I care for Sanders. I have strong opinions about these people, some of their positions, and their actions. I am entitled to my opinion.

[Uncle Joe]

71. Of course you do Skidmore as does everyone else.

I am entitled to my opinion.

We just happen to have strong opinions about different people.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. RIGHT NOW on a liberal talk show youtube chat OR is being spoken of in glowing terms

while Hillary is being attacked

Say hello to endless years of GOP rule.

[Uncle Joe]

46. I believe it to be just the opposite as the Democratic Party moves to the left, we

will become even more empowered to kick Republican ass in November.

[Gothmog]

5. Has any OR candidates won anything yet?

In Texas, the candidates supported by OR went down in flames big time. Here are the real democrats who defeated the Our Revolution endorsed candidates

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The Ohio governor and Virginia governor races were also major Our Revolution failures.

In my neck of the woods, OR rejected a candidate because he was Asian and had a funny first name http://www.indoamerican-news.com/local-democrats-infighting-attempts-to-smear-sri-kulkarni/

Like many other youngsters going through their tumultuous teen years, Kulkarni attributed the episode to youthful indiscretion, similar to what George W. Bush, Barak Obama and Bill Clinton experienced in their youths.

But Beaton, who is backing candidate Steve Brown in the primary, is throwing out all sorts of minor issues to sideline Kulkarni’s bid. He has challenged Kulkarni’s full name, his residency in the district, his voting record and even his registration application saying he wanted to run in Massachusetts.

Inspite of these diversions, the Indian American community as well as the rest of the South And East Asian communities are staunchly behind Kulkarni and they have shown it by the sheer numbers who have come to his events and are donating funds to his campaign, sensing a chance to have an Asian in Congress from the Metroplex. They came together last night, Tuesday, February 20, at Madras Pavlion to rally behind Kulkarni and push back against these charges.

Encouraged, Kulkarni is counting on their support. “We’re pushing back against this stigmatization and slander,” Kulkarni said. “The Asian communities need to come out and vote to get us over the top in the primary.”

From another article http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/texas-congressional-candidate-sri-kulkarni-acknowledges-teen-drug-arrest-youthful/article_54a39be6-1e55-11e8-8db1-6f520552146f.html

Doug Beaton, the leader of the chapter, warned Fort Bend County Democratic officials on Kulkarni's previously undisclosed past in a letter posted on social media, it said.

The letter suggested that Kulkarni, whose full first name is Srinivas, is running under an assumed name and that he had previously registered with the Federal Election Commission to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.,,,,

Fort Bend County's past Democratic chair, Don Bankston, a member of the party's state executive committee, said the attack on Kulkarni is off base and potentially slanderous, according to the report.

The head of the Our Revolution group told voters that Sri is "not one of us" and we do not want "one of them on the ballot." As noted above, these Our Revolution attacks failed.

I doubt that anyone will be taking Our Revolution in Texas for a while.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Did you not read the OP?

If Nina Turner is tired and stressed out when I catch up with her in April, in her cluttered, Washington, D.C., office at Our Revolution, she doesn’t show it. She rarely works less than 12 hours a day, and her hectic schedule essentially keeps her on a plane; she has just flown into D.C. after a canvassing event the day before and is headed out of town to another one the following day.

(snip)

Since its inception, the organization claims 75 electoral wins out of the 175 candidates it has endorsed so far. Its reach has also ballooned in a short period of time, with more than 600 Our Revolution chapters around the country.

Seven candidates whom the organization endorsed won in the primaries this past May, with Stacey Abrams, the first black woman to win a major-party nomination for governor in U.S. history, being the most notable. The other six are two U.S. House candidates, one city council seat, two state House seats and one state Senate candidate.

Many of the people Our Revolution endorses are running for office for the first time. The idea is to start from the beginning and groom a new generation of talent. Much of the country’s attention is focused on nationwide races, but Turner believes that real change starts at the local level.

(snip)

https://www.theroot.com/the-progressive-revolution-is-being-led-by-a-black-woma-1826453201

Not bad for a startup.

[Gothmog]

7. You consider this success?

That is really amusing given the number of major defeats by this group. You were aware of the Ohio and Virginia governor races. The margins in the Texas defeats by Our Revolution candidates were significant.

This group is having major issues including staff departures. You are welcome to waste your time but I will be supporting real democrats

[Uncle Joe]

10. Everything is relative, if the Abolitionist or Suffragist Movements had been given two years

we would still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.

[Gothmog]

12. Bernie's army in disarray

Have you read this article? https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrats-2018-599331

Bernie Sanders’ top operatives formed “Our Revolution” after he lost the 2016 primaries to keep his army organized and motivated — and potentially prepare for another presidential run in 2020.

But an extensive review of the Sanders-inspired group depicts an organization in disarray — operating primarily as a promotional vehicle for its leader and sometimes even snubbing candidates aligned with Sanders. Our Revolution has shown no ability to tip a major Democratic election in its favor — despite possessing Sanders’ email list, the envy of the Democratic Party — and can claim no major wins in 2018 as its own.

The result has left many Sanders supporters disillusioned, feeling that the group that was supposed to harness the senator's grass-roots movement is failing in its mission. The problems have also fueled doubts about Sanders’ organizational ability heading into 2020, even after his out-of-nowhere near-march to the nomination two years ago. Critics of the Vermont independent had been worried he’d have a juggernaut-in-waiting to fuel a second presidential campaign, but that anxiety has faded after watching Our Revolution the past year and a half.

“Our Revolution is going through growing pains,” acknowledged Jane Kleeb, the group’s treasurer, while arguing that progress is being made. “Creating a grass-roots organization is different from running a presidential campaign.”

The lack of major wins is a significant issue.

Have fun with this group. I will focus on supporting real democrats

[Uncle Joe]

19. I have read it but I disagree with it

"It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_paul_jones_182844

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/john_paul_jones

"I have not yet begun to fight! John Paul Jones"

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_paul_jones_101218

[Gothmog]

20. Denial is not just a river in Africa

I will continue to focus my efforts on election real Democrats. For example, the NYT thinks that Sri Preston Kulkarni could put TX CD 22 into play

Link to tweet

From the NYT article

Richard Murray, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, told me to keep an eye as well on the 22nd District, a largely suburban swath of the Houston area that he described as a microcosm of demographic changes that are making the state ever more hospitable Democratic turf.

“The suburban counties that led Republicans to dominance here 25 years ago are getting significantly less Republican fast,” he said, adding that Fort Bend County, in the 22nd, is roughly 20 percent Asian-American now. The first-place finisher in the district’s Democratic primary, Sri Preston Kulkarni, is Indian-American. Murray said that if Kulkarni wins his runoff, that could be a significant boost to Democrats’ chances to nab this House seat.

You can focus on a failing organization that has no significant victories in the real world

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. By definition OR cant be successful unless Democrats are unseated.

[Uncle Joe]

42. By definition Democrats can't be successful during any primary without unseating other Democrats.

That's part of the primary process.

And if the other posters perceptions on this thread are correct and Our Revolution endorsed candidates are "failing" to win races, then no Democrats are losing their seats.

[Demsrule86]

202. They could run for Republican seats and not Democratic seats...which make no difference in the

count for retaking the house.

[JonLP24]

229. I get tired of this real Democrat stuff

I voted for Democrats every election since I was a legal age. It is ridiculous since all you have to do to be a real Democrat is to be registered as one. Doesn't matter if they vote like a Republican. I'm tired I guess if we aren't real Democrats what party do you suggest for us?

[NurseJackie]

18. Ha!! :-D Comparing "OR" with Abolitionists and Suffragists??

OMG! Comparing "OR" with Abolitionists and Suffragists??

[Gothmog]

21. I was amused also

[Eliot Rosewater]

44. I am exhausted, figthing KGB, GOP and you know who...too much

[Uncle Joe]

48. If you read history Abolitionists and Suffragists were laughed at and ridiculed as well. n/t

[NurseJackie]

49. Oh, yes! That TOTALLY makes Our Revolution *just like* Abolitionists and Suffragists! :-D

Abolitionists and Suffragists were laughed at and ridiculed as well.

Oh, yes! That TOTALLY makes Our Revolution just like Abolitionists and Suffragists! So many similarities, you can barely tell them apart! It's uncanny!

GMAFB!

[Uncle Joe]

51. The commonality is fighting the good fight when it was't popular with the powers that be. n/t

[NurseJackie]

53. Oh, yes! That TOTALLY makes Our Revolution *just like* Abolitionists and Suffragists! :-D

The commonality is fighting the good fight when it was't popular with the powers that be. n/t

Oh, yes! That TOTALLY makes Our Revolution *just like* Abolitionists and Suffragists!

[Uncle Joe]

58. I never said they were the same, even the Abolitionist and Suffragists movements weren't "the same"

Women didn't get the right to vote when slavery ended, that didn't come until 55 years later.

[NurseJackie]

66. Oh, bull! Your meaning was clear! Stop splitting hairs!

58. I never said they were the same,

Oh, bull! Your meaning was clear! The extremely delicate way you're splitting hairs and playing word games tells me that you're already aware that you're arguing from an extreme position of weakness.

You were trying to imply that "Our Revolution" was just as noble and righteous a cause as the ones of the Abolitionists and Suffragists. I'm sorry to be the one to have to break it to you... but "Our Revolution" doesn't come close. Their "leader" is just a bitter malcontent. She's ineffective and vain.

Turner is just as bad as Sarandon and Stein.

[Uncle Joe]

70. Wrong again, this was my original post on this subject to which you responded

Everything is relative, if the Abolitionist or Suffragist Movements had been given two years

we would still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.

and that was in response to this post of yours

You consider this success?

That is really amusing given the number of major defeats by this group. You were aware of the Ohio and Virginia governor races. The margins in the Texas defeats by Our Revolution candidates were significant.

This group is having major issues including staff departures. You are welcome to waste your time but I will be supporting real democrats

You're ready to label Our Revolution DOA after only two years of startup and the 2018 primaries just beginning so my point was nothing but an illustration of history that progressive movements take time to develop.

Please don't put words in mouth, I stand by what I posted.

[NurseJackie]

74. Your meaning was clear. The flattery being heaped onto "Our Revolution" is totally undeserved...

Your meaning was clear. The flattery being heaped onto "Our Revolution" is totally undeserved. I'm smarter than you're giving me credit for. I can read. I know what you meant and where you were going with your comparisons.

Please don't put words in mouth, I stand by what I posted.

Nobody is doing that. But I can tell you that Our Revolution is NOTHING at all like those noble and righteous warriors of equality and humanity. "Our Revolution" is just a bunch of whiny purist malcontents, that have nothing better to do than to flatter themselves by smearing and denigrating the Democratic party and Democratic leaders and Democratic candidates. What they do disgusting. Why anyone would want to "stand by" that organization is beyond me... but it's a free country. Knock yerself out.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Well then we are making progress, you do acknowledge it's a free country

Part of those freedoms include freedom of expression, my meaning was clear despite your attempts to muddy it up with your mind reading abilities and cynical spin.

Future history will determine the righteousness of Our Revolution, not you crystal ball.

[NurseJackie]

79. Oh, good Lord. GMAFB!

you do acknowledge it's a free country

Oh, good Lord. GMAFB! Nobody ever argued otherwise.

Part of those freedoms include freedom of expression,

Boo-hoo! So now I'm infringing on your "freedoms"? Good fucking grief! I'm sorry, but before you embarrass yourself any further by pursuing these absurd accusations against me, I must let you know that my scorn and criticism of "Our Revolution" does NOT infringe on your "freedom of expression" or "freedom of association"

my meaning was clear

Thank you for finally admitting the truth. "Our Revolution" can in NO WAY be compared to the righteous causes taken up by the Abolitionists and the Suffragists! I'm happy to see that we're finally making progress. My opinion of you may have just gone up a notch.

Future history will determine the righteousness of Our Revolution,

Oh the irony! How rich! Especially in light of your accusations of my "mind reading abilities".

There is nothing righteous about "Our Revolution". It's a groups that run by misfits, bitter losers, and angry malcontents seeking "revenge" on Democrats. They have no genuine influence or positive power in their own right, so they assume that playing the role of spoiler and destroyer can be a substitute for actual power. Turner is more interested in her own glory and purity than in actually helping the Democratic party to defeat the GOP. Everything she does to damage the Democratic party only serves to HELP the GOP. There are no two ways about it.

not you crystal ball.

I live in the real world.

[Uncle Joe]

83. This is a waste of time, enjoy your "real world"

[WIProgressive88]

120. Why is this kind of nonsense allowed here?

You obviously know that you are distorting what Uncle Joe actually meant, but you're just hellbent engaging in a game of "gotcha" without any intent to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion. Typical.

[NurseJackie]

126. Nobody is doing that.

but you're just hellbent engaging in a game of "gotcha"

Nobody is doing that.

You obviously know that you are distorting what Uncle Joe actually meant,

Oh good god! GMAFB, will ya?! I know what he said. I can read. I called him on it, and he defended it. There's no "distorting" going on here. He defended it.

without any intent to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.

I've added plenty to the conversation by pointing out and correcting the obvious flaws in the argument that the OP relies so heavily upon.

Typical.

That sentiment goes double for me.

120. Why is this kind of nonsense allowed here?

Take it up with the admins.

[sheshe2]

80. And slavery did not end until the start of WWII

Slavery By Another Name by Douglas Blackmon. Just an FYI if you are counting, Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

85. If you want to get technical sheshe, slavery still exists to this day but as an institution

it was outlawed in 1865 here in the U.S. but women weren't given the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

[sheshe2]

93. Well of course it is still going on...different name different game.

Yet you inferred it ended with the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not. WWII started in 1937, 17 years after women got the vote. FYI, women and black men and women are still fighting for the right to vote.

[Uncle Joe]

96. I didn't see a link to any article regarding to what you're referring to? n/t

[sheshe2]

102. I read the book.

Figured you would google it if interested. Lots of info here and it is heartbreaking.

http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/about/


http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/home/

[Uncle Joe]

103. I knew about Jim Crow but thanks for the links sheshe.

I believe for profit prisons to be the 21st century version of slavery.

[sheshe2]

108. I stated that above, it still exists.

Also gave you the link you requested, yet no comment so I guess you were not that interested.

Not sure why you keep repeating this over and over and over, and variations of said quote. What exactly is your point?

slavery still exists to this day but as an institution

it was outlawed in 1865 here in the U.S. but women weren't given the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

[Uncle Joe]

110. I will check the book out.

[ehrnst]

134. Fighting the powers that be is the only commonality that OR has with them...(nt)

[Demsrule86]

204. But they hired a Trumper so they don't really fight the powers that be...

Tezlyn Figaro...she supports Trump's immigration policy...no truly progressive group would do this.

[ehrnst]

207. True this. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

203. They hired a Trumper who agrees with Trump on immigration.

[Indepatriot]

115. You must be furious with the DNC/DCCC for losing over 1000 seats over the last 8 years!

[ehrnst]

131. So, gerrymandering and voter suppression had nothing to do with it...

it's the DCCC and the DNC.

Remind me - what part did the DNC play in those local elections?

And what does this have to do with Our Revolution's issues with internal chaos? Have they decided that they are a Democratic organization? I missed that.

Board members and Sanders presidential delegates from 2016 have raised questions about whether the group’s president, Nina Turner, is using her position to prepare for a presidential run of her own, and to settle scores with the Democratic National Committee from 2016.

Two weeks ago, the group’s board of directors nixed Turner’s attempt to install her personal political consultant and friend as her chief of staff, even though the person had no experience in political organizing and had praised President Donald Trump repeatedly and attacked immigrants on Fox News.

Monthly online fundraising totals have plummeted to just one-third of the group's take a year ago, based on an analysis of processing fees reported to the IRS by Act Blue, the tool Our Revolution uses, and verified by several people familiar with its finances. Our Revolution maintains that it’s still running a surplus and that repeat donations are steady.

Amid the poor fundraising, Our Revolution earlier this month filed paperwork to launch a PAC so Sanders can help it raise money directly and so the group can coordinate directly with campaigns.

A founding board member resigned last month, saying Our Revolution wasn’t paying adequate attention to Latino candidates and issues of importance to Latinos.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrats-2018-599331

[George II]

143. bwahahahahaha!!!!

[Demsrule86]

205. I am furious with the purity types who failed to show up at midterms and got us GOP run states,

a gerrymander and Gorsuch...of course in 16, it was just a shit show...no doubt there was stealing but if everyone had showed up and not voted for Jill Fucking Stein, Trump would not be president...less than what 7000 votes in three states is how he won You can only steal close elections so lets all vote and not have close elections. Vote Democratic always.

[Gothmog]

13. Here are some more findings from the Politico article

The findings in the Politico article do not paint a good picture for this organization https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrats-2018-599331

Among the findings of POLITICO’s examination of Our Revolution, based on interviews with two dozen sources inside and outside the organization:

Board members and Sanders presidential delegates from 2016 have raised questions about whether the group’s president, Nina Turner, is using her position to prepare for a presidential run of her own, and to settle scores with the Democratic National Committee from 2016.

Two weeks ago, the group’s board of directors nixed Turner’s attempt to install her personal political consultant and friend as her chief of staff, even though the person had no experience in political organizing and had praised President Donald Trump repeatedly and attacked immigrants on Fox News.

Monthly online fundraising totals have plummeted to just one-third of the group's take a year ago, based on an analysis of processing fees reported to the IRS by Act Blue, the tool Our Revolution uses, and verified by several people familiar with its finances. Our Revolution maintains that it’s still running a surplus and that repeat donations are steady.

Amid the poor fundraising, Our Revolution earlier this month filed paperwork to launch a PAC so Sanders can help it raise money directly and so the group can coordinate directly with campaigns.
A founding board member resigned last month, saying Our Revolution wasn’t paying adequate attention to Latino candidates and issues of importance to Latinos.

Some Sanders stalwarts worry that Our Revolution’s performance could have a harmful spillover effect if he runs again: Though Sanders himself continues to reshape Democratic politics, with many presidential contenders signing on to his “Medicare for All” bill and primaries across the country being fought further on the left’s turf than in decades, supporters warn that the senator himself will suffer if the group formed in his name is seen as weak and floundering.

Do you really believe that this organization is a success?

[Uncle Joe]

24. As is the case with most every startup, it does have growing pains but yes I believe it's a success

and this will become increasingly evident as the primaries roll along.

[NurseJackie]

90. "...startup..." Ha!

Success isn't measured by primaries. It's measured in the general. Our Revolution is very short sighted with their self serving vanity.

[ehrnst]

130. Indeed. (nt)

[Gothmog]

138. OR has not won any significant victories and is a joke

An endorsement by Our Revolution has no value in the real world

[ehrnst]

139. They will claim victory for a candidate that was up 10 points in a safe Democratic race.

I suppose that they needed to back a winning horse in order to salvage their record.

However, fundraising isn't going well for them. No wonder. But they do raise enough to pay the staff, if nothing else.

[Gothmog]

140. I seriously doubt that this organization will be around long

It is really a joke. Nina Turner is not really a democrat and her sole goal is to hurt the party.

[elehhhhna]

155. I know Bankston. If he says its BS, its BS.

I'm with Sri

[George II]

9. Speaking of good reads, here's one as well (CM is the interviewer):

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

Excerpts:

CM: How will Our Revolution relate to the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, that kind of establishment that so many activists and politicians, including you, have frequently criticized?

NT: I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us.

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

CM: And how will Our Revolution relate to progressives within government who didn’t back Bernie, like Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin, if they go on to seek reelection?

NT: If they want Our Revolution’s endorsement they will seek it like everybody else and so they gotta start with the local affiliates, and if the local affiliates say that this is the person that we want to back, then there it is. There it is.

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

CM: And what about the Democratic Party at large. Do you see Our Revolution working to bring some unity to factions in the party?

NT: No. Not really.

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

CM: Will the group be endorsing non-Democrats?

NT: You know what, yes. We are open to it. And for me, I’ve also heard the senator say this lately too

[Uncle Joe]

14. That brings me to a D.U. poll which I posted here on May 29th as to priorities and an MLK

quote.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210671000

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_166528

[Gothmog]

16. Has sanders ever accomplished anything in the real world?

I looked and could not find any major legislative accomplishments. Are there any? If you want to make a movement, then don't you need some accomplishments to point to?

[Uncle Joe]

22. Well apparently the American People disagree with your assessment as to Bernie's worth or value

The latest Harvard-Harris poll, conducted between October 14 and October 18, affirms that voters are increasingly favoring Sen. Bernie Sanders and progressivism while President Donald Trump’s favorability continues its downward spiral.

Sanders’ total favorability in this latest poll is 53 percent, and it is highest among hispanics (66 percent) and African-Americans (77 percent). His numbers dwarf other leading politicians’ on the left and right, including Hillary Clinton, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. Donald Trump’s unfavorable ratings were the highest of any politician included at 56 percent. Only 37 percent of respondents view Sanders’ unfavorably.

The poll also asked registered Democrats if they support the party embracing progressive policies and moving further to the left. Fifty-two percent of total respondents were in favor, including 69 percent of millennials, 55 percent of women, 65 percent of Hispanics, and 55 percent of African-American Democratic Party voters.

Since Trump’s election, several polls have found that Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, including previous Harvard-Harris polls conducted earlier this year. Additionally, a July 2017 Morning Consult poll and a survey conducted by Fox News in March 2017 found similar results. A July 2017 poll conducted by Public Policy Polling found that Sanders would defeat Trump by 13 percentage points if a general presidential election was held at that time.

(snip)

http://observer.com/2017/10/sanders-is-most-popular-us-politician-and-trump-is-least-popular/

[George II]

30. Oh God, THAT poll again!! Have you read the methodology of that (9 month old) poll?

To start with, the pollster admitted that the numbers were manipulated:

"This survey was conducted online within the United States between October 14-18, 2017 among 2,159
registered voters by The Harris Poll. The results reflect a nationally representative sample. Results
were weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income,
employment, political party, political affiliation, and education where necessary to align them with
their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for
respondents’ propensity to be online."

Plus, of the hundreds of politicians in the House and Senate, and the thousands of other politicians in the country, that poll chose a very tiny sampling of "politicians", only thirteen, three of which have never even run for office!

Where's Cory Booker? Where's Kamala Harris? Where's Andrew Cuomo? Where's Kirsten Gillibrand? And where are dozens of other very popular and well-respected politicians?

Respectfully, that poll is unduly biased and skewed.

[Uncle Joe]

33. That poll is not an island in the ocean, Bernie's poll rankings have him consistently ranked

at the top.

(snip)

America’s Most and Least Popular Senators

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) retained his spot atop the rankings after picking up 11 points from the previous quarter — 72 percent of registered voters in the Green Mountain State approve of his job performance. The most popular Republican in the chamber, Conference Chairman John Thune of South Dakota, gained 10 points. The Senate’s No. 3 Republican also ranks as the third-most popular senator, with 62 percent of constituents approving of his work.

(snip)

https://morningconsult.com/2018/04/12/americas-most-and-least-popular-senators/

[NurseJackie]

41. ...

[Uncle Joe]

43. ...

[George II]

61. I had a bet with a UK bookie that this poll would show up here sooner or later...

...I had to give up huge odds but it was a sure thing.

Once again, like your previous poll, did you look at the methodology of that poll? Respondents from each Senator's OWN state could only rate their OWN Senator. That means that Vermonters could only rate their own Senator, not Senators from any other state. Same for New Yorkers, Californians, Texans, etc.

Yet another skewed and unrealistic "poll".

Vermont has about 600,000 residents, 95% of whom are the same race as Sanders.

On the other hand, California has 40,000,000 residents, SIXTY FIVE times more.

So, how much easier would it be to be "popular" with a small room with a handful of people as opposed to an auditorium full of people?

[lapucelle]

136. My town (Hempstead, NY) has more people in it and is mor diverse. N/T

[Gothmog]

54. So you are admitting that sanders has no legislative accomplishments

Doing well in a bogus poll is not really an accomplishment.

BTW, sanders is polling behind Biden and Harris in the recent polls http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/382510-why-smokin-joe-leads-the-pack-of-2020-democratic-hopefuls

There are two tiers of support for possible Democratic presidential candidates. Biden leads the first tier with the support of more than eight in 10 (84 percent) Democrats who say they might support his candidacy if he makes the race.

Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (75 percent) and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (68 percent) follow the former vice president in Tier No. 1.

In Tier No. 2, about half of all Democrats say they might support Sens. Kamla Harris of California (53 percent), Cory Booker of New Jersey (50 percent) or Kristen Gillibrand of New York (48 percent). None of the other possible Democratic candidates have very much national name recognition.

If you can find any real accomplishments by Sanders, please list them

[Uncle Joe]

78. I believe you misread your own post, it has Bernie in second place not third. As for Bernie's record

he has done well in the system that we have especially considering Republican domination of Congress and big money's powerful influence made only worse by Citizens United.

The list below includes legislation and amendments.

(snip)

December 2007: Sanders’ authored energy efficiency and conservation grant program passes into law. He later secures $3.2 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the grant program.

September 2008: Thanks to Sanders’ efforts, funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding doubles, helping millions of low-income Americans heat their homes in winter.

February 2009: Sanders works with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to pass an amendment to an economic recovery bill preventing Wall Street banks that take taxpayer bailouts from replacing laid-off U.S. workers with exploited and poorly-paid foreign workers.

December 2009: Sanders passes language in the Affordable Care Act to allow states to apply for waivers to implement pilot health care systems by 2017. The legislation allows states to adopt more comprehensive systems to cover more people at lower costs.

March 2010: President Barack Obama signs into law the Affordable Care Act with a major Sanders provision to expand federally qualified community health centers. Sanders secures $12.5 billion in funding for the program which now serves more than 25 million Americans. Another $1.5 billion from a Sanders provision went to the National Health Service Corps for scholarships and loan repayment for doctors and nurses who practice in under-served communities.

July 2010: Sanders works with Republican Congressman Ron Paul in the House to pass a measure as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill to audit the Federal Reserve, revealing how the independent agency gave $16 trillion in near zero-interest loans to big banks and businesses after the 2008 economic collapse.

March 2013: Sanders, now chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and backed by seniors, women, veterans, labor unions and disabled Americans, leads a successful effort to stop a “chained-CPI” proposal supported by Congressional Republicans and the Administration to cut Social Security and disabled veterans’ benefits.

April 2013: Sanders introduces legislation to break up major Wall Street banks so large that the collapse of one could send the overall economy into a downward spiral.

August 2014: A bipartisan $16.5 billion veterans bill written by Sen. Sanders, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jeff Miller is signed into law by President Barack Obama. The measure includes $5 billion for the VA to hire more doctors and health professionals to meet growing demand for care.

January 2015: Sanders takes over as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, using the platform to fight for his economic agenda for the American middle class.

January 2015: Sanders votes against the Keystone XL pipeline, which would allow multinational corporation TransCanada to transport dirty tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

March 2015: Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation to expand benefits and strengthen the retirement program for generations to come. The Social Security Expansion Act was filed on the same day Sanders and other senators received the petitions signed by 2 million Americans, gathered by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

September 2015: Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) today introduced bills to ban private prisons [which have been 3 to 4 times as expensive with much higher rates of prisoner abuse, guard injury than government run prisons], reinstate the federal parole system and eliminate quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention.

January 2016: Sanders Places Hold on FDA Nominee Dr. Robert Califf because of his close ties to the pharmaceutical industry and lack of commitment to lowering drug prices. There is no reason to believe that he would make the FDA work for ordinary Americans, rather than just the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-legislative-accomplishments-of-Bernie-Sanders

[Gothmog]

84. Thank you for the laughs

You left off the post offices that he has named. It is no wonder why no one takes sanders seriously in the real world.

Again, the sanders revolution has been a flopped in the real world.

I will continue to support real democrats who have a chance of winning and getting something done in the real world

[Uncle Joe]

87. It's too bad they didn't take Bernie seriously when he argued against going to war with Iraq,

that's the "real world" for you.

[Gothmog]

95. Again, you keep leaving off all of the post offices that sanders has named

In the real world, the sanders revolution has been a bust. The fact that you think that anyone takes Nina Turner or Our Revolution seriously is amusing.

The good news is that Maryland has adopted a ballot access law that will require candidates to file tax returns to be on the ballot. California and New Jersey each adopted such laws but these bills were vetoed by governors who are either gone or will soon be gone. Several other blue states will be adopting these laws.

If the Democrats take control of the House, then the first thing that will happen is that trump's tax returns will be released and so trump will be less likely to challenge these laws. Even if sanders runs as a third party candidate, he will still have to comply with these laws to be on the ballot.

I really doubt that sanders will be running in 2020. I also doubt that the Our Revolution will survive after sanders announces that he is not running.

[Uncle Joe]

109. And you're leaving off about the disastrous decision to wage a war with Iraq for no good reason.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died or been maimed and this has only made matters worse in that region of the world.

[George II]

116. And yet he voted to fund the war each and every time it came up.

[betsuni]

123. Seems to me that voting against the war and then voting to fund it is ...

sort of a compromise.

[Demsrule86]

206. Old news...and as an independent from a small state, he didn't have to worry about getting

elected. Here is the deal breaker for me...for both OR and Senator Sanders...voted for him last time and I won't vote for him in a primary in 20.

"CM: Will the group be endorsing non-Democrats?

NT: You know what, yes. We are open to it. And for me, I’ve also heard the senator say this lately to

No coming back from that with me or many other Democrats.

[OilemFirchen]

76. Funny that this editorial fails to point out the 2nd and 3rd most "popular" politicians.

To wit: Mike Pence and Donald Trump, respectively.

Fantastic methodologies used, wouldn't you say?

[sheshe2]

91. About that poll

WTF is the "Harvard-Harris Poll," anyway?

I’m sure we’ve all been besieged by this barrage of information purporting to come from the “Harvard-Harris Poll.” Headlines like Poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities, and Poll reveals majority of Americans want Democrats to work with Trump, and Harvard Poll: Americans Brimming With Confidence on Jobs, Economy are drawing rapturous responses from the likes of Kellyanne Conway and Rush Limbaugh. According to one Hill article, “Harvard-Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and the Harris Poll.” Its “co-director” appears to be Mark Penn, apparently of Hillary Clinton 2008 fame. The “Harvard-Harris Poll” offers a lot of slick graphics to go with its snazzy numbers, but lacks that most elementary of internet accoutrements: a website.

So I looked for information about the “Harvard-Harris Poll” on the Harvard Center for American Political Studies website. Not a peep about this epoch-making collaboration. The same is true of the Harris Poll website, which looks like it might have died last month. I also checked to see if the Hill itself had announced the rollout somewhere along the line, but no dice. The "Harvard-Harris Poll” came online with no fanfare and just spouting some seriously strange looking numbers. I can’t believe that a site of the Hill’s quality has been catfished. I know for a fact that Mark Penn exists. But I can’t escape the feeling that something hinky is going on here. Somebody please clue me in.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/21/1636308/-WTF-is-the-Harvard-Harris-Poll-anyway



Hmmm

[Uncle Joe]

94. Go by Gothmog's poll then on post 54, it has Bernie in second place behind former

Vice-President Joe Biden, not bad for someone coming from such a small state as some people are quick to observe.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=207831

[lapucelle]

124. That data is old. BS has not appeared on the most popular list since January.

Your data is from October 2017. Despite all the touring, BS failed to make the list again in the most recent poll.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Final_HHP_May2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo-Rev1.pdf

[OnDoutside]

62. NT: I don't think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It's their job to fit in with us.

Yes, I believe Nina believes that.

[samnsara]

26. smh

[still_one]

27. Turner is a divisive figure and no leader

[NurseJackie]

40. Exactly right! She's in-it for herself and nobody else. Vanity-based showboating...

27. Turner is a divisive figure and no leader

Exactly right! She's in-it for herself and nobody else. Vanity-based showboating is her claim to fame. She can't even win a statewide election. She essentially disavows any loyalty to the Democratic party and Democratic candidates and she even expresses a willingness to support Republicans. She's all about herself and fundraising for the purpose of perpetuating an organization that exists solely to snipe, gripe, and fundraise.

All I'm trying to say is that "Our Revolution" does more harm to the Democratic party than good... AND... anything that causes harm to Democrats serves only to BENEFIT THE GOP! Anything that denigrates or divides Democrats is something that serves to BENEFIT THE GOP. Anything that smears Democratic candidates BENEFITS THE GOP! Anything that intentionally causes resentment and distrust within the Democratic party (you guessed it) only serves to BENEFIT THE GOP!

[ehrnst]

135. Bingo. (NT)

[MuseRider]

34. Thank you Uncle Joe!

I will read this later when I come back but bookmarking for now.

"Many of the people Our Revolution endorses are running for office for the first time. The idea is to start from the beginning and groom a new generation of talent. Much of the country’s attention is focused on nationwide races, but Turner believes that real change starts at the local level."

***BUT THEY HAVE NOT WON ANYTHING!!!!*** LOL, I guess would be more appropriate.

[Uncle Joe]

37. Precisely MuseRider, a forest doesn't grow overnight.

We're in this for the long haul.

Peace to you.

[NurseJackie]

47. Slash-and-burn is not the way to "grow a forest"...

a forest doesn't grow overnight.

Slash-and-burn is not the way to "grow a forest", overnight or otherwise.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Actually fire is natural and essential to a healthy forest

Despite the damage that can occur to property and people, good things can come out of forest fires, too.

Forest fires are a natural and necessary part of the ecosystem. Even healthy forests contain dead trees and decaying plant matter; when a fire turns them to ashes, nutrients return to the soil instead of remaining captive in old vegetation.

And, when fire rages through dry underbrush, it clears thick growth so sunlight can reach the forest floor and encourage the growth of native species. Fire frees these plants from the competition delivered by invasive weeds and eliminates diseases or droves of insects that may have been causing damage to old growth. Wildflowers begin to bloom abundantly.

Most young, healthy trees are resilient enough to survive a forest fire and will soon have a growth spurt, thanks to flames that thin light-banning canopies above [source: National Geographic]. And scientists report young-growth forests recovering from fire are home to more diverse species, in both plants and animals [source: Krock]. This is because the remnants of burned trees offer attractive habitats to birds and small mammals, and nutrients from burned vegetation continue to leach into the soil to fuel the birth of new plants [source: Pacific Biodiversity Institute].

At Tall Timbers Research Station in Tallahassee, Fla., an experiment that lasted nearly 40 decades provided telling results. The 23-acre (9.3-hectare) swath of land was not allowed to burn during that time. Plant diversity fell by 90 percent and one species of bird, red-cockaded woodpeckers, disappeared entirely [source: Eilperin]. In order to thrive, this ecosystem, like many others, needed fire.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/how-forest-fire-benefit-living-things-2.htm

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” ~~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

https://www.lightafire.com/quotations/authors/martin-luther-king-jr/

[NurseJackie]

52. Ha!! :-D That's not what "slash and burn" means

That's not what "slash and burn" means

Nice try though. Based on the amount of effort you put into the quick Googling, cutting/pasting and formatting, it's clear that I've touched a nerve.

[Uncle Joe]

59. That's funny the thing about perception because by your posts on this thread, I thought

I touched a nerve.

[NurseJackie]

67. Uh-huh. Yes. Of course you did.

I thought I touched a nerve.

Uh-huh. Yes. Of course you did. Riiiiight!

[Uncle Joe]

81. Didn't he get in trouble masturbating in a porno movie theater?

[NurseJackie]

86. Don't know. Don't care. Irrelevant.

Didn't he get in trouble masturbating in a porno movie theater?

Don't know. Don't care. Irrelevant.

But when someone tries to change the subject and distract and evade by attacking the actor in the animated gif, that really reveals a lot about the weakness of their own argument and position.

[Uncle Joe]

88. There was "no subject"

Peace to you NurseJackie

[NurseJackie]

92. Then why did you try to change it?

88. There was "no subject"

Then why did you try so hard to repeatedly change it? I'm smarter that you give me credit for. I see the game you're playing. It's not going to change the fact that Our Revolution is not a noble or righteous group.

[sheshe2]

224. OMG

50. Actually fire is natural and essential to a healthy forest



Despite the damage that can occur to property and people, good things can come out of forest fires, too.

California is burning right now! You quote a 2013 article. People are losing their homes. The vineyards are are dying. People are dying. Animals are dying. You say good things can come out of forest fires,despite the DAMAGE. Damage to property and PEOPLE? Burning to death is now just sluffed off as damage? My family is there and you post...

Forest fires are a natural and necessary part of the ecosystem. Even healthy forests contain dead trees and decaying plant matter; when a fire turns them to ashes, nutrients return to the soil instead of remaining captive in old vegetation.

So if my family dies then it is just natuaral and necessary part of the ecosystem.

Plus what does this even mean? WTF does this even mean in context to your post?

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” ~~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Uncle Joe]

226. You're responding to a post I made on June 4th and acting as if I just posted this?

Not to mention taking what I said completely out of context, I don't know why but I expected better from you sheshe.

[Gothmog]

163. LOL

Link to tweet

[Blue_Tires]

179. These people literally exhumed Zombie Dennis Kucinich and ran him in a race

That's more tragic than funny, imo

[DoctorJoJo]

55. Every Time I See Trump's Ugly Face, I See ....

... Nina Turner, Jill Stein, and Sarah Sarandon sitting right behind him!

[Gothmog]

57. Agreed

[Cha]

141. Yes, and every time I read those names I

I see trump's ugly face superimposed.

They own him.

[Gothmog]

56. Where Is The Bernie Revolution?

In the real world, the bernie revolution is a bust https://www.aliiez.com/where-is-the-bernie-revolution/

Democratic voters aren’t rushing to make Sanders the face of the Democratic Party. This is in part because Sanders and the candidates he has backed have had a difficult time attracting Black voters, while also proving his white working class hypothesis to be false. Sanders candidates like Dennis Kucinich who have defended Trump and criticized the Russia investigation have also found that Democratic voters want Democrats who won’t fall in line behind the President.

Sanders infamously claimed that the overwhelming majority of Trump voters weren’t racist or sexist. He has repeatedly criticized Democrats for “identity politics” and even said he was “humiliated that Democrats couldn’t reach the white working class.” This is part of the Sanders ideology–the idea that Democrats have turned their back on poor white rural voters in favor of a cosmopolitan, multicultural coalition that focuses on identity. But the narrative just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

For one, blue-collar whites have been fleeing the Democratic Party since the 1960’s, as The Atlantic has explored. At the same time, Black voters were leaving the Republican Party to become Democrats. The Civil Rights movement which intensified in the late 1950’s and culminated in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act led to blue-collar whites (actually white voters of all classes) trending toward the GOP. As the Republican Party embraced the southern strategy and former Dixiecrats, the Black voters left in the GOP became Democrats. The “identity politics” that moved blue-collar whites to the Republican Party was actually just Civil Rights and anti-Black attitudes.

This divide persists today, as studies have found that higher levels of racial resentment correlated with higher levels of Trump support.

This explains why Sanders has had so much trouble convincing Trump voters. Despite Sanders’ own anti-identity rhetoric, Trump voters still feel the Republican Party better represents their interests because their appeals to racial resentment are more overt.

In the real world, the Democratic Party base relies on the vote of African American voters. The so-called sanders revolution has been a complete flop with these voters.

[Uncle Joe]

60. What really happened

Bernie Sanders in the Deep South



Last week, I joined Bernie Sanders in Memphis, Tennessee, and Jackson, Mississippi, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Sanders was overwhelmingly well received by both passersby and the local audiences who came to hear him speak. But so far, the media coverage of his trip has revolved around a brief aside, in which Sanders faulted the Democratic Party for its recent legislative failures:

“The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure,” said Sanders. “People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama. He was obviously an extraordinary candidate, brilliant guy. But behind that reality, over the last ten years, Democrats have lost about 1,000 seats in state legislatures all across this country.”

Twitter erupted immediately, and critics, like former South Carolina representative Bakari Sellers, accused Sanders of “arrogance” and of “dismissing” President Obama. But Thursday’s critiques were only loosely tethered to Wednesday’s words, which, on their face, were fairly uncontroversial: Who could defend as successful the “almost unprecedented” loss of legislative seats over the last ten years, or Hillary Clinton’s defeat to game-show host Donald Trump? In Mississippi, when Sanders called the Democratic Party a “failure,” the audience erupted into applause. And of course, President Obama was a uniquely charismatic and brilliant president.

In fact, if Beale Street could talk, it would tell a very different story about Bernie Sanders than the now-familiar critique that he is insufficiently sensitive to racial issues. As I walked with Sanders down Memphis’s famous thoroughfare, his popularity, including among the predominantly black crowd attending the commemorative festivities, was self-evident. The senator was stopped every few feet by selfie-seekers and admirers. Yes: Perhaps this is to be expected of any politician with a national profile, but given his poor showing in Mississippi during the 2016 Democratic primary, in which he secured less than 17 percent of the black vote, I had thought the senator and his small cohort might go unnoticed. I was wrong.

(snip)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/what-really-happened-when-bernie-sanders-went-to-mississippi.html

The mistake that you make is in believing that time is static, this isn't the 1960s anymore when corporate CEOs made on average 24 times that of their average workers compared to approximately 300 times today.

That kind of income inequality is unsustainable and these numbers harkens back to the 1920s just prior to the Great Depression.

[Gothmog]

68. I was a delegate to the national convention

Delegates are vetted carefully by campaigns. I was a Clinton delegate and I know I was vetted. The only vetting that I saw was that the Sanders campaign removed one duly elected sanders delegate because that delegate would not say that he hated Hillary Clinton. This occurred at the Texas Democratic Convention but this delegate was allowed to attend as a guest due to the poor treatment of this young man by the Sanders campaign.

At the convention, I was notified by my whip that the sanders delegates were going to boo Congressman John Lewis. This was a planned stunt by the sanders delegates and I heard that sanders was informed of the stunt and did not take any action to stop it. I note that the sanders supporters on JPR were very proud of this stunt https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hey-john-lewis-karmas-a-mf-aint-it/ Later other sanders delegates booed Congressman John Lewis at another event.

The Texas and Georgia delegations shared a bus to the convention site. There were some pissed off members of the Georgia delegation. I would love to see sanders run again in the south. The planned attacks on Congressman John Lewis would make a great tv ad if Sanders ever ran in the south again.

[Gothmog]

98. OPINION: Mississippi Women's Activist - Bernie Sanders Can't Come to the Cookout

There were other African Americans at this event and they had a different opinion. See https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10451741

[Uncle Joe]

101. Well that's the wonderful thing about America everyone is entitled to their opinion

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago/

[Gothmog]

105. And yet Sanders delegates attacked a true hero, John Lewis

I was at the National Convention. The Clinton delegates were warned about about sanders delegates plan to boo Congressman John Lewis 20 to 30 minutes before it occurred. This was a planned stunt and sanders was evidently told about this stunt but took no action. Again, the Texas delegation shared a bus line with the Georgia delegation. There were some pissed off members of the Georgia delegation. It would be fun to see sanders run in the areas where Congressman John Lewis is treated as a national treasure. My whip would be happy to appear in a commercial on this.

I have heard Congressman John Lewis tell his "preaching to chicken" story four times in person. If I had to decide between sanders and Congressman Lewis, I can tell who I would support.

Again, sanders will never release his tax returns and I expect Our Revolution to fall apart long before sanders announces that he is not running in 2020.

You can pretend that Our Revolution is a real movement and I will continue to support real democrats who will actually accomplish something if elected

[Uncle Joe]

111. Bernie may or may not run and Our Revolution may or may succeed but it's too early to tell on either

case.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional-black-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement

The primary season is just beginning.

[Gothmog]

128. Our Revolution is not a serious movement in the real world

I doubt that this so-called movement survives the midterms.

[NurseJackie]

106. Nobody claimed otherwise.

everyone is entitled to their opinion

Nobody claimed otherwise. This is irrelevant. It's well-known and long-accepted that this is not a very good way to argue in support of one's opinion. If this is the best argument that can be made, then it's pretty clear that everything else must be fairly watered down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

I'm entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a logical fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion. The statement exemplifies a red herring or Thought-terminating cliché. The logical fallacy is often presented as Let's agree to disagree. Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. To assert the existence of the right is a failure to assert any justification for the opinion. Such an assertion, however, can also be an assertion of one's own freedom or of a refusal to participate in the system of logic at hand.[1][2][3]

Philosopher Patrick Stokes has described the expression as problematic because it is often used to defend factually indefensible positions or to "[imply] an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise".[4]

[comradebillyboy]

64. Is this some sort of bad joke?

[Uncle Joe]

72. No it's an article about Nina Turner and Our Revolution

[NurseJackie]

97. TRANSLATION: Yes. It's a joke. A bad joke.

[Uncle Joe]

99. I thought you might like this video NurseJackie

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017495274


Peace to you

[NurseJackie]

100. You thought wrong.

[Uncle Joe]

104. It was about nurses and stuff so I thought you might like it

[NurseJackie]

107. You thought wrong.

[Gothmog]

164. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[Me.]

65. Nina 'I Could Vote For Republicans' Turner?

That one, who thought BS would pick her as his veep? And who's counting but I'd like the names of those 75 electoral wins and class president doesn't count.

[Uncle Joe]

73. Nina Turner "I believe the Democratic Party is worth fighting for

"I believe that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for."


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

[Me.]

77. Past Lives Don't Count

“Upon taking over as president of ‘Our Revolution’, Bernie Sanders’ organization, Nina Turner was interviewed by Collier Meyerson and asked “How will Our Revolution relate to the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, that kind of establishment that so many activists and politicians, including you, have frequently criticized?” Her response was “I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us.” That mirrors how Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has handled his entire political career. It is also why he has few real accomplishments to his name after over forty years in office.”…

“There were a number of other surprising statements from Turner in the same Meyerson interview. They include who ‘Our Revolution’ would consider endorsing. She said “And for me, I’ve also heard the senator (referring to Sanders) say this lately too: Let’s put the political affiliation to the side. If there is a Republican or a Libertarian or Green Party person that believes in Medicare for all, then that’s our kind of person. If there’s somebody that believes that Citizens United needs to be overturned, that we need the 28th amendment to the Constitution that declares that money, corporate money, is not speech and that corporations should not have more speech than Mrs. Johnson down the street and Mr. Gonzalez around the corner, then that’s our kind of people.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-turner-our-revolution-president-from-democrat_us_595a4413e4b0c85b96c66373

[ehrnst]

137. Via "Our Revolution?"

A PAC that accepts dark money?

That's an odd way to fight for the Democratic Party.

[Kurt V.]

82. Uncle Joe

you definitely have my respect

[Uncle Joe]

89. Thank you for the kind words Kurt V

[appalachiablue]

112. Appreciate the article, UJ. Keep the faith; we all face common challenge now.

Jack Dempsey, World Heavyweight Champion v. Tommy Gibbons, Shelby, MT, July 4th, 1923

[Uncle Joe]

113. I will in regards to the former and I agree with you on the latter

Peace to you appalachiablue

[still_one]

117. It was those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee that helped

pave the way for the person who occupies the WH


Sound familiar?

[betsuni]

121. What "myriad of mistakes"?

Since the 70s, Republicans co-opted evangelicals, created corporate-funded think tanks to write legislation and influence policy, lobbying, took over the media, redistricted in order to choose their voters, suppressing voter turn-out, demonized liberals, etc. Long term single-minded highly organized corrupt Republican scam for money and power. But that's all Democrats fault, right?

[OilemFirchen]

122. No it's not.

There IS , however, a massive movement underfoot by women, including a remarkable cadre of women of color. And it's not being being "led" by any one individual, nor a woefully-misnomered group of pathetic malcontents - most of whom are entitled, white, selfish hipster punks.

[ck4829]

125. Kick

[Gothmog]

127. Bernie Sanders' Revolution Isn't Carrying His Candidates Through The Midterms

The Our Revolution movement is a failure https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/bernie-sanders-revolution-isnt-carrying-his-candidates-through-the-midterms

Sanders has stayed out of most Democratic primary races, doing little to support a number of candidates who’ve embraced his populist calls for Medicare for all, free college and a $15 national minimum wage. When he has gotten involved in competitive primaries, his candidates have lost more races than they’ve won.

Sanders has endorsed in just nine competitive federal or statewide primary campaigns so far this election cycle, even as hordes of candidates have rushed to paint themselves as mini-Bernies across the country. Of those, just one Sanders-backed candidate has won a competitive House primary this year – and that was former Chicago mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia, who has a solid political base of his own in the city’s Hispanic community following his 2015 run for mayor and would have won without Sanders’ help.

Many other Bernie-backed candidates have gone down. Former Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) lost his primary to now-Gov. Ralph Northam (D) last year after Sanders held a rally for him. Former Philadelphia Deputy Mayor Rich Lazer (D) finished in third place in his bid for an open congressional seat in the city’s inner suburbs a few weeks ago after Sanders endorsed him. So did pastor Greg Edwards in a nearby House race, even though Sanders came into the district to hold a rally for him. Democrat Heath Mello lost the general election for Omaha mayor in spite of Sanders’ support. Marie Newman lost her primary challenge to moderate Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) after Sanders endorsed her as well, though her bigger boosters were groups like EMILY’s List, and Sanders wasn’t as involved.

Sanders can also count Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams (D) and Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor nominee John Fetterman (D) as candidates he endorsed that won their contested primaries. But both of them had statewide name recognition beforehand, and Abrams especially had broad-based backing from much of the Democratic establishment and other big-name endorsers.

[ehrnst]

129. Stacey Abrams was booed by the "progressive left" at the Dem Convention

when she mentioned John Lewis. She was invited to speak by Hillary.

I don't think that Nina Turner had any part in Stacey Abrams' success.

[Uncle Joe]

132. A logical fallacy

I need to go take care of business but will be back later if you wish to pursue this.

[ehrnst]

133. What part of my statement was fallacious or illogical?

She did speak at the convention at the invitation of Hillary, and was booed when she mentioned John Lewis.

Which are you refuting?

To claim her victory as OR's also glosses over that EMILY's List worked with her, and she was endorsed by groups that have been dismissed by Sanders as "establishment."

[Uncle Joe]

145. The fact that some progressives were upset with John has nothing to do with Nina's support of Stacy

https://www.facebook.com/stacey.abrams.77/videos/653252258200706/


https://ourrevolution.com/candidates/stacey-abrams/

Link to tweet

Stacey Abrams was booed by the "progressive left" at the Dem Convention

when she mentioned John Lewis. She was invited to speak by Hillary.

I don't think that Nina Turner had any part in Stacey Abrams' success.

[ehrnst]

148. I don't consider anyone who boos any mention of John Lewis to be "progressive."

Nina Turner aligns with them.

Stacey Abrams was a Hillary supporting Democrat. Why would one assume that Nina had anything to do with Stacey's success?


Is that clearer?

[Uncle Joe]

150. I supplied the record reflecting Nina's endorsement and pleas for supporting Stacy

if you choose ignore it, that's not problem.

Nina and Our Revolution certainly weren't alone in endorsing and supporting Stacy but to discount it as meaning nothing is to deny logic.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

156. You seemed to be confused as to what I said.

Here it is again:

I don't think that Nina Turner had any part in Stacey Abrams' success.

I don't care what Turner said or didn't say. Hell, I said that Abrams was a good candidate. Does that make me the catalyst of Abrams' success?

What I posited was that Turner wasn't in any way the catalyst of Abrams' success. Turner can say whatever pops intoher mind, but that doesn't mean that it had an effect on Abrams getting elected - Abrams, who had the backing of Hillary and those dastardly "establishment groups" before she had Turner's.

But if jumping on that bandwagon helps to shore up a losing record of endorsements, then I'm sure those who want to believe that record to be better than it is will credit Turner with being not only a visionary but a reason for Abrams' self directed success..

[Uncle Joe]

158. Your're correct about one thing, Stacey is a good candidate

(snip)

The realty is, Democrats cannot win by pretending to be Republicans, Republicans see through it and Democrats see through it. I want to win by turning out voters who want the best lives possible. And that’s how I ran this campaign, and that’s how we’re going to win in November.

(snip)

Absolutely.

And part of what we were facing when you and I spoke a few years ago was that we were nearing the end of the campaign and there hadn’t been the investment in voters everywhere. There hadn’t been that deep investment in lifting up their voices.

That’s what we have done differently in this campaign. But we have not only done that for young African-Americans. We had one of the highest turn out of Latino voters in Georgia history. We had a high turnout among Asia-Pacific Islanders.

(snip)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/stacey-abrams-democrats-cant-win-by-pretending-to-be-republicans

But the progressive movement brought to the forefront by Bernie, Nina and Our Revolution certainly helped make the atmosphere more friendly for Stacey even in Georgia.

No doubt you do make an impact with your posts along with other D.U.ers. (ripples in the pond) but I would contend Bernie, Nina and Our Revolution do have greater influence.

Having said that, to go back to your original post you didn't mention "catalyst" you said that "Nina didn't have any part"

As I stated before many people and major groups endorsed Stacey but one can't logically deduct a given leader or group and say they had no influence.

[ehrnst]

165. So Bernie and OR are responsible for "making a more friendly atmosphere" for Abrams.

I think Bernie's concern for and influence in the South has been demonstrated pretty clearly in recent years....

No doubt you do make an impact with your posts along with other D.U.ers. (ripples in the pond) but I would contend Bernie, Nina and Our Revolution do have greater influence.

Please do tell me where I said or even implied that my DU posts, or any DU posts had any impact, were more of a catalyst than any PAC. Perhaps you took my comment comparing their support of Abrams with mine in terms of being a catalyst in Abrams' success literally. But I don't think so... "ripples"

OR also took credit for the election a Georgia mayoral candidate who ran Hillary's Georgia campaign, in a solid blue district. Because that black man couldn't have done it on the basis of his own savvy, chops gained working in "the establishment" and understanding of his constituents without Bernie "making the atmosphere welcoming." That attitude was the topic of many irritated opinion pieces by African American writers. I also recall many here on DU discussing that Bernie somehow gave John Lewis the "courage" or the "inspiration" for his sit in on Gun Safety legislation.



I see more than a little of that with Abrams' victory. OR is even more desperate now to appear politically relevant, and with all of the chaos going on internally, and donations falling off.


(edited this morning to add)

Link to tweet

[Uncle Joe]

169. You didn't,

Please do tell me where I said or even implied that my DU posts, or any DU posts had any impact, were more of a catalyst than any PAC. Perhaps you took my comment comparing their support of Abrams with mine in terms of being a catalyst in Abrams' success literally. But I don't think so... "ripples"

My point is that our posts do matter, they're as ripples in the pond, they may be small even grains of sand on an individual basis but as the numbers grow they make bigger waves.

Nothing I have posted takes away from any candidates abilities or circumstances ultimately they all fall and rise on their own "the buck stops with them" but having endorsements, speeches on the candidate's behalf along with grass roots movements supporting their candidacy and proposed policies does have an impact.

No one certainly not Bernie ever stated this would be easy or happen overnight but it is happening. Growing the grassroots takes time and history has repeatedly shown that, by their very nature progressive movements battle against powerful and well financed interests.

It's an uphill fight, we will win some and lose some but it's the only way to change the status quo; from whatever that is in a given point in history.

[Gothmog]

170. Sanders had no effect on the Georgia race

OR had a really bad night last night. How long can this failing organization hold together in the light of these high profile defeats?

[ehrnst]

171. Would you define for me what you mean by "status quo?"

It's often used as a perjorative, but I never hear an actual definition.

Who or what are you defining?

[Uncle Joe]

183. Thank you for asking ehrnst

Before describing my perception of what the status quo is today I need to begin with a little history to reflect how I believe we got to this point, so bear with me.

The basic underpinning of today's status quo is corporate and oligarchic supremacy.

We didn't out start that way as a nation when the Founders ratified the U.S. Constitution with the Preamble's first three words "We the People" they were thinking of living breathing individuals at least insofar as the highest ideal of that statement meant and that government was of the people.

Ronald Reagan would eventually flip that idealistic concept to "government is the problem."

Of course in 1788 "We the People's" government didn't live up to the highest ideals of that declaration insofar as true democracy, the plight of the slaves, women, Native Americans and poor white men were concerned but it was an aspiration to aim for even if many of 18th century Americans weren't ready for it in their day.

Love him or hate him Andrew Jackson our Seventh President and first elected by the common man had major influence for decades after his terms ended that being the Jacksonian Era lasting up until the Civil War. He ran his campaigns against D.C. corruption as an outsider, he defied the Supreme Court as President, sent the Cherokee on the tragic Trail of Tears, the only President to pay off the national debt, prevented South Carolina from seceding, fought duels and was looked down on by the elite.

Jackson was a man of extremes did good stuff and evil shit but that's who Trump models himself after in his behavior and statements, there are some cosmic similarities as well being played out but to be sure also some chasmic differences.

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

I brought up Andy Jackson because A. Trump is trying to play that role, that's his model and B. the corporate media conglomerates along with many of today's elites and even Trump's opponents are either consciously or subconsciously elevating Trump to that kind of emotional impact among his supporters.

I will explain more about that with my summation.

I believe the birth of of modern day corporate supremacy began in 1886 when the incident below occurred basically taking the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868 protecting all individual rights and due process turning on its' head and setting the underpinnings for corporate person hood even though the court never ruled on that Constitutional question.

That which was to protect all Americans no matter their color or gender was subtly but eventually used as a tool to create an ever growing feudal system of government.

(snip)

The headnote, which is "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession",[3] was written by the court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company J.C. Bancroft Davis. He said the following:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.[4]

So the headnote was a reporting by the Court Reporter of the Chief Justice's interpretation of the Justices' opinions. But the issue of applicability of "Equal Protection to any persons" to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case.

(snip)

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.

This led to the Gilded Age and Robber Barons.

Another outcome was establishment of a U.S. empire way beyond our shores with the Spanish American War waged by a Republican President and instigated via the use of "Yellow Journalism" propaganda and our sugar industry's lobbying efforts. We took over Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines; on the other side of the planet. Ironically the land of the free which was against being ruled by kings was okay with owning an empire. We claimed to be fighting for Democracy but Smedley Butler for one would in time come to realize it was all a "racket."

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

Of course many of those same dynamics would play out again 105 years later in the war with Iraq but it was about oil not sugar.

In today's status quo Teddy Roosevelt; in trying to bust up the trusts or monopolies would be castigated by the elite as he was in his day, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal is under constant attack by the Reich Wing Republicans, weakly if at all defended by the corporate media conglomerates and FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" would in today's world have him branded as a Communist.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and renumerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

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

Joseph McCarthy's true witch hunts during the Red Scare years against Communists, perceived Communists or people he just disagreed with while eventually leading to his ruin did have a lasting impact in regards to the American Peoples' ambivalence about the First Amendment, faith in themselves and overall trust in our form of government. Basically the people didn't believe in checks and balances anymore at least not on a subconscious level, we were too scared and FDR's warning "We have noting to fear but fear itself" withered on the vine.

Of course Trump has connections to Joseph McCarthy as well.

Thirty years later, on the day after Donald J. Trump was elected president, Roger Stone was one of the callers who got through to his old friend at Trump Tower. “Mr. President,” said Stone. “Oh please, call me Donald,” Stone remembered Trump saying.

A few moments later, Trump sounded wistful. “Wouldn’t Roy love to see this moment? Boy, do we miss him.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-roy-cohn-relationship

Nixon's began the so called war on drugs in large part for cynical political purposes against blacks and Hippies; groups most opposed to the war in Vietnam. He ignored his own hand picked commission's recommendations in regards to decriminalizing Marijuana and treating drug addiction medical issue versus a criminal one. Reagan of course would take this to a whole new level along with doing his best at weakening unions.

As the prison population began to explode from the "war on drugs" most of them non-violent offenders creating millions of disenfranchised Americans labeled as felons that could no longer vote and finding it much more difficult to obtain meaningful employment combined with the peaking Baby Boomer generation (most crimes are committed by younger people) crime of all kinds escalated.

As progressive social economic policies were all but ignored at least since the days of Nixon and the safety net was slowly chipped away along with the illusory bubble of credit card usage and dual income earners becoming an increased necessity the middle class started falling behind, becoming under increased stress which of course was magnified by hate radio and FOX "News"

After the drubbings of McGovern and Carter the Democratic Party; took a step away from actual democracy and would again forget FDR's warning "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." They would establish the Hunt Commission and the creation of Super-delegates; with the equivalent of over 10,000 votes each removing power from the grass roots and transferring it to the elite of the party. The super-delegates could vote however they wished regardless of how their state voted. Mondale still loses in a landslide and H.W. Bush wins in 88. The Democratic Party moves further to the right, they were going to be tough on crime and the era of big government was over just when it was needed most.

With the advent of television in the 40s and 50s we only had 3 major commercial networks but radio and print journalism were more diversified, and much less conglomerated in their ownership.

We had rules against too much conglomeration of the "fourth estate" so as to give increased competition of opinion and information, to actually maintain a more free press.

As cable T.V. came about, the Fairness Doctrine being repealed under Reagan giving rise to hate radio and FOX "News" propaganda inflaming the people using fault line identity politics with the ever more conglomerating corporate media; via the Telecommunications Act of 1996 while meekly accepting the mythic label of being the "liberal media" as if in mega-corporate board rooms (authoritarian by their very nature) and having inherent economic conflicts of interests which are never mentioned on T.V. could/would ever actually champion or even just consistently keep progressive policies and critical issues affecting the vast majority of the American People at the forefront for debate is a stretch beyond imagination.

The corporate media conglomerates particularly T.V. have no issues with calling Russian billionaires oligarchs but have two blind eyes when it comes to labeling great American economic disparity and the 1% controlling over 40% of the nation's wealth.

By turning Presidential elections into personality contests or reality T.V. versus having sustained in-depth coverage of the critical issues affecting hundreds of millions of Americans, not to mention the world at large as global warming climate change, it's no wonder we got Trump occupying the White House.

But more than that as the corporate media conglomerates subjugate presenting quality information on a consistent basis to the people as a whole in deference to what makes them, their major commercial purchasers and shareholders the most bucks have eroded much their own credibility making it far easier for the likes of Trump to come in power and stay in power.

(snip)

Importance of News Media in Accomplishing Democratic Goals
How important is the role of the news media in accomplishing each of the following goals?
Critical Very important Somewhat important Not that important
%
%
%
%
Making sure Americans have the knowledge they need to be informed about public affairs 54 34 7 2
Holding leaders in politics, business and other institutions accountable for their actions 50 33 11 3
Providing objective news reports 47 38 10 2
Making residents feel connected to the U.S. as a whole 38 41 15 3
Making residents feel connected to their community 30 45 19 4
Aug. 4-Oct. 2, 2017
KNIGHT-GALLUP SURVEY ON TRUST, MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

At the same time, U.S. adults do not believe the media are playing any of these roles particularly well, with little distinction in the ratings of the various tasks. Roughly three in 10 say the media are performing each task well, while about four in 10 say poorly. Americans are somewhat less critical in their evaluations of the job the media is doing in making residents feel connected to their community, for which 28% say the media are doing well and 29% poorly.

Ratings of How News Media Performs in Accomplishing Key Democratic Goals
Very well/Well Acceptably Very poorly/Poorly Net ("well" minus "poorly" )
%
%
%
pct. pts.
Making sure Americans have the knowledge they need to be informed about public affairs 30 29 38 -8
Holding leaders in politics, business and other institutions accountable for their actions 30 26 42 -12
Providing objective news reports 30 26 40 -10
Making residents feel connected to their community 28 40 29 -1
Making residents feel connected to the U.S. as a whole 27 32 38 -11
Aug. 4-Oct. 2, 2017
KNIGHT-GALLUP SURVEY ON TRUST, MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

(snip)


http://news.gallup.com/poll/225470/media-seen-key-democracy-not-supporting.aspx

So all the hyping by the media about Trump's tweets only endears him to his base; which view the corporate media conglomerates as either liberal or elite, so that's the Andy Jackson effect and why I believe his poll numbers have been edging up from abysmal to just piss poor.

Running for elections, particularly major races is expensive so

Today's status quo is this, big money owns the Republican Party, dominates the Democratic Party and has greatly warped the corporate media conglomerates ability to lift and enlighten the American People, as a result we're the only advanced nation in the world that doesn't treat healthcare as a right, we have the largest prison population in the world with a 21st century version of slavery in the immoral for profit prison industry, our infrastructure is crumbling, we spend more on the military than the next seven nations combined to maintain our empire, our young people; face the very real prospects of having a lower standard of living than their parents from being saddled with oppressive education debt and that doesn't take into account the growing catastrophe of global warming climate change which they will mostly have to live with.

The media and political parties are most adept at playing identity or fault line politics, Democrat, Republican, men, women, black, white, Latino, old, young, gay, straight, religious, non-religious, North, South, etc. etc. etc. all that being division of course, they have it down to a science.

What they're not good at is consistently addressing and debating the critical substantive issues affecting all of the American People as a whole, what's best for the nation.

The status quo in short is the elevation of predatory capitalism over democracy in our national psyche.

[ehrnst]

184. Thank you for your explanation.

What they're not good at is consistently addressing and debating the critical substantive issues affecting all of the American People as a whole, what's best for the nation.

And what are those? I guess you don't consider the very real progress of the Democrats in actually addressing the areas of social justice as "addressing and debating the issues that affect all of the American people as a whole?"

The status quo in short is the elevation of predatory capitalism over democracy in our national psyche.

This is the reason that I vote Democratic - the only party that has achieved success in combating this since the Civil Rights era. Attacks (and I distinguish that from constructive criticism) on the Party are attacks on that progressive record.

[Uncle Joe]

185. Social justice has taken two steps forward and one step back, at best

The status quo, moneyed powers that be will much more readily accept social changes versus progressive economic reforms because the former doesn't directly affect their power and wealth so much and it's our decades long at least since the 70's economic dysfunctions which has hollowed out our nation, leaving us behind the world's more enlightened societies, we have fallen behind in health care and education and this affects all Americans.

To be sure, Civil Rights was and is great for the whole nation but here in the land of the free we also have the largest prison population in the world thanks in large part for enabling the imprisonment of our fellow Americans for profit ( an immoral institution if there ever was one) combined with the so called war on drugs, getting tough on crime instead of dealing with the macro economic fundamental issues adversely affecting our society and that increase stress at all levels. Millions of Americans have been disenfranchised from voting despite Civil Rights gains as a result.

[ehrnst]

186. So, because there are backlashes against social justice progress

as there always have been, you think that Democrats have not addressed or made progress on them?

The status quo in short is the elevation of predatory capitalism over democracy in our national psyche.

Who do you think is the "status quo"?

we have fallen behind in health care and education and this affects all Americans.

Yes, those are indeed two issues that affect Americans. They don't however, affect Americans of means, and that's an important thing to remember, especially when one tries to sell them on the idea of giving up what they have so that others get what they need.

You don't consider the ACA to have been addressing health care? It is the furthest down the road to universal health care coverage that we have ever been.

I think that so many women can tell you that Democrats successfully addressing the need to keep Planned Parenthood ('establishment' as it is....) is keeping a lifeline of health care to them. CHIP is another Democratic success in actually getting affordable health care to people. Hillary and Ted Kennedy moved mountains to get this implemented.

And the movement to get tuition free universities is progressing in several states.

It's an uphill fight, we will win some and lose some but it's the only way to change the status quo; from whatever that is in a given point in history.

One can complain about Democrats or any group in not being fast enough for you, but they are the ones getting uphill more succesfully than anyone else. They don't just talk about it. If the status quo is not changing fast enough or as expansively as you expect, I challenge you to find a party or individual that can do better.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy. Making the touchdowns, not so much. You need a real team of people fighting the status quo, because even the best real quarterback can't do it if they are alienating their teammates, coming in at the end of the season and lecturing them about how they totally could have have superbowl wins every year, if they just "tried."

[Uncle Joe]

187. There has been progress made particularly as of late

in regards to the War on Drugs.

The less than 1% are the major power brokers working to keep the status quo in place, they own the media.

Campaign finance was a already drag even before Citizens United was decided.

The ACA was an improvement and it had good features but the underlying problem of the ACA was in propping up or institutionalizing the dysfunctional for profit "health" insurance industry.

You don't consider the ACA to have been addressing health care? It is the furthest down the road to universal health care coverage that we have ever been.

It's not about "coverage" it's about health care and Medicare for All would be the best solution to our national health care woes.

There is no more logical or moral reason to tolerate a for profit "health" insurance industry than a for profit prison industry.

Yes, those are indeed two issues that affect Americans. They don't however, affect Americans of means, and that's an important thing to remember, especially when one tries to sell them on the idea of giving up what they have so that others get what they need.

That depends on what your definition of "means" is?

[ehrnst]

188. Medicare for All IS about health care coverage.....

Yes, it involves other elements, but tell me - what is the major difference between actual Medicare and private health care coverage?

The payer.

Think about it - if someone is denied coverage for care, chances are good they won't get that care. You would equate that with denying them health care. Medical professionals do not work for free.

That's why Sanders calls it "Medicare for all" despite the fact that it's different from Medicare in very significant ways. People associate the term "Medicare" with how it's paid for, and how much people pay out of pocket.

The ACA was an improvement and it had good features but the underlying problem of the ACA was in propping up or institutionalizing the dysfunctional for profit "health" insurance industry

.

It is progress. And incremental progress is the only way that it lasts. Social Security did not start out 75+ years ago covering those that it does now. It would never have passed. We could not implement it as it is, if we were to start now. Same with decades old health care systems we see in other countries. One reason that Medicare/Medicaid did pass in the time that it did is that LBJ was able to lie about what it would cost. That's not possible now with the CBO. And most other developed countries use private entities as part of health care coverage and delivery. (they, however, have been expanding and tweaking and adjusting for decades, and didn't do it in four years, and didn't start with a large portion of the population already on another system that they were attempting to replace wholesale.) Dysfunctional as our system is, it is baked in, and can't be upended in less than several decades without massive disruption to health care delivery, no matter what politician tells you it can.

That depends on what your definition of "means" is?

That they have the money to get their child the education that they want or need, and that they have health care coverage that they can afford. That cost differs for many especially depending on where they live, number of dependents, their health, as do their specific needs. "Education" and "health care" are vague terms, and "means" is the blanket term for being able to afford all of the variables.

Is that clearer?

The less than 1% are the major power brokers working to keep the status quo in place, they own the media.

Yes, we know that. So, how do you propose changing the way it's "addressed" since you clearly don't think that Democrats are doing what they can with what they have.

[Uncle Joe]

189. The major difference in Medicare for all and for profit private "health" insurance coverage

is there being no profit motive with the former.

Other effects would be a great simplification of the paperwork required by doctors, nurses and hospitals dealing with a myriad variety of insurance coverage forms and getting approval on treatments.

Medicare for All would unify this creating a national standard.

If people wish to pay private corporations for additional non-emergency cosmetic or elective surgery coverage they could certainly do so

Medical professionals don't work for free in most if not all the advanced nations that do cover their citizens with universal health care.

No one is asking them to do so under Medicare for All.

If the ultimate goal is universal health care, then incrementalize it into being don't institutionalize the for profit "health" insurance corporations.

We could have Medicare for All "incrementally" gradually reducing the age of eligibility.

As the age of eligibility is continually reduced adding younger Americans, the costs of Medicare will benefit as generally healthier Americans enter the risk pool.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/march/it%E2%80%99s-all-about-the-risk-pool

I believe the Democratic Party is and will keep moving more aggressively toward universal health care and am pleased about it.

Peace to you

[ehrnst]

190. So you agree - Medicare For All is about health care coverage.

If the ultimate goal is universal health care, then incrementalize it into being don't institutionalize the for profit "health" insurance corporations.

The ACA didn't "institutionalize" private health care insurance companies. What are you talking about? Is helping people pay their electric bill this month instead of banning coal fired plants "institutionalizing big coal?" Is helping get someone their insulin or bee sting antedote "institutionalizing Big Pharma?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. You get the people out of the burning building first, instead of arguing about who may have caused the fire. I think that the ACA is the first step of putting out the fire.

The Clinton Foundation worked with pharma companies for AIDS drugs. The foundation would negotiate with a company making the medication, and get them to bring down the cost of doses, if they could guarantee that a particular volume of the drug would be purchased by a developing nation. The foundation would then guarantee to purchase any of that volume that was not purchased by that nation. They were not demanding that the company lower its prices for everyone, and they didn't sit at the table and call them morally corrupt, and that enabled the drugs to get to people who needed them. Many lives were saved that would not have been, and that is the goal. No drug company was "institutionalized" but certainly the Clintons were made suspect for what was perceived as "coziness" with big pharma, and their success in saving those lives is used as 'proof' they are corporate shills.

You also don't seem to be aware that the rest of the industrialized world uses a mixture of public and private payers - with private companies functioning as contractors to the Government. Yes, they are heavily regulated, but yes they are private corporations. Holland, Germany and Switzerland all have mandatory insurance systems from private sector insurance companies. Germany has some 130 of them.

Many countries with UHC do not have a federally run health care system at all, it's run and paid for at the state/municipality level. They tend to be either almost hyper-local in their financing if they're single payer, or if they're national then they use insurance companies, they're multi-payer.

We could have Medicare for All "incrementally" gradually reducing the age of eligibility.

That was Hillary's plan - allowing people to buy in at 55, and expanding CHIP, doing both gradually. But she was called a corporate shill for daring to disagree with Sanders, and telling the truth that upending the delivery system all at once to replace it with a single federal payer system "isn't going to happen." Sanders also refuses to even talk about any lessons learned with Green Mountain Care - which shows either that he doesn't understand what went wrong, and doesn't want to show that, or he wants people to ignore what went wrong because it raises questions about the viability of state level single payer.

Massachusetts Health Connector is the one example so far that has succeeded in getting most residents access to health care via coverage, and it utilizes subsidies and agreements with private insurers. It's the model for the State Exchanges in the ACA - which unfortunately have been hobbled by the GOP attacks.

As the age of eligibility is continually reduced adding younger Americans, the costs of Medicare will benefit as generally healthier Americans enter the risk pool.

The problem with this is that many younger Americans who are healthy don't want to pay for insurance, because they feel they won't get their money back in terms of medical care they use. They want low cost, catastrophic coverage that doesn't contribute enough to the pool. There has to be a mandate for them to buy into Medicare, or it won't work, and we've seen how successful that has been... That has been one of the most problematic issues facing enlarging the pool - and we know that the GOP has been successful in demonizing the mandate, exploiting the anti-government feelings that are very prevalent in the U.S. To deny this, or think that simply telling these people that higher taxes will mean lower health care costs will convince someone who is hostile to anything tax related is magical thinking.

It is the defintion of a "wicked problem" where addressing one aspect of a complicated problem often creates a problem elsewhere.

Anyone who says there is a single, clear, politically doable solution certainly isn't well versed in health policy analysis. It's easy for someone to promise the moon, when they can simply blame someone or something else when they don't deliver it.

[Uncle Joe]

191. No when you remove the profit motive from deciding who lives and who dies, it's about health care

If the government mandates for the citizenry to purchase a product from a private for profit entity, then your industry is effectively institutionalized.

instutionalized

1. established in practice or custom.
"the danger of discrimination becoming institutionalized"
2.
established as part of an official organization.
"one of the most insidious byproducts of the Cold War, institutionalized secrecy"

(snip)

https://www.google.com/search?q=instutionalized&oq=instutionalized&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.11192j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As for Germany

Germany boasts the world’s oldest national social health insurance system, dating back to Otto von Bismarck’s Sickness Insurance Law of 1883. Like other nations with single-payer plans, Germans have access to a decentralized system, with independent and mostly non-profit hospitals offering most of the inpatient care for patients. Approximately 92 percent of Germany’s population is covered by a so-called “Statutory Health Insurance” plan, a portal to a standardized basket of services paid for, in part, by more than 1,000 public or private so-called “sickness funds.”

(snip)

Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined by negotiations between regional physician associations and sickness funds. Since 1976, the German government has convened an annual commission, including members of the business community, labor unions, doctors, hospitals, as well as representatives of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That panel then makes recommendations on how much and in what manner the nation’s health-care funds are spent on various services provided.

(snip)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/02/slideshow-how-countries-around-the-world-do-single-payer-health-care/

(snip)

Overall, Gallup finds that in the United States, as well as several developed countries, respondents are more likely to be satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare in their communities than they are to have confidence in their national healthcare or medical systems, regardless of whether they have universal coverage. Among the 30 OECD nations surveyed, this gap was most pronounced in Germany, the United States, and Ireland.




Numerous factors could explain this gap in perceptions. For one, experiences with a local health provider (such as going to the doctor for a physical) are something more personal to an individual than a national health system, which is more abstract and more distant from his or her daily life. Residents' lack of confidence in the health and medical systems in their country could also signify apprehension and lowered confidence in the ability of the country, whether through public or private services, to meet the future healthcare needs of its citizens.

(snip)


http://news.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd-countries-universal-healthcare-gets-high-marks.aspx

The Netherlands good and bad.

https://dutchreview.com/expat/health/healthcare-in-the-netherlands-2/


The Swiss edged closer to ditching their private for profit "health" insurance industry in 2014 while it still went down to defeat by 62% that was an improvement from 2007 when it was voted down by 71%

(snip)

Proponents of the proposed single public health insurance system claim the current system is busting the budgets of ordinary residents.

But going public would have been a seismic shift for a country whose health system is often hailed abroad as a model of efficiency, but is a growing source of frustration at home because of soaring costs.

"Over the past 20 years in Switzerland, health costs have grown 80 percent and insurance premiums 125 percent," ophthalmologist Michel Matter told AFP.

"This is not possible anymore," said Matter, who heads the Geneva Physicians Association, which backs calls to scrap the current system.

https://www.thelocal.ch/20140928/swiss-reject-public-health-insurance-plan

[ehrnst]

192. You mean "institutionalized" in the way that right wingers mean abortion

is "state sanctioned murder." I've been required to purchase car insurance as long as I've been driving. Same with homeowners's insurance when I bought a house. I don't recall outrage about that in all those years.

As you have shown, other countries (in fact most) that have universal health care coverage do not do it via single payer, or using government only payers, nor did they have to replace another system to do it.

To say that the only way the U.S. can acheive it is via single payer ignores how and how long it took other countries got to the systems they have, the expectations of U.S. citizens for health care delivery, the differences in size of populations, the anti-government political climate here, the diverse nature of the U.S. populations, and math.

But, again, it's easy to promise the moon if you can blame someone else for not delivering it, and there are plenty of people who will believe them.




I want universal health care coverage - and nearly all other countries do it without delivering the moon that is MFA, as interpreted by Sanders. Holding out for the moon that will never materialize in our lifetime, let alone in four years, just means that more people die.

Then again, my goal is actually getting to universal health care. How we get there, or which politician claims it as a brand is not a holy war for me.

People are holy. Talk is just talk, no matter how many decades someone has been talking.

[Uncle Joe]

193. Private for profit health insurance corporations have NOTHING to do with health care,

the same can't be said for abortion.

Medicare for All is the most efficient, logical, economic and moral means of administering health care.

I have shown evidence that those nations which you cited and do still rely on private health insurance corporations to cover their citizens are becoming increasingly dissatisfied.

Why not take the best lessons of the world's universal health care programs and mold our own?

We went to the moon after all and that started with a promise.

[ehrnst]

194. They have as much to do with healthcare as the government does with Medicare.

Can you seriously say that someone who is denied coverage for cancer isn't being denied access to healthcare?

I think your definition of "institutionalized" in this topic is as dubious as "state-sanctioned murder" is when anti-choicer's use it. Is that clearer?

I have shown evidence that those nations which you cited and do still rely on private health insurance corporations to cover their citizens are becoming increasingly dissatisfied.

You conveniently left out the evidence of increasing dissatisfaction in Canada and the UK, who have the closest thing to single payer. The entire world is growning more dissatisfied with rising costs of health care:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canadians-satisfaction-with-health-care-declining-cma-1.640884

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-are-more-dissatisfied-than-ever-with-nhs-poll-shows

Medicare for All is the most efficient, logical, economic and moral means of administering health care.

"MFA" isn't even that similar to Medicare. The name itself is marketing, and the payment mechanisms and what is covered are different from actual Medicare. And no, it's not efficient, logical, or economically feasible to implement in only four years (as per Sander's 2016 iteration) at this time in this country - and if it's an urealistic promise, based in a politician's need for personal validation rather than facts, and leads us down the garden path away from actual help for people NOW, then it doesn't fit the defintion of "moral."

Non-political health care policy think tanks say that the most feasible, affordable and least disruptive to the health care delivery system way to get to universal health care in the U.S. is gradual incremental expansion of the ACA, allowing people to buy into Mediare earlier, expanding CHIP to all kids, etc.

Independent health care policy analysts found that his stats and figures didn't quite back up his assertions on that plan.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

We went to the moon after all and that started with a promise.

And as I said before, Medicare was a promise based on a lie about what it would cost - lies that can't be repeated with the existence of the CBO.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medicare-anniversary-20150729-story.html

We went to the moon because the USSR had satellites, and that was a security threat. JFK sold the moon shot to the public as scientific aspiration, and not an arms race, in order for people to get behind it.

https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html

It's easy to promise anything, and apparently easy for people to believe it. Just as those in the GOP promise that closing Planned Parenthood will eliminate abortion, and their base thinks that its the most efficient, logical, economic and moral means to do it. But a closer look at the data, and analysis by actual health policy analysts reveals a very different outcome.

When politicians start claiming the moral high ground in the face of disagreement from neutral experts, especially in health care policy issues, that's a red flag.

Full disclosure: I have a more extensive background than most people on health care policy, the ACA, and MFA. That, and not political tribal thinking, informs my views on it. I don't give a flying fuck who proposes health care reform - as long as it's informed by independent, non-partisan, self-funded analysis, and not in conflict with it. Speeches about morality aren't a substitute for an actual, feasible plan.

[Uncle Joe]

195. No, because the U.S. government isn't or at least shouldn't be in the business of making profit

off the illness and deaths of its' citizens.

Every dollar in profit that the private "health" insurance corporations makes takes away from actual health care and you can't deny this.

Frankly I don't care what you think of the word "Institutionalized" perhaps you could draft a petition and send it off to Webster's Dictionary to delete the word because uh...well the Republicans used it!

You have insinuated slurs against me in regards to the issue of abortion, I'm pro-choice but if you can find a single post out of my approximately 42,353 posts to the contrary, please present it.

I have tried to keep this to a civil discussion because I thought you were relatively intelligent.

As for Medicare for All it hasn't even been seriously debated in the Congress yet and won't have any chance until the Democrats retake control, so the final form has yet to gel.

And yes the Canadians are so "increasingly dissatisfied" with their health care system they're down in the basement with a piss poor approval rating of 86.2%

In a last-ditch effort to convince Canadians that their public health care system should be privatized, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Robert Ouellet has promised to “pull out all the stops” during the association’s annual meeting next week. Trouble is, Ouellet’s mission to lead the change to privatization is exactly the opposite of what 86 percent of Canadians want.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

Nanos Research was commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition (CHC), a nonpartisan group that supports Canada’s public health system, to conduct a random telephone survey of 1,001 Canadians between April 25 and May 3. The margin of accuracy for a sample of 1,001 is ±3.1 percentage points

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/

And in regards to this,

"We went to the moon because the USSR had satellites, and that was a security threat. JFK sold the moon shot to the public as scientific aspiration, and not an arms race, in order for people to get behind it."

A nation's national security is intricately tied to the health of its' citizens.

[ehrnst]

196. Slurs? What drama.

You have no real argument, so you go off on tangents, red herrings and strawmen.

[Uncle Joe]

197. ..

Peace to you ehrnst

[ehrnst]

198. ...

Peace to you joe

[Wwcd]

154. Oh sure, NOW they need her.

I didn't hear OR making a statement against those who booed the finest Icon of the AA community, John Lewis.

Not a peep.
Turner ignored that disgraceful action of her own
Orgaization.

And she wants the Black community to honor HER now as some leader of OR as tho they are old pals?

This header shows the desperate self promotion of Turner as somone bigger than OR's history proves her to be.

Who the f disses John Lewis?
And who ignores that behavior?
F that.

I cannot believe the stretch of OR to try to make Turner some righteous icon of AA.

She seems to suffer from the same self acclaimed omnipotence as her leader.

Their "Revolution" never fking existed. It was a money & media campaign ....

That's my opinion.

[Gothmog]

166. Last night was fun

Link to tweet

[Cha]

142. Yes, Hillary invited Stacy Abrams to speak at the DNC

and campaigned by robo-calling for her election.

Oh, and John Lewis endorsed her in 2017.

And, now I'm reading she was booed by the "progressive" left at the convention?!! And, they have the nerve to claim her success when the Beautiful Democratic Party endorsed her much earlier?

[greymattermom]

151. I thought you meant

Stacey Abrams

[Uncle Joe]

153. I believe Stacey Abrams to be a progressive leader as well but it was the Root's title and

article, not mine.

[Wwcd]

157. Progressive & Democratic are two closely woven beliefs of one political party

Who ever saw an opportunity to sieze the label as a means to divide the voting block rather that keep its unity is an opportunist.

It was the great & True Progressive Paul Wellstone who stepped up to prevent the opportunists from profitting from, while not giving a shit as to who was harmed by the toxic dumping of waste, in the Sierra Blanca, Tx case.

Same opportunists, same spots. And those same opportunists still profit from the dumping to this day.
That was revealed on the few pages of tax returns we were allowed to see in 2016.

History shows us a much different type of person than the media campaign was designed to reveal.

Truth reveals itself.

[Uncle Joe]

159. It's good that you would bring up Paul Wellstone to help make my point but i agree with you

"truth does reveal itself."

(snip)

David Wellstone and other Democrats close to his father began objecting last year to what David Wellstone described as Wellstone Action’s abandonment of disaffected Democrats in the rural Midwest — the rural poor were an early focus of the late senator — with an increasingly narrow focus on gender politics and people of color.

“I said, ‘After Trump, we’ve got to figure out how we are going to go back after those Democrats that we lost,” David Wellstone said. “We can do all the stuff we do. We do great stuff on communities of color; we’re doing great stuff on gender identity politics. But we need to do some of these other trainings. … Nobody wanted to have a discussion about that.”

(snip)

“I am not remotely questioning the work we do in the realm of racial and gender justice,” Kahn said in the email, one of several documents he provided to POLITICO. “I support it, and applaud it, all of it. That has always been true, and will always remain true. What I am calling into question, and vigorously objecting to, is the strategic thinking in expressly choosing to highlight our work for just those two groups, and no others, in a document posted online, that we share with the entire world.”

(snip)

“How I read it is Paul Wellstone is no longer relevant. It is the most untrue, un-thought-through and most offensive remark,” Wellstone said. “When you’ve got people who are hurting and they’re turning to Donald Trump, we’ve got to give them something. … We should be the fighters for all folks who aren’t on top. That’s what my dad always said.”

(snip)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/13/wellstone-family-legacy-feud-minnesota-democrats-584205

Sometimes I wish I could post more than four paragraphs.

[Wwcd]

160. Thanks for making my point. Reminds me of another group who

staked a claim within the Dem Party, who used the name & benefits of money & data base of voters to then run an oppositiin campaign against them.

One who claimed to be everything to everyone yet whose own voting record didn't quite mesh with the campaign persona presented.

Sen Wellstone fought this same opportunist in the Senate when he fiercly defended a bill introduced by the very same Senator who's own State stood to benefit from that disasterous bill, at the expense of the poor & Latino speaking population of Sierra Blanca Tx.

Sen Wellstone always stod for the little guy. The ones with no political voice to lobby for them.

He was no opportunist like those who ran Wellstone Action, who are much the same as the opportunist who falsified his way into gaining the wealth of benefits of the Dem Party.

There are opportunists all around & eventally yes, the Truth of their actions does reveal itself.

Sen Wellstone didn't use others or groups to advance his own interests, Sen Wellstone didn't just give soundbite appearances, Sen Wellstone was there walking among the poor, the forgotten & the exploited.
He listed to them, rather than dictate to a megaphone or waiting mic on a prebuilt stage with cameras perfectly poised.

He was the true progressive diplomat of the Democratic Party because he had lived every word he spoke.

He was a humble man. He fought the opportunists in the Senate & in his home State. But he never ever exploited his power or position for self gain, nor at the demise of a people with less than & with no one to speak for them, as in Sierra Blanca.

Sen Wellstone's legacy wasn't created by campaign photo ops & data base invites to create a cheering crowd, he earned his supporters through his generous grassroots-in-the-trenches daily work. And not in a million years would he have voted NO on the necessary Magnitsky Act, nor would he have stepped foot on the set of a tv network named Russia Today.

He didn't need to, first off, and lastly YES. I am glad his sons stepped in to remove their father's respected name from a group who was clearly exploiting the name for their own opportunistic & nefarious reasons.

Wellstone knew the meaning of progressive & Democratic unity and the 2 were never meant to be exploited with the intent to splinter.

[Uncle Joe]

168. "Wellstone and the War"

(snip)

The battering came as no surprise. The “regime change” Rove is most focused on is not in Iraq but in the Senate, where the defeat of a single Democrat would give Republicans control. And defeating Wellstone has always been a top priority for Bush and Rove, who recruited Coleman to make the race and attached the party’s fundraising spigots to the challenger’s treasury. Now that the White House has shifted the agenda from corporate crime and economic instability–issues that favored the Democrats–to war,with House and Senate votes on the President’s war resolution scheduled to take place before the November election, Rove is gearing up for the Minnesota mission he hopes will nuke his top-targeted senator.

Wellstone, who has decried the resolution as “a blank check for unilateral action,” and other dissenting Democrats will get little cover from party leaders. Majority leader Tom Daschle clings to the failed strategy of letting Bush lead the discussion while Democrats tinker around the edges. Count on Daschle to push Wellstone and other Democrats to back a gently reworked resolution that, for all the talk of restraints, will still be viewed by the Administration as carte blanche. It would make no sense for Wellstone to cave, however. His stance is a matter of conscience and common sense: An obviously out-of-character vote would harm his reputation as a straight shooter and could cause antiwar Minnesotans–who already have gripes about the senator–to vote Green or stay home.

How should Wellstone and like-minded Democrats respond to Rove’s ravaging? Ceding the Iraq debate to the Administration, as cowering Democrats counsel, will not make it easier to focus on economic matters. Republicans are determined to surf national security issues into November. Thus, the road back to a debate about corporate wrongdoing and economic security must begin with honest and outspoken criticism of Bush’s go-it-alone approach–seizing the space opened up by the dissents of former President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore, who rightly identified Bush’s focus on Iraq as a distraction from fighting terrorism.

Wellstone and other dissenting Democrats would do well to go back to the playbook Wellstone used in his successful 1996 re-election campaign. That year, when Congress voted for a draconian welfare reform bill, Wellstone was the only vulnerable incumbent to oppose the legislation. Republicans attacked him as “Senator Welfare.” Wellstone countered with television ads that explained his vote. His poll numbers spiked. This is another teaching moment for the former professor, who has always earned high marks from voters for being his own man. As in 1996, there are risks involved. But Wellstone, more than anyone else running this year, knows a bold vote must be matched with an equally bold campaign in order to beat the cynics.

https://www.thenation.com/article/wellstone-and-war/

[RandySF]

152. No, Stacy Abrams

[Wwcd]

161. Yes, RandySF, you are correct. Stacy Abrams is the Real Voice of the Democratic Progressive Party

Turner divides, Abrams unites

Its that simple.

[Gothmog]

162. Our Revolution is not doing well

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

167. Analysis: How did Bernie Sanders Democrats do in the primaries?

Sanders did not do well https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2018/06/06/analysis-how-did-bernie-sanders-democrats-do-primaries/676864002/

Only a handful of candidates running under the Bernie Sanders banner survived primaries held in six states on Tuesday.

As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates endorsed by Our Revolution -- a political group affiliated with Vermont’s independent senator -- had been declared winners. Another two races were undecided.

At best, fewer than one-third of the endorsed candidates won.

The endorsement and support of Our Revolution is not very valuable

[Blue_Tires]

172. Nina Fucking Turner? You trying to wind me up?

[Blue_Tires]

174. *Groan* You're really going to make me do this, aren't you??

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-turner-our-revolution-president-from-democrat_us_595a4413e4b0c85b96c66373

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Blue_Tires]

175. Believe me Uncle Joe, this is not a horse you want to back...

Unless KremlinGate denialism, anti-immigration policies, screechy attacks against *REAL* Dems and "I'll even vote GOP if it suits my cause!" is your thing...

[samnsara]

176. not a nina fan for sure. shes only leading herself.

[Blue_Tires]

177. Two years ago, the "Progressive Revolution" among pundits was being led by

folks like H.A. Goodman, Michael Tracey, Adam Johnson, Cassandra Fairbanks, etc... Want to check and see what those folks are doing now??

[Blue_Tires]

180. Why is the punditsphere so eager to coronate

a thin-skinned, overly defensive, delusional Green Party defector as our savior?

[disillusioned73]

181. K&R...

[Demsrule86]

199. I despise Nina Turner...and I wouldn't have anything to do with anything she is involved in.

[Gothmog]

209. Luckily, this organization is falling apart in part due to Nina Turner

This organization has failed in its endorsement and may not last past the mid terms. I doubt that this organization will play any meaningful role in the midterms

[Demsrule86]

210. It is a bad organization...and I agree with everything you said.

[Gothmog]

208. Economist--Berned out

This article makes me smile https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/09/berned-out

None of Mr Sanders’s other big ideas—including free college and massive public works—is getting much play. Nor have Sanders-endorsed candidates fared well in the primaries. Our Revolution, a group Mr Sanders formed to promote his acolytes, has been a failure. “It doesn’t do anything,” gripes a strategist for one of its candidates.

Rumpled, crumpled, Trumpled

The energy on the left is focused on opposing Mr Trump’s attack on liberal democracy, not on carrying forward Mr Sanders’s revolution. The success of moderate candidates in the Democratic primaries suggests this is making the party more pragmatic and mindful of party unity than Mr Sanders, an ideologue who is not a Democratic Party member, might like.

[Gothmog]

211. Did Our Revolution endorsed any candidates for tonight's primaries

It will be difficult for Our Revolution to flop as badly as Our Revolution flopped in last week's primaries.

[JCanete]

228. Our Revolution had wins in last week's primaries. They aren't batting as bad as you want to pretend

they are, and considering their funding by comparison and their fledgling existence, I can understand why you spend so much time tearing them down at every turn and belittling their achievements. That is certainly what you do when an organization is insignificant.

[Gothmog]

230. LOL

Denial is not just a river in Africa

The post you are responding to was from the California primaries where Our Revolution flopped badly.

I am so glad that Sharice Davids and Gretchen Whitmer won this week

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[JCanete]

231. So you are making a distinction about where Our Revolution has been succesful or a failure, not

a blanket statement...I see. In California, specifically, they did badly. Which is why you are pointing out the Whitmer and Davids wins here....uh okay Goth...you make as much sense here as you always do.

[Gothmog]

232. I am so glad that Emily's list is beating Our Revolution and beating it badly

This makes me smile https://politicalwire.com/2018/08/06/bernie-vs-emilys-list/

First Read: “Back in 2016, there wasn’t much love lost between Bernie Sanders and EMILY’s List, the Democratic advocacy group that backs pro-abortion-rights female political candidates. The groups two sparred over candidate endorsements (including for Hillary Clinton) and the campaign’s ‘condescending’ comments about Clinton’s campaign, and — last year — over Sanders’ appearance at a women’s conference.”

“Fast forward to now, and the two factions are facing off more and more in the 2018 Democratic primaries. And that’s largely been because Sanders — in races that feature prominent women — has often endorsed a rival male candidate instead.”

“It all feels like a replay of the Sanders-Clinton wars of 2016, a conflict so steeped in gender issues that the term ‘Bernie Bro’ was born. Our take: In a year when women are such a dominant force in Democratic politics, the narrative that Sanders isn’t prioritizing female candidates may not be great for his brand in the long run.”

[Gothmog]

233. Some more smiles

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

234. Looks like the revolution didn't do too well in Hawaii, despite sending AOC.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

213. Bernie and his army are losing 2018

Our Revolution did not have a good night https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403

Bernie Sanders is sputtering.

Two years after his defeat the 2016 presidential primary, the Vermont senator has amassed a growing string of losses in races in which he has intervened. Beginning last year, Sanders-backed candidates faltered in an Omaha mayoral race and a nationally watched House race in Montana.

Then came Rep. Tom Perriello’s loss in Virginia’s gubernatorial primary, and in June, the drubbing in Iowa of Pete D’Alessandro, a top adviser to Sanders during his 2016 Iowa caucus campaign. Cathy Glasson, endorsed by Sanders’ successor group, Our Revolution, fell short in Iowa’s gubernatorial primary, as did Peter Jacob and Jim Keady in two New Jersey House races. Dennis Kucinich lost in Ohio.

Tuesday night brought Sanders and his army their latest blow, with a pair of high-profile losses in Michigan and Kansas.

[Uncle Joe]

214. LOL! Perhaps you were just enthralled by the head line and didn't read the entire article?

This is about transforming the Democratic Party from the ground up Gothmog, that's always been what Bernie has preached "real change happens from the bottom up"

This is a marathon, not a sprint, it's about the message and the article you posted is actually a good and balanced read, highly encouraging if one prefers a view of "the forest instead of the trees"

(snip)

Sanders also campaigned for James Thompson, who won his primary in a less competitive Kansas House district Tuesday. And Our Revolution-endorsed candidates have already won local contests elsewhere.

(snip)

Sanders “raised the bar on the issues,” said Ceraso, who also worked on Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. “I don’t know that it’s the Bernie name that matters. But the remnants of the issues that he talked about certainly matter at the local level. People are talking about these issues.”

(snip)

Noting that some volunteers who telephoned voters for him in 2016 are now running for state and local offices themselves, he said, “What [Sanders] wanted to do was mobilize millions of people to get politically involved, and he achieved that in droves. Change is slow. Progress is slow. But it’s inevitable. So, even if we have some devastating losses, we have to stick at it.”

(snip)

“My philosophy — and I think it’s what Bernie was going for — the Republican Party years ago when they couldn’t win elections, they did some soul searching and ran people at the local level,” he said. “Thirty, 40 years later they control every level of government. … That’s what the Democratic Party needs to do. They need to get some fresh faces, go back to their roots and reorganize.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403

[Gothmog]

215. LOL

The fact that you think that Our Revolution did not get its butt kicked last night is really cute and adorable. Thank you for the laughs.

From the Politico article https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403

In a crowded Democratic primary in Kansas, former Sanders campaign staffer Brent Welder said before results were finalized on Tuesday night that his “message of bold progressive values and running an uncorrupted campaign that does not take corporate PAC money is resonating with people across Kansas, across the district and across the country.”

Echoing Sanders’ rhetoric from the 2016 presidential campaign, he told supporters in his suburban Kansas City district, “We are going to prove that we can and we will succeed [in] sending a congressman to Washington who is not corrupted and who will stand up to Wall Street and the giant corporations and the billionaires that are buying our politicians.”

But hours later, the race was called for Welder’s opponent Sharice Davids, an attorney who will take on Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) in November.

Sanders did even worse in Michigan, where he and Ocasio-Cortez campaigned aggressively for Abdul El-Sayed, who was trampled by more than 20 percentage points in the Democratic primary for governor. El-Sayed, a 33-year-old physician who was seeking to become the first Muslim governor in the nation, with Sanders rallying supporters in Detroit over the weekend.

El-Sayed lost to former state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, the favorite of the Democratic establishment.

[brer cat]

219. I missed this earlier, but I see upthread

that you are trying to give Bernie credit for Stacey Abrams' win. That is absurd and one major reason why your and his claims to "glory" get little respect. Bernie endorsed Stacey literally days before the primary and after polls were showing her the overwhelming favorite. Bernie gets zero credit for anything other than trying to grab some of her shine. You may be impressed when he makes a last minute wager on a sure bet to burnish his image, but most of us are not.

Only days away from the Georgia Democratic gubernatorial primary, Stacey Abrams picked up the endorsement of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday.

Abrams is leading Stacey Evans in a new, exclusive 11Alive poll with 43 percent to Evans' 24 percent, but with 33 percent undecided.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/georgia-votes-2018-stacey-abrams-endorsed-by-us-sen-bernie-sanders/85-553044963

[sheshe2]

222. He tagged her a few days before she won?

Reaching out for another coat tail to hold onto. Sad.

Your State and your Stacy. Love her and hope she makes it to the capital as I expect she will.

Brava

[Gothmog]

220. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[George II]

221. The first time I ran in a marathon (NYC in 1976) I had to drop out after ten miles.

I think that's the state of this marathon.

[Gothmog]

216. Democratic Party's liberal insurgency hits a wall in Midwest primaries

This makes me smile https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-partys-liberal-insurgency-hits-a-wall-in-midwest-primaries/2018/08/08/422f0140-9a50-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html?utm_term=.209bbc9ca5bf

Candidates backed by Emily’s List, which endorses women and sometimes clashes with the left, bested left-wing challengers in three southeast Michigan districts; at least two are seen as toss-ups in November.

And in Kansas’s 3rd Congressional District, Brent Welder, a Sanders-backed labor lawyer who was viewed as the most liberal candidate in the race, was bested by attorney Sharice Davids, whose win Tuesday night makes her the state’s first gay and Native American congressional nominee.

“This is a fantastic night for centrist Democrats,” said Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy at the center-left Third Way think tank. “We nominated the right candidates who can win House seats and governor’s mansions for the Democratic Party. There’s a quiet enthusiasm in the middle. There’s a quiet voice that people are not hearing in the media, but it’s loud at the ballot box.”

[sheshe2]

217. Hell yes!

K&R

[Gothmog]

218. Down Goes Socialism

This article in Politico Magazine really made me smile https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/08/democratic-socialism-sanders-ocasio-cortez-2018-primary-results-219161

The most glaring defeat came in Michigan’s gubernatorial primary. This is the state where Sanders defied the polls and edged out Hillary Clinton, raising hopes that he had a magic touch in the Rust Belt. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez tried to catapult the young and brash newcomer Abdul El-Sayed, who trailed in polls, endorsements and money to former state Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer. They could only nudge him up to second place, with 30 percent of the vote.

In fact, Clinton’s endorsement appeared to carry the most weight in Michigan. Her late robocall in support of Haley Stevens helped take Stevens from second place in polls to an election night victory in the suburban 11th District, a top Democratic target, while Fayrouz Saad, backed by Ocasio-Cortez, placed fourth. In two other House primaries in Michigan, candidates backed by the party’s official campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, coasted against supporters of Sanders’ signature Medicare for All proposal.

El-Sayed’s defeat may have been the most noticeable loss for Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, but the defeat of Brent Welder in Kansas is far more politically significant. Welder, a former Sanders 2016 campaign staffer, hoped to carry the Democratic banner in Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District. The largely urban district is a top party priority, one of a handful of Republican-held seats that Clinton won in 2016.

The Berniecrat left desperately wants to convince naysaying political veterans (and annoying political pundits) that a democratic socialist platform holds the ticket to victory in heartland districts like this one—so much so that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez gave a full-throated endorsement to Welder over another compelling and fairly liberal candidate in Sharice Davids.

The endorsement of Hillary Clinton carried a great deal more weight compared to the support of the Our Revolution group.

[sheshe2]

225. Read

[Gothmog]

227. The Far Left Is Losing

Link to tweet