Bernie Sanders’ “Revolution” Isn’t Good Enough He needs an actual plan for change.

[MADem]

....Even with a viable political revolution, a President Sanders would have a hard time persuading or budging a Republican House—still intact because of a powerful partisan advantage, cemented through gerrymandering and geography—that represents radically different, opposing values. The distance between his plans and their priorities is so great that it’s hard to imagine a world where the two sides can be bridged. You could pressure those Republicans through grassroots action, but they weren’t elected by the “political revolution.” Why would they listen?

Indeed, when you take disagreement and political pluralism seriously, it is difficult to even conceptualize the revolution that Sanders describes and touts as the key to success. Does it emerge in America’s conservative bastions? Does it overcome decades of conviction, habit, and organization, the forces that gave John McCain and Sarah Palin nearly 60 million votes in an election almost designed to give a historic victory to the Democratic Party? The truth is that, even under the best scenario for Sanders—a growing economy, huge enthusiasm, and a weak opponent—it’s hard to imagine a world where he beats Obama’s total from 2008. Unless the revolution is truly that—a movement that overcomes partisan barriers—it, at most, leaves liberals where they were at the beginning of 2013.

President-elect Sanders would enter the White House with gridlock ahead of him. And if the conservatism and moderation of places like Virginia and Missouri are any indication, then he would also face a split in the Democratic Party, among lawmakers who backed him and his socialist label, and those who ran from it. His campaign promises to challenge the establishment. Would these moderate and conservative Democrats challenge the establishment too? If they don’t, would Sanders challenge them?

None of this is to say that Sanders would be a bad president, or that he couldn’t accomplish his goals through appointments, regulatory agencies, and executive action. He could. But America is a divided country, tens of millions of Americans disagree with liberal ideas and priorities, and our political institutions privilege this disagreement. As such, you can’t rely solely on a “political revolution” to pass your program. You need a real plan to show supporters—and the country—how you get from pushing universal health care or free college to making it a reality. If Sanders is going to avoid the mistakes of President Obama, then he needs to merge his movement—his outside game—with an effective inside one.

Otherwise, you end up in a place that’s familiar to liberals and Democrats with memories of Jimmy Carter’s and Bill Clinton’s first terms and Barack Obama’s post-2010 presidency—where a promising administration gets mired in countless small battles, losing its focus as it dies a death of a thousand cuts....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/bernie_sanders_revolution_isn_t_good_enough.html

[jfern]

1. You mean like Hillary's "No we can't"?

[avaistheone1]

6. +1000

[grasswire]

2. Not GOOD ENOUGH, Bernie!!! nt

[Bobbie Jo]

8. You're right, it isnt. nt

[scottie55]

3. How many Republicans want a raise?

May not be that hard....

[PatrickforO]

4. The reason I think the author of this Slate article is wrong is that

we've got to try. Sure, we might fail. But if we don't try, we will fail for sure. And there's a lot at stake.

Sanders has a real plan - extend Medicare to everybody. That's pretty simple. And pretty effective. I don't know ANYBODY that has Medicare that doesn't like it.

Honestly, I fail to understand what the problem is here. All these people saying no, no, no we can't, we can't, we can't have single payer...

WHY?

[Ron Green]

5. Sanders' presence in the White House will greatly diminish

the effect of stupid wedge issues. That possibility alone is reason enough to vote for him.

[MADem]

7. How? He'll unite the Congress AGAINST him?

Not a winning strategy, to my mind....

[Punkingal]

12. Like the Congress won't be united against Hillary.

Snort

[MADem]

14. We're not talking about her, are we? Why can't you stay on topic? nt

[frylock]

18. You guys never talk about her.

[Punkingal]

20. I will make any comment i choose to make on this board, that's why.

[AgingAmerican]

26. You never tout your own candidate

"Nothing to see here folks..."

[Ron Green]

13. It's gotta work through the people.

The "bully pulpit," as it's called. This is the whole idea of the revolution. Otherwise, why even do it?

[TheBlackAdder]

9. It's seems good enough that, sans CT, the Northeast will lean Sanders, including Massachusetts.

.


Rhode Island, while teeming with luxury yachts and expensive ocean estates, is hurting. Many of those yachts are birthed there to avoid taxes by out-of-staters. Massachusetts is leaning HRC right now, as well at Connecticut. But, Mass looks like it will fall, if Sanders gets past Iowa and New Hampshire (which is practically a given at this point). Vermont is solid SBS too. Maine, which more conservative, is also swaying.


But, these are just observations from people on the ground, at the college level, and not some corporate entity.

You know, the people who told me that NH was solid Sanders about 2 months ago, and not to believe the hype.


.

[riversedge]

11. No--too many smart folks just are ...

[MADem]

16. That's brilliant! nt

[TheBlackAdder]

17. OK, Just remember this post -IF- IA and NH go to SBS. I'm looking from a college Poli-sci POV.

.


There will be a world of hurt in the Northeast.


.

[frylock]

19. Heyyyyyyyyyyyy...

[Autumn]

10. Like Hillary's "no we can't" plans?

I am almost tempted to rec for this part alone, that's what a Hillary administration would bring, only this time the American people would die the death of a thousand cuts.

Bill Clinton’s first terms and Barack Obama’s post-2010 presidency—where a promising administration gets mired in countless small battles, losing its focus as it dies a death of a thousand cuts

BERNIE 2016...BECAUSE FUCK THIS SHIT!!!!!!

[MADem]

21. I just can't take a campaign seriously that puts "Because Fuck This Shit"

on their bumper stickers. Between that, and the idiotic Robin Hood hats, and the "Feel the Bern" (which sounds vaguely threatening) exhortations, and the other childish-in-the-extreme "enthusiasm generators," the whole show doesn't sound either serious or effective to me.

Eh.

YMMV, of course. I'm sure it does, so you don't need to tell me to what degree.

As for Clinton, despite his not unimportant challenges, a lot of people look back fondly on that era. And Obama, notwithstanding having some unfriendly associates on the Hill, has managed to do an awful lot in his time in office.

But then, those guys did the unthinkable--they COMPROMISED. They worked for all the people, not just an angry fringe wing.

[Autumn]

22. I can't take a "NO We Can't" campaign seriously either which personifies Hills campaign .

But I really did like this part from your article. A Hillary administration to a tee.

Bill Clinton’s first terms and Barack Obama’s post-2010 presidency—where a promising administration gets mired in countless small battles, losing its focus as it dies a death of a thousand cuts

[MADem]

25. There's a difference between your "characterization" of a campaign

(I could come up with some beauts for the Sanders effort without any trouble -- "Pie in the Sky" is one), but I'm talking about stuff that is on bumper stickers.



I mean--that's REAL. Someone PAID for that.

smh!

[Autumn]

29. So what if someone paid for it. It's their money and their sentiments.

[AgingAmerican]

30. You sound bitter

[Andy823]

41. Wow

Do they really wear Robin Hood hats?

What I see is a lot of the same Obama haters who have now turned to using the same "trash and bash" tactics on Hillary. It's the same group that started their own board and promoted the "anybody but Hillary" meme. The same group that accused the president of all kinds of BS that never happened, like he was going to take away SS and Medicare. They were always ready to jump the gun, run around with their hair on fire, but never cam back when things didn't happen the way they said they would, and actually apologize for going ballistic on the president.

This group is doing a great job of using right wing talking points, and right wing smear tactics, to make all the "other" candidates look bad, instead of simply promoting their candidates good points. It's not all of those who support Bernie, but a faction that has decided to take over the Bernie group and "claim" to be his supporters even though their actions make Bernie look bad, not good.

[MADem]

42. Yes, they do. And I agree with your assessment.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. .

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/july29organizingmeeting/wrqj

^snip^

"Let me tell you right now what no other candidate will tell you. And that is, no one who is elected President of the United States can do it alone. No one in the White House will have the power to take on Wall Street alone, Corporate America alone, the billionaire class alone. The only way that change takes place, is when we develope that strong grass roots movement. Make that political revolution, stand together, and then we bring about change."

- Bernie Sanders / Portland, Maine / July 6th, 2015

[MADem]

23. .

We will raise taxes, yes, we will.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/26/bernie-sanders-goes-full-mondale-admits-he-will-raise-your-taxes-video/

I smell toast. That's the GOP ad if he ever made it to the general.

What's with the "." as a subject line? You do know it's irritating, making it difficult for the person to access the message text? Why do it? Is the goal to annoy?

I've returned the favor, just to point out what a PITA it is when people do that. You could have easily headed your message "Quote from Sanders" or "Sanders made this point."

[Motown_Johnny]

27. My post speaks for itself. It did not need a subject line.

I don't mind when people do it to me. Feel free.

Arguing against reasonable taxes is what conservatives do.

If you really want to see a ready made (R) attack ad....

Hell, they swiftboated John Kerry and he was a freaking silver star winner.


Hillary will never pass the Commander In Chief test. Not a chance.

[MADem]

43. .

And therein lies the essential element of what I said.

I don't mind when people do it to me. Feel free.

Even when I tell you that it makes it difficult to retrieve a post (requiring more clicks--and it's a real Pain In The Ass on a mobile) your attitude is, "It doesn't bother me, so eff you!" in essence.

Let's first address your little "ancient history" YOUTUBE video--from MARCH 2008....and who put that up? Gee, who? Golly, I wonder!! Google tells me these assclowns did:

MRCTV is an online media platform designed to broadcast conservative values, culture, politics, liberal media bias, and entertainment to a new and diverse audience on a social media optimized site. Our goal is to break down the boundaries between traditional conservative media and mainstream culture.

How odd that you would bring their stuff here.

Hillary has passed the CinC test. So there's 'no chance' that she won't do what she's already done. She was lead seat in the cabinet, and she's already done an apprenticeship at 1600. There will be NO "learning curve."

And people know recycled garbage when they see it. Bernie's faults, though? They're all Brand New, Unvetted, never seen before. All New Material!

But here's how most Americans feel about Pipe Dream projects and tax increases to pay for them--and this crosses party lines, and hits hardest on, and resonates most with, people who barely have enough money NOW: If you're raising taxes on ordinary, working-class Americans, you aren't Robin Hood--you're the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Move over, Fritz Mondale--Bernie just might take your spot!

[Motown_Johnny]

57. No, what you said was:

What's with the "." as a subject line? You do know it's irritating, making it difficult for the person to access the message text? Why do it? Is the goal to annoy?


I answered it by explaining that I don't see it as irritating or difficult, nor was I attempting to annoy. If I had been then I would have continued to use it. I intentionally did not use it again once I understood that you had an issue with it.

It was clear that your use of it was to attempt to annoy me, but it doesn't annoy me. Feel free to use it if you like. I have already stopped, in so far as this subthread is concerned. I will also attempt to not use it if I see it is you that I am responding to, but I make no promises beyond this discussion.

Please do not project your anger onto me. I did not attempt an "Eff you", although it appears that you did.

Furthermore, if you want loser taxes then go vote for the (R). Bernie's health care plan saves most people money by eliminating their health insurance premiums. It is very simple math and most people understand it.


That video is a news story from Andrea Mitchell, who tends to go very easy on Sec. Clinton. You can attack the fact that some "assclowns" posted it to youtube, but the substance of the video is irrefutable. Yes, I know who posted it. I was showing you a ready made (R) attack ad. There it is.

[MADem]

58. Your response was reasonably interpreted as "Too bad, so sad, not MY problem."

Now you're expressing a bit more concern, and that's probably progress.

I'm not "projecting anger" on you. If you don't want to be misconstrued, be clear. You weren't.

That video was posted by a FAR right wing, conservative group. How do you even find shit like that?

A ready made GOP attack is Sanders' promise to raise taxes.

Hand him a shovel, he's digging his own grave with that kind of commentary.

[Motown_Johnny]

60. You asked if I knew it was irritating.

I was responding that I did not find it irritating.

Your response was clearly angry and you accused me of attempting an "Eff you" when that was not my intention. It looks as if you were projecting your anger onto me. If you don't want to be misconstrued, be clear. You weren't.


Search for Hillary Clinton Snipers Bosnia and you will find that video ( I can't swear I used those exact words, but something close).


Hillary can't pass the Commander In Chief test. Her recent statements about a no fly zone in Syria is simply more evidence of that. Her 19 minute speech asking others to vote for the Iraq War along with her is another. Her lies about what happened in Bosnia is unprecedented. Not even Trump has done something like that.

Bernie has been fighting the same fight for over 30 years, and winning. I am not worried about it. Hillary is the one who will fail in the General election. The fact that you have made multiple posts here without even attempting to refute that tells me that you see this too, you just don't want to admit it.

[MADem]

63. I am not "angry." And repetition isn't going to do the trick on that score, either.

Look--you weren't clear, I pointed it out, so your response is to characterize me.

That's just a failed technique. I reject it!

Sanders has the idea that the Saudis and Iran can "work together." He doesn't have a clue that they hate each other and follow different sects of Islam. He's clueless. Now THAT's not passing the CinC test! He's plainly lost once he gets past the confines of the water's edge.

I am refuting your points--you're just pulling the BernieBro routine on me, and ignoring the things I say because they don't fit with your unrealistic dreams.

Bernie's been collecting a government check for a third of a century--and he has damn little to show for it. He talks a good game, but he can't deliver the goods.

And his supporters? They don't help. When they go after Jeanne Shaheen and Gabby Giffords with invective and profanity, they come off poorly. And I reject THAT approach, too!

[Go Vols]

48. +1 for truth

[Fast Walker 52]

24. sigh... "Bernie Sanders's political revolution, explained"

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10853502/bernie-sanders-political-revolution

[MADem]

32. Much of the political revolution is about convincing more white people to back Democrats

....Here we see Sanders's longtime strategy of prioritizing economic issues while trying to finesse or somewhat downplay his differences with socially conservative voters on other topics. He's done this, for instance, with guns — after barely winning reelection in 1994, he concluded, as he wrote in his autobiography, that "we lost many working-class men in that election because we handled the gun issue badly," and would amass a mixed record on gun control votes after that.....

But many other Democrats and liberals don't believe this revolution will actually happen

To Sanders's critics, whose numbers include many mainstream Democrats and liberal commentators, it seems incredibly obvious that there is no revolution brewing in America. Indeed, many of them think Democrats would be lucky to win at all in 2016, and that nominating Sanders would be a very risky move that could hand the levers of power over to the GOP.

...n a recent column, the New York Times's Paul Krugman referred to this as part of a "persistent delusion" common on both the left and right "that a hidden majority of American voters either supports or can be persuaded to support radical policies, if only the right person were to make the case with sufficient fervor." And Chait mocked Sanders as peddling "a hoary political fantasy: that a more pure candidate can rally the People into a righteous uprising that would unsettle the conventional laws of politics."


...if it turns out that the general public does conclude Sanders's views are far too liberal for them, nominating him would entail a very real risk of a Republican landslide (like idealistic liberals' nomination of George McGovern in 1972).

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10853502/bernie-sanders-political-revolution


That is also from your source.

You didn't really make your case, see?

His "We will raise taxes, yes, we will" comment--in all its halting, bumbling glory--will be the OPPO ad of the election season if he stumbles out of the primary. It will be the biggest defeat since Mondale and McGovern.

[Fast Walker 52]

39. the article is fairly balanced, imo, and explained what the revolution is about.

It's not just a pipe dream.

I think it's good to get more white people back to voting Dem, as long as you aren't race-baiting or being discriminatory.

Are we really so afraid of raising taxes? Isn't that a right-wing criticism?

[MADem]

44. Ask Walter Mondale how that worked out for him.

If you think that stumbling, bumbling, little bit of spit at the corner of his mouth "We will raise taxes, yes, we will!" comment won't get played to death, I have a bridge for sale.

As I said upthread: If you're raising taxes on ordinary, working-class Americans, you aren't Robin Hood--you're the Sheriff of Nottingham.

It's a (to quote The Donald) LOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-ZER tactic. It's a YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE tactical error to speak in those terms.

Of course, he had to speak in those terms because his shitty math was not adding up and he needed more money in the pile. It still doesn't add up, even with his taxes added in. He'd have to appoint Rosie Scenario to head the IRS if he thinks he's going to get enough money to fund his dreams.

[Fast Walker 52]

64. these are VERY different times, this is a very different campaign year

I think people want change and honesty-- hence Sanders' raging popularity.

If not, he will lose. And he's not the nominee yet, so we'll see how much it hurts him.

[redstateblues]

36. That is hilarious!

That's not a plan-it's a wish list.

[Fast Walker 52]

40. the point is that there is a strategy

It's not an empty slogan

[retrowire]

28. The Political Revolution IS the practical plan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511030951

read that to learn more.

[MADem]

34. Read post 32 to come down to earth.

People do not share your fervor.

They just don't. You can't make them "believe" -- no matter how much "Fuck this shit" or Robin Hood imagery you sling about.

And you do realize that new voter registrations are in the TOILET compared to the Obama 08 "revolution?" Which wasn't a revolution at all--it was a promise with regard to attitude...HOPE. And with that new attitude, "hopefully," would come CHANGE.

That whole "power of the vote" thing was tried before--and it worked for Obama. That said, he's been thrown a lot of shade by the Too Left for Left crew who insist he's a bad man because he has had the nerve to COMPROMISE to get things done. Oh, the huge manatee...

If you don't bring new players to the table, you're not going to win the game.

And "We will raise taxes, yes, we will" will be played, over and over and over again--and Bernie will be lucky to win ... VT in a general contest. And nothing else.

Given the shitty GOP field, that's a pretty scary prospect. But hey, if that happens, we all really CAN say "Fuck this shit" because our shit will indeed be truly fucked.

[redstateblues]

35. Walter Mondale was the last Democrat to run on raising taxes

He carried one state in the GE

[retrowire]

38. in 1983. lol nt

[MADem]

45. Which makes one wonder why Sanders is rolling taxes out as a "plus."

He sounds like Wimpy--I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today....!

You're supposed to suck it up and get taxed...AND THEN, magically, you're gonna get Free Health Care and Money Back!! Because Congress will join hands, tell their buddies in Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Fristian Medical to go pound sand! All you people in those industries? YER FIRED!!

It's just an absurd idea--particularly when we realize that the GOP have tried, on more than fifty occasions, to repeal Obamacare.

But hey....they're going to magically endorse The Bernie Plan, which is more far reaching, more onerous, more intrusive, more One Size Fits All, and will--like it or not--result in rationed or delayed care, requiring private insurance to mitigate.... because BERNIE!!! He's going to point his finger at them, and they'll swoon! They'll forget their objections to ACA, and -- it's a miracle!!!--hop onboard the Bernie Train...because They Will BELIEVE!!!



It's just pipe dreaming. Nothing but!

[retrowire]

37. Your defeatism is the reason Obama has met such opposition

Your defeatism is the reason the next democratic president will meet further opposition.

You have ingested too much of the status quo's idea of "realism" to see any further. You must open your eyes.

Here's the fact, the power of the vote thing got Obama in the White House because the majority that carried him was the youth. For many reasons, he had a great campaign and the youth were excited to make history with the first black president. But after he won, all those new voters didn't understand something. The fact that the president can't do it alone. They sat out the midterms and BAM, GOP controlled senate.

The power of the vote did NOT continue after his election. This time, we have the Political Revolution which, if anyone truly understands it, is to carry onward PAST the presidential election and into the midterms, and hopefully for a long time.

You say, "If you don't bring new players to the table, you're not going to win the game."

It's an undeniable fact that Bernie has brought more new players to the table than anyone else this campaign so, yeah, he'll win.

People do not share my fervor?

http://imgur.com/QPyAsqu

I highly disagree.

I mean of course we could just do it your way, vote for Hillary... Have more of the same, slow progress, pick the low hanging fruit... But we really don't have that much time. I'm looking at the big picture, not just the next 4 years.

And believe me, we know what we're up against, it's just we're actually willing to fight it, whereas "pragmatists" like you, aren't. You're already defeated. Let's play by their rules, it's our only choice right? Nope, we make the rules. This is about taking power back, it's not about working with them any longer. Sure it'll take some compromise, we're not stupid. But we're not giving an inch just for them to take a mile any more.

So when I see your posts, slogging the ideas and optimism of Bernie supporters, I just see someone who's afraid to fight.

[MADem]

46. Oh please--let's not confuse "realism" with any other -isms out there.

His plan is far-fetched and will not come to fruition. It just won't.

And you're wrong about those new players. They might be coming to the rallies, but they aren't REGISTERING TO VOTE.

Good grief, did you not see this? No shooting the messenger, now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/upshot/surge-for-sanders-or-trump-in-iowa-voter-registration-doesnt-suggest-it.html?_r=0
Voter Registration Doesn’t Point to Huge Iowa Surge


Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are counting on a surge of new, irregular and independent voters to turn out in Iowa and propel them over rivals with greater support among traditional caucus voters.

Yet the pace of new voter registration in the Iowa caucuses is reason to question whether a huge turnout is really in the offing.

Most striking is the relatively slow increase in the number of voters registered as Democrats, far slower than it was ahead of the 2008 caucus. The increase for Democrats this year looks much more like the increase for Republicans ahead of the 2012 contest.

The increase in registration among Republicans in recent months looks much healthier in comparison, and could be consistent with a higher turnout than in recent cycles....

A relative of mine (a young kid in his early twenties) went to one of those rallies in Boston, with a bunch of his buddies--maybe ten kids all told. If two of them were eligible to vote owing to a shortage of citizenship amongst most of them--never mind registered--that would be a lot.

And what's with the "Waaah--afraid to fight" nonsense? There's nothing glamorous--or INTELLIGENT-- about tilting at windmills. You do realize that Don Quixote was mentally ill? If he'd had an ACA, he could have gotten help for that--because THANKS OBAMA--that's a covered condition now!


And WOW--LOOK at that CROWD!!!!!!

?zz=1

That's a Nader Rally in Boston in 2000.


And GOLLY--they're PACKED IN HERE!!!!



And HERE:



Those are Ron Paul rallies.

Trump "packs 'em in" too. Don't assume that a big crowd at a feel-good rally will translate into people standing in line to vote. And don't assume that "I think I'm right, so everyone will see things my way" is a winning strategy, either. Most Americans don't feel they're in need of a "revolution"--even if you happen to feel that way.

[retrowire]

47. i guess you're just going to have to come along

kicking and screaming. it's 2016.

[MADem]

49. Not even sure what that means.

My point is that, to the people in the seats, a Big Rally means EVERYONE loves "their guy."

The truth is out there, written in the history books--and those examples prove my point.

[retrowire]

50. history is right. this is the present. nt

[MADem]

54. Well, you know what they say about history....

I've seen Democratic "tax increasers" go down in FLAMES (talk about feeling a 'bern') twice in my lifetime. Not looking for a three-pete.

Sanders just doesn't have the tools.

[retrowire]

55. History doesn't repeat itself all the time.

That phrase is kinda stupid honestly.

You know I tried Bok Choy for the first time in my life last week? It was amazing.

So another phrase for you.. "There's a first time for everything."

[MADem]

61. When a POTUS candidate threatens to raise taxes, it does.

And we're not talking about Chinese cabbage-lettuce, here, that you can push off to the side if you don't care for it--we're talking about hard earned cash that this candidate wants the government to take. And it won't be enough-he'll need much, much more. And that's assuming he can get a Congress that is virulently opposed to his ideas onboard.

Voters are wary for good reason. It's all a recipe for failure--with higher taxes and an unsatisfactory result thrown in for good measure.

Here's another one of those quotes about history: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

[retrowire]

62. When a POTUS candidate threatens to raise taxes, it does?

First time for everything. lol

[jeepers]

31. Something only a populist can do

Fuck Washington talk to their bosses the people. Convince the people who elected you president that they are the engines of change not the muckities in DC. Start at the state level and pack a lunch, this ain't going to happen overnight

The sufferage movement started about 1836 and for all of its efforts got nowhere in the national theater. It was the states that gave women the vote starting around the 1890's that forced sufferage to become a federal issue and then won the vote in 1920

[Matt_in_STL]

33. Hillary is campaigning quite smartly on this

If you don't offer any change, you don't have to have a plan for change. Hurrah for the status quo!

[FBaggins]

51. He does... but not until the general election

While he's running against the opposite of change... he's safe just pointing and saying "not that".

[KingCharlemagne]

52. I want a president who isn't going to 'compromise' with the fascists in Congress, even if that

means he or she has to veto every bill said fascists send to his or her desk, save Continuing Appropriations bills to keep the govt. running at current levels.

That's enough of a plan for me through Nov. 2018 at which point President Sanders can federalize the mid-terms and let the American people choose whether to stay the course with fascists in control of the Congress or whether to kick the fascists out and give Sanders a Congress with whom he can make common cause.

The preceding is premised on Sanders' coattails post-nomination not being long enough to sweep the fascists from power this November. Since no one is predicting this, I'm assuming the fascists will retain control of the House and probably the Senate.

[MADem]

53. You're not going to get that. If POTUS is intractable, Congress can override a veto.

A hardline POTUS might have the result of causing Congress to work together--but I suspect the result would lean more to the right than some might like.

The overuse of the word "fascist" doesn't help your argument, either.

[KingCharlemagne]

56. Oh please. No one is predicting that the fascists will get enough seats to

override vetos. Come on now.

I call the Republicans "fascists" because that's what they have become (witness Trump and Cruz). Even though most Democrats are capitalists, they have not succumbed to the siren song of fascism. If you object strongly to my use of the term, you're free to put me on Ignore, I suppose.

FWIW, I draw my definition of 'fascism' from the Bulgraian Communist (and leader of the 3rd Comintern) Georgi Dmitrov who defined it in 1935 as "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital." Some can and will argue that the Republicans haven't quite reached that point yet; I think they have. Hence my terror at the prospect of a one-party state headed by Trump or Cruz.

[BainsBane]

59. especially when that revolution is

a campaign slogan rather than a social revolution. https://books.google.com/books?id=83GgCgAAQBAJ