Bernie Sander speaking at Georgetown University on what Democratic Socialism is.

Thanks for the video CentralMass.

The more effective he is.

You are terrified of the word "socialism"

I'd suggest a deep research on Biden. A little deeper than usual. You'll see a lot of problems with him.

over BS any day.

Of Americans.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

as evidenced in the trove of past statements just complied for release by CNN, which include his support for seizing property "without compensation to the banks and wealthy stockholders who own the vast majority of stock in these companies."

He should withdraw for the good of the Democratic Party.

Message since he has held politic office starting as the Mayor of of Burlington Vt.

Let's go back and cherry pick some things that joe biden said back in the 70's. 80's, or 90's.Like his stance against integration in 1975.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/joe-biden-integration-school-busing-120968

Do you think that defines Joe Biden today ?

Well, yes... I completely agree with you. However, he's made it clear what he actually thinks of the Democratic party, and how he holds great contempt for the Democratic party. Knowing what he's said before and understanding the "destroy-it-to-rebuild-it" philosophy, I can't imagine that anyone who feels that way would do anything selfless to actually benefit the party.

All I'm saying is that anyone who believes that the Democratic party is "corrupt" or "feeble" ... anyone who smears the party by saying that the Democrats are the "party of the elite" and the "party of the one-percent" ... anyone who denigrates the party by saying there's "no difference" between Democrats and the GOP, or that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure" ... well, it's very unlikely that anyone who says such things and who believes such things is otherwise capable of putting the party first.

I'm a Democrat, not a Socialist. Party and country first... I do not do or say things to intentionally diminish or tarnish our party. Things like that only divide us and weaken us. When we're suspicious of each other and distrust motives, then our party becomes less inviting to voters, volunteers, and donors. Things like that only serve to benefit the GOP, and Trump, and Russia.

People should not be doing or saying things that ultimately benefit Russia. I think we can agree on that.

and run as independent? What good will it do? Is that what you’d like to see? We are stuck with two party system. BS has only two choices: run as a ‘democrat’ or run independently. He doesn’t consider not running as an option - it’s his right. What fascinates me is copycating most of his platform by other candidates. I instantly liked O’Rourke due to his support of Medicare but in instead of Medicare for all as first bill. I am considering supporting him instead of Harris. I hope Biden does not run. I want others have a good shot at this.

all he wants. I was pretty much done with him in 2016. He's close to the bottom of my primary season list now. I'm not interested in his current sales job.

Regarding Beto O'Rourke.i'm not trying to be negative and I would vote for him or any other Democrat who wins the nomination, but i have to ask, is this a cult of personality thing ?

He is a very young (politically speaking) guy with limited experience and a right of center voting record.

Note from CM: corrected typo below. The amount was $79 million.
It look like in the 2017-2018 election cycle he amassed nearly $79 million in campaign dollars. Apparently largely from wealthy individual donors

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00033540

That is some major money.

He raised just under $79M total, 45% from small donors. I really wish people would learn about how donors are aggregated.

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2017 - 2018 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on 03/06/19 for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average, and on 02/01/19 for Top Contributors and Industries. ("Help! The numbers don't add up..."

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

The linnk again https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00033540

A snippet from that link

Campaign Committee Fundraising, 2017 - 2018 LAST REPORT: 12/31/2018
Raised:
$78,979,726
Spent:
$79,091,894
Cash on hand:
$286,531
Debts:
$0

and no matter how much you stretch it, $78.9M does not match your assertion of $790M.

$79 million was the figure and that is a huge sum of money for a Senate campaign. The NYC pols like Schumer and Gillibrand hit the $20 + million mark and that still an insance amout of money.

Primary.

Bernie endorsed him, so big $$ didn't seem to be a non-starter where Bernie was concerned.

who have donors with deep pockets. Also I'm not a sycophantic supporter that is in lockstep with everything that candidate does.

My intuition and observations along with a study or two leave me very skeptical about the influence that the middle and poor classes have on the political process. It is a "money sport" and i am too much of a skeptic to belive that karge sums of money don't buy influence.

The Democratic party is far superior to the republican party but there is evidence that we are becoming or have become an ogliarchy. "

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

The study on that link not surprisingly came to the conclusion that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power."

We see these very promising bill and ammendments and yet as if the outcome is preordained they never seems to pass. Certain pols get the nod to vote yes or no but the outcome on of the bill will pass is already understood. The government on works us in an incidental way zn I think big and dark money play a big part in it.

I'll stick with the Democratic Socialist again this time.

Beto O`Rourke is a Hard-Core Liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Beto_O%60Rourke.htm

And a few other heads are exploding too...

Those heads.

Trumpers are all aflutter over it on Twitter. They are having the vapors.

Those heads.

Can you point out examples of those?

Is that clearer?

Of this forum. So no.

Can't back up your claims.

Got it. You linking to posts 'violates' the TOS, but the posts you claim that are truly egregious don't?

Makes total sense.

like FDR and LBJ were described by their opponents as "socialist."

What he can't claim--because it would be patently untrue--is that either FDR or LBJ were socialists.

What Bernard Sanders (I-Vt) is doing, in my estimation, is to echo right-wing talking points in order to disingenuously link his vision of "Democratic Socialism" with the liberal tradition of the Democratic Party.

I'm not buying what he's selling.

not democratic socialists or socialist of any kind.

FDR was a keynesian who hated marxism, and whose policies were about investing in society and saving capitalism from itself.

The high tax rates of that era were due to emergency conditions ie the economy had collapsed (great depression) and we had to pay for a war (wwII) of historic proportions.

On foreign policy, FDR was an American exceptionalist who had no problem using military might. Truman's worldview (which became the basis of American foreign policy for 70 years now) would be considered neoconservative by today's far left.

Interestingly's, FDR natural economic instinct was toward being a deficit hawk when he first ran for president.

But a huge heart made it a bigger priority that citizens did not go hungry.

Human need moved FDR to act in ways that were sometimes in conflict with his own predisposition toward fiscal restraint.

That made him a great liberal.

I'm not too keep on those who falsely try to portray FDR as a "socialist," whether they are from the right or from the socialist left.