General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday's news from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Obama ‘Not a Fighter’
Obama ‘Not a Fighter’: In a series of speeches on the economy, President Barack Obama so far has not laid out fresh plans, The Associated Press reported. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Obama needed to, but did not, outline bold new legislation to create jobs through a major program to fix highways, shore up bridges, overhaul airports and seaports and rebuild railways. Sanders said the president should have gotten tough and told Republicans that “if they are not prepared to go forward they are going to pay a political price” but “he's not a fighter and the Republicans have gotten that clue.”
Obama ‘Not a Fighter’: Obama's program for boosting the middle class, which he is laying out in a series of speeches, faces long odds in a Congress that showed little interest when he proposed similar ideas earlier this year. Some Democrats are looking for Obama to become more assertive. “If you're asking me if I am optimistic that he's going to come down here and fight and give the Republicans an offer they can't refuse—no. The president is not a fighter,” Sen. Sanders, an independent who generally votes with the Democratic majority, told The Wall Street Journal.
The Fed: Sen. Sanders urged the president to nominate a new Fed chairman who would be an advocate for the middle class, AP reported. Sanders suggested Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz or former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Sanders said the Fed needs to address unemployment with the same urgency it showed after the financial crisis in 2008, WCAX-TV reported. “Among the many reasons the country would be better off if Bernie Sanders was president is that the man just refuses to deal in silliness. He wants the country to have a serious debate” about the Federal Reserve mandate to promote full employment, Jonathan Tasini blogged.
more at link
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=4CA71040-2EDE-45D4-BF36-EDC0F36F354D
I agree ...this POTUS is a corporate wuss ...capitulating to repukes from the beginning. I can't believe I voted for this guy ...but then what was my alternative. Clinton or McInsain would have added a war with Iran to the MIC agenda. Hey mr POTUS wheres that transparency and jobs thingy? Huh? Where's that fucking war on drugs thing going now? Huh? So call me a Zombie Dem voter ...only because the other choice is even more insane. When will we get a POTUS who is really for us little people?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)Please elaborate.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Yes or No.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)And repeat silly questions.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Can you answer the question? Or will it expose you like it would loonix?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)You don't go to fan clubs for realistic appraisals of their idols' performance.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I accidentally replied to an over the top post on the front page, and was banned in 5 minutes.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)You get banned if you post a damned FACT there. Ugh. No thanks.
admiration is not the same as obsession
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So 'Yes'.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)so you could feel better. In your case I suggest a "Really Really like" button.
D23MIURG23
(3,133 posts)If their reason for liking the Dems closely resembles their reason for liking the Detroit Pistons, then I tend to think of that as a problem.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)pocoloco
(3,180 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Some openly complain that we can post anything in support of Democrats or push back their "criticism."
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)instead of Republicans.
If Obama chooses to appoint Republicans to top level positions in his Administration, can we criticize those Republicans with your blessing?
Or are those Republicans off limits under your view?
What if those Republicans pursue Republican policies, especially the ones that were begun under the Bush Administration?
Maybe its not so much Obama's fault as it is that they are not fully informing him?
Can we agree that if Obama only knew, surely he would do something? Why don't those in his Administration tell him?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Not a big fan of Penny Pritzker, the female Mit Romney. How about YOu?
What are the important issues to you? I never, ever see you in any threads that discuss actual issues, unless you are there to defend Pres Obama. What is your agenda?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Yeah, Barack Obama is a likable guy. I'd love to share a White House home brew with him in the rose garden.... but what freaking difference does my "liking" him make when he capitulates over and over and over and over and over.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Alphabetically it comes out on top on my subscriptions. Next.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Next indeed!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Talk to him about it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)"Where are the jobs?! Is that you, John Boehner?" looks like you are equating me to being like Boehner ...is that right?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Wage increase bill, anti-outsourcing bill, infrastructure bill, veterans jobs bills, etc.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)some nom de plume. Highly, highly objectionable, imho, and a real slur on you (based on your many other posts I've read).
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)And what's worse, Boehner doesn't have anyone in his Administration negotiating TPP provisions so that the TPP (NAFTA on steroids) can be signed and bring even more jobs to this country.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)let's-send-more-American-manufacturing-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free trade" agreements, spy upon all Americans, ...
Where's Boehner's experience in all this? Obviously, he has none.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Or signs a job-creating "free trade" agreement.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Calls for raising taxes on the rich and cutting corporate subsidies.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #87)
L0oniX This message was self-deleted by its author.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Figures though. Introspect on DU (and everywhere else including freeperville) is not fashionable these days.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)He calls for it, but he doesn't fight for it.
During his first term, he conceded raising taxes on the rich, before he even got to the negotiations.
Stargleamer
(2,405 posts)How True. It was like he wanted to save the Republicans any political fallout for their intransigence. I couldn't believe it. Clinton would have made them suffer the consequences.
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #57)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
navarth
(5,927 posts)
louslobbs
(3,416 posts)Lou
Vanje
(9,766 posts)
Andy823
(11,550 posts)So let's see we are in what the 6th month of his second term, and so far we have scandal after scandal that the right has thrown out there to basically once again prevent him from getting anything done, take the heat off of them for doing "NOTHING" in the first term and pretty much the same in the first 6 months of this term, and so what, he is a failure now? I hear that from many here, do you feel the same way?
As for "gaining" up on others, you might want to take another look at this thread and see jus how many of the "anti Obama" gang are "ganging" up to help those who can't answer a simply question. As for BS, I totally agree, it should not reign supreme around here, but it does. Like the comments that president Obama is just like Bush or Nixon, that he is a total failure and has accomplished nothing, or that that everything that goes wrong these days is all his fault. And how about those who call themselves democrats that use right wing talking points, or who call the president "Obummer" or other names the right uses and my new favorite BS line "if you don't believe the likes of Snowden and Greenwald you can't be a 'true' democrat"! I myself call all of that BS, what about you? And most of all I hate it when someone tells others they should just stay home and not vote in 2014 because "their is no difference in the two parties"! To those people I say ask those in states like Wisconsin, Maine Florida, and the other states that are now run by republicans because a lot of people did stay home in 2010 and look just how great that all worked out!
Now I will agree, I wanted more, like single payer health care, getting rid of tax cuts and subsidies for oil companies and big corporations, etc., but he isn't done yet so I am willing to support him and see what happens. I do disagree with things he has done, but I also know for a fact he has done a hell of a lot and when people seem to ignore what he "has" done and only dwell on the negative, it kind of makes me wonder just what side they are really on.
Just my two cents here.
Response to Andy823 (Reply #168)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Andy823
(11,550 posts)I am glad that you explained things for me, I feel pretty much the same way. As I said the problem is with those who "ONLY" post negative things about the president and who seem to ignore all the many thing he has accomplished. Yes many people may be life long dems, but the fact is many of them are allowing the "fear and smear" tactics of the right to affect their thinking. As I said they do have the right to be upset, and to complain about it, but many times it goes so much further with rants about nothing but how bad president Obama is, how useless he is, etc., and that has to make you wonder just where they are coming from.
Fear and smear is a great tactic used by politicians, and by religions, and sadly it works on many who don't take the time to realize they should be checking things out instead of simply buying into the words of those who are using those tactics. Many posters here are trolls in my opinion, the new posters who started rolling in about the time all the scandals were bing brought up by the republicans. Many Paulbots are also here. It's really hard to understand how those trolls can get so many people worked up and spouting right wing talking points and Ron Paul libertarian points. A few years back these trolls would have been run off, now some of them actually are getting their of the wall remarks on the main page. It's kind of crazy.
I do agree with you about politicians not working for the people, but I also agree that everyone needs to understand just who much worse things will be, or would have been, with a republican in the WH, and even worse if republicans control both houses of congress. We need jobs, and we need fair wages, and the only way I see that happening is with democrats in office. The best thing people can do is not stay home, but find democrats that will work for the people and help them get elected at the local and state levels. Sure it isn't easy in some areas, but the way republicans are tearing things apart and passing asinine laws when they take over state government, should be making even some republican voters stop and think about what is going on. It's even worse in states where teabaggers have gotten elected.
It all has to start at the state level and the only way that can work is if people get out and vote.
Thanks again for your reply.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Perfect people don't exist unless you live in la la land and all government office holders will be scrutinized. Get over it. Stupid questions don't need to be answered unless your playing some sort of pissing game. Criticism of the Dem POTUS does not mean people will not continue to vote Dem however much you might want to play the reframe game. You think those like me that went to Obama rallies and voted for him twice have no right to criticize him? Bullshit.
Janecita
(86 posts)The last time I dared to criticize Obama I was called a troll
I'm really fed up with this personality cult bs.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)You cover your hero with very dim praise , when the most convincing praise you can come up with is:
He sucks a little bit less than the Republicans.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and not Wall Street criminals. Bernanke and Summers, really!!!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Where you post most is your favorite, which makes sense- why would yu spend time posting in an area you don't like? My favorite, according to my profile, is atheist and agnostics, which makes ense to me. If it said Religion I would think something is seriously wrong- as I would rather post in the Gungeon than Religion (although both would make me feel like I need a shower)
Cha
(310,623 posts)and I've never seen Janey in the BOG. Although, I would like to.
Janey, 
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)In forums and groups. Judging by my profile, my favorite group is A&A, and accounts for 3% of my posts. My favorite forum is 60% of my posts- a big difference numerically.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Is it that you just dont have an opinion unless you get it from the WH?
Cha
(310,623 posts)your own damn self. I'm getting sick of you inserting your personal attacks.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Never discussing issues but only here to make ad hominem attacks and ridicule. I think it's divisive. Is that the plan? Divide the Democratic Party so the Republicans can win?
Why do you disparage the left so? What issues do you disagree with?
On edit, I am done with the divisiveness.
Cha
(310,623 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)You responded simply to say that someone hasn't posted in the BOG and this person leaps all over you. The whole thread is simply crawling with personal attacks, on the president and everyone who dares to support him.
I am so sick of all of this divisive stupid garbage and even more sick of the folks that live to wallow in it.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Sure it's listed as her favorite group but it also says she has one post there :-P
Peacetrain
(23,917 posts)turned out to be Kerry. I posted there once.. .. did not even know I posted in Kerry Chat. must have been responding to someone.. so the person posted in the Barack Obama group once.. what has that got to do with the price of tea in china.. and the fact that Boehner has been the biggest obstructionist to job creation that I can ever remember in public office??..
Progressive dog
(7,467 posts)Yep, it does figure that you would find that important. One post is all JaneyVee made.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)In-fucking-credible.
cali
(114,904 posts)Get a grip. that's about as lame as it gets from the defend-the-admin-at-all-costs store of insults.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)If there are things to be said they need to be determined by communication (over a cup of coffee)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Whateverthefuck thats supposed to mean. 
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Missed my coffee today.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
TBF
(35,100 posts)"who is really for us little people" until we get rid of the capitalism. Not gonna happen ...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
leftstreet
(36,745 posts)They vacuum up taxpayer monies to benefit themselves rather than society
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)for "the little people" and who managed to save capitalism and defeat global fascism simultaneously. So I disagree that it can never happen, as disappointed as I am with this administration. (I wanted an FDR, but I got something far less.)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We the people could elect Jesus H. Christ himself. It would not matter. Empires have their own logic.
I don't encourage anybody else to do it, and I live in a deep blue state. But I am voting my conscience in 2016, across the board...period.
The, but, but, but what about Republicans...holds zero sway any longer to me. It's the Empire stupid
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)They need to be fired, dispensed with. There needs to be new fighting Democratic blood in Congress. Congress is the key.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Voted to defund Obamacare and to protect the NSA.
As I said, the argument holds zero sway with me any longer.
I might do what real old fashioned reporters, who cover politics, used to do, and not vote. To just vote my conscience.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Oh don't worry my whole delegation voted to protect the NSA.
(He benefits from one thing, outside political reporters, most folks don't know those details)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And he is in a +1 R district. I will not be shocked if he is a one termer
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Good side of the job, you get all these inane details. Bad side...nothing more fun than following Sacramento politics. You think DC can be boring...just wait
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...are not all "policy" speeches. Obama is giving a policy speech today.
"The day the right lost the economic argument...President Obama's speech clinched the case..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023344918
As for being a "fighter," President Obama won a key battle against Republicans: re-election.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and Obama did not win the election ...we who fought for and voted for him got him elected or did he not need us?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Your concern for transaprancy and lower/middle class jobs is noted...and Obama did not win the election ...we who fought for and voted for him got him elected or did he not need us?"
So you "fought" to elect someone who is not a "fighter"?
Yes, my "concern" is noted.
Republicans are blocking $100 billion in immediate infrastructure spending.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023353869
Howard Dean Has an Excuse. Allyson Schwartz Doesn’t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023371917
Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372091
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)IMO He doesn't fight for me or my biggest concerns. Yea that is my opinion. ...and I don't have all day to read all your links ...you are entitled to your opinion as well.
Andy823
(11,550 posts)The people did get him elected, and I voted for him both times, did you? I actually think he got a hell of a lot accomplished in his first term, especially since republicans vowed to fight him on everything, the party of NO, NO, NO...."! Now after only 6 months I am not going to give up on him, hell he is just getting started! With all the BS scandals the right have been throwing at him and hoping something sticks, with the media making sure those "scandals" get all the attention instead of anything else, like the republicans playing the same old bull shit games and doing nothing to help get things in this country back on the fast track, he has a tough time trying to get the country back on track with the real issues, and that's what I want to see the "real" issues being discussed.
So yes, he did needed us, and he needs us to keep on pushing him and supporting him. I think it's pretty bad when those of us who do still support him are attacked on a daily basis. Why is it that supporting your president is so damned bad? We don't have to agree with everything he has done, we can want more, but why are those who still support him being told they are "not true democrats"? It just makes no sense to me. Should we just give up and let the republicans take control of congress next year, and then take the WH back in 2016? Do you really think that would be better for this country?
cali
(114,904 posts)demonstrating precisely where you're coming from.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)After all, he's not a "fighter," and that's why some say they "fought" to re-elect him.
I guess they got what they voted for.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)When I went to see him at a campaign rally I was surprised to not see him pick his nose.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Fighting for votes is common to all politicians so nothing exceptional here."
...for votes is as common as fighting for the spotlight, and then there is reality: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987698#post12
Congress has a job to do, and they can't blame it all on the President.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)You have that exactly right. They are not the same thing. Some of us were foolish enough to assume they are the same thing.
And that really raises the question, is there anybody in the Dem party who will fight for our principles in the same way that people like Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, and that exercise guy from WI -- I forgot his name already -- the VP candidate -- fight for the things they believe in (or at least are well paid to fight for)?
And don't tell me that person is Hillary. We know perfectly well what the DLC "Democrats" are and what they do.
Seriously, is there anybody who has any chance in the next cycle? There are a few fighters, but I don't see any of them tossing hats into the ring.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Probably all longshots, among the best we have, though. I don't know if Sanders could or would run as a Dem. Grayson has deep deep pockets, which would help isolate him from the corrupting influence of fundraising, and he's definitely a fighter. So is Warrren, though I don't know how should could compete in this campaign finance driven environment. Howard Dean might be just the guy if he would go for it. Not a perfect progressive, but he'd be much better than Hillary. I hope they all jump into the primaries, that would make it interesting.
My secret fear is that Obama will slyly assist in positioning Chuck Hagel for the presidency. He clearly has presidential ambitions, he owns many of the voting machines, and somehow I see him as Obama's kinda guy. Hopefully that's nothing more than paranoia on my part. Obama probably will support Hillary.
Progressive dog
(7,467 posts)except we call them laws. There is also the slight problem that Presidents not only don't control everything, there are usually a lot of people fighting on the other side.
You may not have noticed, but the other side has been winning for a while.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"We was better than the other guy. But not a great liberal. Gullible as hell about the GOP."
...displays of being "gullible" ever: Stand With Rand.
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."
Logical
(22,457 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)And DU is a forum where Democrats talk about politics. I think his name might come up from time to time. DERP.
Are you really sure you wanted to say that? On DU? Wow.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)He is a Democrat, like myself.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Over the other people running, which includes the Democrats to his left and certainly Bernie Sanders and his party, whatever it is.
GeorgeGist
(25,507 posts)he's always looking out for number 1.
Even names his kids dog after himself.
G_j
(40,503 posts)would be an excellent choice, which is probably why it would never happen.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)
I fear what we would get if Obama was a fighter. I hope he just concentrates on his library for the next three years.
The plutocrats don't need anymore help.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...everyone he has appointed is concerned about their stocks, bonds and standing with the Heritage Foundation? He doesn't seem to think that Democrats or liberals can run anything.
Is he right?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Was Sanders fighting for the Bush tax cuts to die? He did that mini-filibuster in 2010, but what did he do in 2012?
I don't remember hearing from him, and then he voted FOR that piece of crap instead of FIGHTING AGAINST it.
So speaking of people who aren't fighters, Mr. Senator, you can see one every morning when you shave. At least you were AWOL in that very important battle.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)feel the corporatists will give you security? Is that what you are willing to sell your soul for?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)He made a bad vote there, and considering his record there, I don't know why he wants to be throwing stones now.
ATRA appears to be impossible to undo. That nuclear bomb cannot be undetonated. But people should still be held accountable - and that means people I would normally respect, like Tammy Baldwin, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, almost any Democratic politician you can name (besides myself, since by politician I mean they have won their election, not just run in a couple).
But all of those supposed Democratic leaders, fighters for the people they would call themselves (and so does Obama), they sat on their hands. They seemingly said nothing, and did nothing to prevent the travesty that is ATRA. Most of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent and the Democratic Party could not even produce a whimper of objection. Where was Sanders press conference then? AWOL, that's where. And he voted FOR that piece of excrement.
He ought to be ashamed.
And he has the nerve to say Obama doesn't fight? Where the hell was his own fight?
I am supposed to worry about a corporatist? On this bill Sanders voted the same as McConnell. The same as Roberts of Kansas. The same as Coburn. In that case how was he any better than the rightest rightwinger?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)many times with specific demands. Pres Obama did good as a candidate but since, his speeches are pure rhetoric. Pres Obama isnt fighting for us when he appoints people like Pritzker, Bernanke, Comey, and Summers.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We have all seen Sanders speak out for the people; but where are his bills (legislature) that he has drafted and fought for and passed?
I guess for others “speaking out” is substantive action (because … his speech is fiery and populace?); whereas, with President Obama, “speaking out” is merely a speech (because … it is insufficiently fiery and populace?). Go figure.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts) WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
ananda
(31,711 posts)Most Americans in need of good jobs are poor,
fucking POOR.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I know because he sends me emails regularly about his fights for this or that issue or cause. And none of them ever gets enacted. Fighting without accomplishing anything (let's call it the Weiner syndrome, in the current environment) is a symbolic gesture only. I'm not saying I don't agree with these causes, but for him to criticize the president for not engaging in windmill tilting is hypocritical.
Peruse this list of bills Sanders has sponsored over the past few years (link below). Most have 0, 1, or 2 cosponsors, and nothing of true substance has ever gotten out of committee, much less gotten enacted by Congress. Senators can tilt at windmills (though it will buy them little in terms of legacy, compared to "fighters" who have been willing to compromise, like Ted Kennedy learned to do). Presidents can not afford to "fight" for legislation that has no chance of passing. They must accomplish a certain number of things in the brief time they have available to them. If you're aware that a single-payer healthcare system has no chance of passing--which it never did--then you work to get SOMETHING that progresses the fight forward. Losing buys you nothing, and often sets back the fight for progress.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d112:FLD003:@1(Sen+Sanders):
cali
(114,904 posts)He uses the amendment process as effectively as anyone in Congress. You know that big chunk of dough in the ACA for CHCs? Bernie.
You tell em, Cali!
The folks carping about Obama endlessly claim they want actions not words.
Then they ignore his actual accomplishments, while getting very excited about some one who talks a good game but doesn't really get much done.
Ironic.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I am going to fight for what is right and if we fail, then I will fight on. Accepting what they give you is bullcrap.
Taking your theory to the extreme would mean you would rather live in slavery than fight against terrible odds. That's exactly what they want you to think. That's why they terrorize us. I am glad our founders didnt have your attitude.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)unfortunately, we don't make statesmen anymore.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)And Bachman and Christine O'Donnell. Oh my gosh, how far this country had fallen!
Response to L0oniX (Original post)
Post removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why is he undermining the President this way? Is he not for those things? Then he should do his part rather than just carping at others.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)And he's dead right. We saw what kind of guy Obama was going to be right away with his reaching out, bipartisan bullshit. Things just are what they are. We can get a Wall Street shill that's decent on domestic social issues or we can get a Wall Street shill that's religiously insane. I don't think we're ever going to see a President or Congress that works for the good of the People again. This game is over.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Like someone rightfully stated upthread, he doesn't have many co-sponsors on his bills. Why doesn't he fight harder for his bills? Oh, we have see him conducting filibusters and that's great, but that was to BLOCK something, not to fight FOR something.
It's easy to sit and complain all the time about what is or is not being done. It's quite another thing to govern. Bernie is a single member of the Senate who has the luxury of representing a pretty liberal state; therefore, he can afford to be pretty liberal. But when you have to run a country and therefore represent more than just the liberal-minded, things get to be a little more complex than just being a senator of a very small, ideologically homogenous state.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Why aren't there co-sponsors? Because both parties are corporate sellouts. He's fought plenty hard for his bills but if the puppet masters' money says stay away from the things that will help people while making said masters actually contribute something toward it, then stay away those sons-of-bitches in the Senate do.
It's got nothing to do with the states any of these bastards come from except on social issues. On economic issues it matters what the owners want. The People would be happy for policies that help them, even if they dont understand them at first. Even if they think they should be against them at first because hate radio says to or whatever. Don't be naive and fall into this ridiculous rhetoric trap. Too liberal, my ass. This is a country dying for Sanders' policies. That's in desperate need of them.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)House and Senate. What's the difference? Really, tell me.
Bernie's socialist platform--which I agree with theoretically--has no chance of ever seeing the light of day. Why? Because neither Congress nor these United States are made up of too many Bernie Sanders. So again, it's easy for Bernie to sit and write articles and blogs complaining about Obama when Bernie represents a very progressive, homogenous state. It's altogether different when you are forced to reconcile many different points of view, political philosophies that are diametrically opposed to yours.
My post was deliberately snarky to prove a point:
No one here--and certainly not me!--blames Bernie Sanders for not being able to get his single payer bill through the Senate.
No one here--certainly not me!--blames Bernie Sanders for being unable to push through his Patriot Act repeal through the Senate.
No one here--certainly not me!--blames Bernie Sanders for not being able to get ANY of his legislative items through even committee, let alone subcommittee.
We all understand that he is up against unchanging winds. We all understand that he has to deal with people who do not share the same political philosophy.
So why can't Bernie understand what Obama is up against? Why does he continue to blame the president for not being able to get a jobs bill through Congress when he should know damn well what this president is facing. He should know that the Republicans are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy. They want to destroy not only President Obama, but the Democratic Party as well. Surely Bernie knows this? I'm therefore baffled why he continues to let the Republicans off the hook, instead writing these asinine articles about how Obama isn't doing this right or doing that right. Surely Bernie Sanders isn't that naive or oblivious. He knows what's going on because he witnesses the behavior every single day!
Again, I would like to see him point the finger at the willfully destructive Republican Party. I would like to see him single out the Democrats who aid them. I would, for once, like to see him put the blame squarely where it belongs: at the feet of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party.
That. is. all.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Everyone already knows what they're about and what they're doing. The problem is that Obama agrees with a lot of these pro-corporate, anti-worker policies and he's the President for fuck's sake. Most of the Democratic Party buys into this corporatist shit. That's why they need to be prodded and poked, because they still pretend to give a shit about the people. Calling out the Republicans for not being liberal enough, for not being People friendly enough is pointless. There's never a hope that they're going to change their ways. Come on, they're going to primary turtleman for not being enough of an asshole.
Trying to get the party that is ostensibly in favor of the People to actually fight for policies that favor the people is the only real choice. Though I consider it to be as much folly as trying to talk sense to the Baggers. It's just not going to happen.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)of folks from the internets often leads me to believe that there are too many of us who don't have a clue how much damage Republicans have done to this country. It's easy to blame Democrats or even point the finger squarely at Obama. It's easy to sit on the sideline and express disappointment on a message forum on the internet. It's another thing altogether to GOVERN and deal with very complex issues. It's not as simple as many on this forum seem to think it is. Living in the D.C. area and working for the federal government has given me a perspective on how things actually work here. It's not cut and dry, and it's definitely not black and white. Bernie should know this. He's been in government long enough to understand that these issues are a lot more complex than he's making them out to be.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Newsflash!!! We have three equal branches of Government. Bernie is in one of them. Do something Bernie, instead of fucking run your mouth.
Love me some Bernie Sanders!!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)on my way to work (that is, when Congress is in session). He's always smiling, always friendly, always speaks.
However, I think Bernie is dead wrong!!
I would like to hear Bernie Sanders, for once, castigate Republicans for blocking every single jobs bills Democrats put on the table. I would like to see articles, blogs, and op-eds written by Bernie where he educates the American people about how the governing process works. Congress lays out the legislation, the president signs. But if that legislation can't get through Congress, and you have a recalcitrant Republican Party who, no matter what you do, is hellbent on blocking everything because they want to destroy you, what would Bernie have the president do? Really. Bernie complains a lot, just like the people here on DU and the bloggosphere. People sure like to complain a lot but when asked for SPECIFIC solutions, they have none.
So, I'm still waiting on SPECIFIC solutions to the Republican Party.
Again, please be SPECIFIC!!!!
SunSeeker
(55,723 posts)Cha
(310,623 posts)I know he's a fighter. Bernie likes to bitch.. sometimes he actually has some good points. Not now.
Next time you see Bernie tell him I said so.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)in the electorate are. Someone in power needs to say it, for God's sake, so that it's not just Socialists like me on the lunatic fringe who are saying it.
I mean, come right out and use the 'f' word on them. What, some sense of politesse inhibits politicians from calling a spade a spade? Jesus, the Republicans want a one-party state where they control all branches of government and anyone who disagrees with them is interned (or worse).
The Link
(757 posts)I've known that for years.
think
(11,641 posts)nothing would change without the cooperation & help of others....
There are too many rotten fucks in congress and corporate fuck wads with boatloads of ill gotten cash for our govt to function properly....
tblue
(16,350 posts)and we would all be united behind him, all generally pointed in the same direction. Unlike now when we are told spying is Constitutional, and war crimes are not worthy of investigation, and the waters in the Gulf are back to normal and Obama is more Left than Right.
think
(11,641 posts)And yes, I would love to see Bernie at the helm taking on that fight...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)but everybody was so caught up in the Cult of Personality they wouldnt listen.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Hilary campaigned on running the US the way that Obama actually IS.
Edwards was a distant third and had skeletons we didn't even know about.
No one else lasted long enough to get a primary vote from most states.
You're right about the personality cult, though. We see plenty evidence of that to this day.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)I have no idea how we change that.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)in Afghanistan. I ultimately sided with him b/c he spoke out against the Iraq War when it was politically risky to do so, unlike Hillary who used the Iraq War vote to burnish her national security credentials for her future aspirations. (Ugh! She has not yet to this day expressed one iota of remorse for her vote which caused so much entirely preventable suffering and despair. The mind reels.)
That said, I confess I was taken in by Obama, hearing what I mostly wanted to hear and ignoring my misgivings. I don't know what I could have done differently though. By the time of the California primary, the nomination was already sealed, IIRC, although Hillary was fighting a rear-guard action with Super Delegates, one that ultimately failed to gain traction.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)What? It is his second term? Oh.
Well. He can't blow it for HILLARY 2016!!! He has to maintain and not rile feathers!
To both of them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)President Barack Obama on Monday took the oath of office for his second term before a crowd of hundreds of thousands massed along The Washington Mall. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Obama’s second inaugural was “eloquent in its simplicity and inspiring in its basic theme that we’re all in this together.
“On the day our nation was marking the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., our first African American president invoked our country’s long history of advancing civil rights, as he put it, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, Sanders added.
“As we rebuild our economy and as we bring an end to a decade of wars, the president laid out a strong vision for how we must protect our planet and renew our commitment to securing fundamental rights for all Americans.
“As the president brings forth his budget and legislative priorities, I look forward to working with him to create the millions of jobs that our workers need, to provide health care for all Americans and to protect the social safety net for seniors, veterans, children and the poor.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=4A98D786-0BCD-47F9-B3F1-28A2371F4F57
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10022236245
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)OMG1!!1111!!!
All is well, his job is done. 
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)Very true...the majority of Democrats are not fighters..Washington is like the Marching Bulldogs vs the Cowardly Tabbies..
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
flamingdem
(40,409 posts)“If you're asking me if I am optimistic that he's going to come down here and fight and give the Republicans an offer they can't refuse—no.
* I think it's okay for him to be critical. Everyone knows where he's coming from and he supports Obama on most things.
Cha
(310,623 posts)who are invested in just whining about him 24/7.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Yes hitting the Republicans over the head is the key to getting legislation passed out of the House.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)That's why he's not fighting.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Oh hahahah
Published on Mar 27, 2012
On Monday while President Obama was taking part in a global nuclear security summit in South Korea, he was caught on tape asking for Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for "space." "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility," Obama implored. Obama assured the departing Russian President he will have the "flexibility" required to deal with missile defense issues after the 2012 presidential election.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Heretic! We have to find out if he ever loved him anyway! Mobilize the inquisition!
BrainMann1
(460 posts)
upi402
(16,854 posts) Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Seriously.
upi402
(16,854 posts)I'm no such gentleman wrt Obama's betrayals.
We'll get a REAL Dem when only AFTER we get a real media.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)The heck with just President taking the blame when the party is filled with non-fighters.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)vt_native
(484 posts)According to the Air Force, 3400 homes will be "incompatible with residential use" if the F-35 comes to VT
Bernie supports the plan, betraying his constituents and his legacy of supporting affordable housing.
I am a sad former Bernie supporter.
Don't trust me, read the Harper's Article.
stopthef35.com
rury
(1,021 posts)Has Sanders not heard of the American Jobs Act that the Retuglikkkans spurned?
President Obama IS a fighter, but not a dictator or a king.
The fucking, obstructionist Rethugs (and some Democrats) are the problem here.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)at all.
"his echoes on DU"
Oh, the irony. It's painful.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)with his dazzling intellect?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)I know you are just defending OUR team by PUNCHING THE HIPPIE, but still when has "convincing" republicans with arguments ever worked?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)He needs to sit down with Democrats!
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)for corporate interests.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)and the other choice of course was a Wall Street corporacrat (so called Democrat) that still gives one hell of a political speech to get our vote with promises of building the middle class and moves on to a second term with a repeat of his first term of more broken promises.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Sometimes it is better when things don't get done 
INdemo
(7,024 posts)would do what he didn't do in his first term and that was take a stand against Wall Street (bring back those regs. to stop the banks from destroying us) and so far nothing..I figured what does this guy have to lose...he don't have to worry about another re-election so he will put the Repukes in their place and fight for the mainstreet folks Right?...But Nope the corporate mafia still owns him and nothing has changed..He is still appointing corporate mobsters to his cabinet as well as Wall Street banksters..so nothing has changed and we are screwed....
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I would say it's more a game we play in our own head. I supported him but figured he wasn't going to get much done. I don't know if it was more on him or part of the whole system. So i don't see how being angry or blaming individuals makes sense for me. Like you said the alternative was worse and that is how the system had planned. We could go for next best choice and they would compromise that like they always do Now that many in the higher levels democratic party also compromised much in the same it's no wonder chasing one's own tail would be the option.
With the mob, you play their game or they erase. Our means of controlling the corporate mob with the government has also been compromised, eclipsed and subdued with their control of who can get elected. We play the game and hope for something better or we can check out in one way or another.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Either that or he wants to appoint Pritzker, Summers, Bernanke, Clapper, and the rest of those that always seem to be in positions of control.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And it wont matter if Clinton or Christie wins, the players will stay the same.
DLevine
(1,791 posts)I would love to see the president fight the good fight, rather than try to placate republicans.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Where is YOUR outline of bold new legislation to create jobs through a major program to fix highways, shore up bridges, overhaul airports and seaports and rebuild railways? As a Senator, that is YOUR job.
Senator Sanders, why haven’t YOU gotten tough with republicans by drafting bold new legislation to create jobs through a major program to fix highways, shore up bridges, overhaul airports and seaports and rebuild railways? And then, after doing so get tough on republicans, telling them “if they are not prepared to go forward they are going to pay a political price.”
Are we to conclude that you are not a fighter … or that your only fight is with a President that does not do YOUR job the way YOU would do it, if you were to do it.
Honestly, I like a lot of what Sanders does and stands for; specifically, I support his doing this:
“The Fed: Sen. Sanders urged the president to nominate a new Fed chairman who would be an advocate for the middle class, AP reported. Sanders suggested Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz or former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Sanders said the Fed needs to address unemployment with the same urgency it showed after the financial crisis in 2008.”
That is his Constitutional role … but, I am passed tired of legislators that abdicate their constitutional role by failing to push and push and push (read: draft and introduce, over and over again) the legislation that they criticize this President for not proposing.
I swear … too many in Congress seem as Wide Receivers complaining that the Quarterback is not completing passes, while they refuse to run any patterns.