View Full Version : Bernie Sanders
I'm surprised I've not really seen any mention of Bernie Sanders here.
He certainly seems to be a better choice than HRC. I'd certainly vote for him if the choice was only the two of them. He seems to be a lot more concerned about the average American than she does. And I definitely agree with him on Citizens United.
Gee, Tradd, I'm surprised that you would vote for him.. for some reason I pictured you as more conservative. I completely agree with Bernie on Citizen's United, as well as many other issues. I even have a Bernie Sanders for President T-shirt.
I would love to see some grassroots uprising and have him actually be a real contender in the primaries. He's got a great start. I think a lot of people like his integrity, his consistent message, and his commitment to the people.
I am more conservative. I said I'd vote for him if it was a choice between Bernie and HRC. Hilary is too cozy with the big money people. Same with Obama. Go on and on how they're for the little people, yet have expensive fundraisers, hangout with those folks, etc.
Bernie's net worth is somewhere around $400K, per the sources I found online.
He's also a moderate on gun control, which I like, which is not surprising, given that he's from Vermont.
Frankly, at this point, I like him better than any of the GOP candidates, who just leave me cold
He seems to be in it for his constituents, and regularly takes calls from citizens for an hour every Friday on Thom Hartmann's show. He has an estimated net worth of $330, 000, which indicates he's not in it for the money. He's an avowed Democratic Socialist who champions a European type system.
He has a pretty good rating (for a non-Republican) from the NRA, if you care about such things.
I like him a lot.
Tussiemussies
6-14-15, 10:04pm
I really like everything I have read about him so far. I would definitely vote for him...
A mere socialist sideshow on the way to Mrs. Clinton's coronation.
I'm starting to realize (I know.....I'm late to the party) that the masses of certain people vote for the person who is most like them, rather than their abilities as a president.........What I mean is, some will vote for a white male because they are white males; the hispanics will vote for someone who's Hispanic, blacks for a black, women for a woman. I sort of understand this, but it doesn't mean they are the best person for the country in general. I find this a bit scary.
I do like Bernie Sanders too.......but I fear he doesn't have a snowball's...................
I'm starting to realize (I know.....I'm late to the party) that the masses of certain people vote for the person who is most like them, rather than their abilities as a president.........What I mean is, some will vote for a white male because they are white males; the hispanics will vote for someone who's Hispanic, blacks for a black, women for a woman. I sort of understand this, but it doesn't mean they are the best person for the country in general. I find this a bit scary.
I'm curious how you've arrived at this opinion. I went looking for confirmation and instead found this: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/13/1178721/poll-latino-republican-sen-elect-ted-cruz-received-no-boost-from-latinos/ I'm also guessing that the blacks who voted for Obama are probably not particularly inclined to vote for Ben Carson.
So far, I've never voted for anyone remotely like myself. I've voted for old people when I was young (Eugene McCarthy), African-Americans (Shirley Chisholm, Barack Obama), religious believers, though I'm not one (Jimmy Carter, and every declared candidate ever, practically), extroverts, though I'm an introvert (Bill Clinton)...Clearly, it wasn't just African-Americans voting for President Obama, nor Catholics voting for John F. Kennedy.
I will probably have an opportunity to vote for a woman this time around with the confidence that Hillary Clinton is at least as qualified as any other candidate we've fielded lately. Under no circumstance imaginable would I vote for Carly Fiorina. of course people who have long been disenfranchised are likely happy to get a chance to pull the lever for someone with whom they have something more in common than political point of view.
of course people who have long been disenfranchised are likely happy to get a chance to pull the lever for someone with whom they have something more in common than political point of view.
I guess this is what I was trying to say.
And I think as more and more people in the U.S. become disenfranchised, the more voting for someone who looks like them or has the same background will happen.......rather than someone with really good ideas for the country. I suppose this is to be expected, but as those groups of people enlarge in number, the more likely (I feel) someone will be voted in based on the "wrong" reasons. But I guess something like this has been going on forever, in terms of voting for someone because you like their looks, their stand on abortion, etc. There are so many areas that a president should be good at though.
Identity politics are very effective. See the recent 'War on Women' and 'Old White Men' memes.
Personally, I believe no one should be allowed to vote unless they had skin in the game, such as a several year record of paying for government rather than being a beneficiary.
Identity politics are very effective. See the recent 'War on Women' and 'Old White Men' memes.
Personally, I believe no one should be allowed to vote unless they had skin in the game, such as a several year record of paying for government rather than being a beneficiary.
We tried that. You had to be a white male land owner.
Let's disenfranchise that pesky 47%; Mitt and his crew would approve.
Identity politics are very effective. See the recent 'War on Women' and 'Old White Men' memes.
Personally, I believe no one should be allowed to vote unless they had skin in the game, such as a several year record of paying for government rather than being a beneficiary.
By "beneficiary" are we including shareholders of GM, Exxon Mobile, Berkshire Hathaway, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc.? Obviously those individuals are on the hook for income and capital gains taxes that offset some or all of their 'benefit'. Should we simply establish a scale to determine at what point their skin in trumps their subsidy out to establish voting eligibility?
I don't entirely disagree that net contributors should have a more prominent voice than net recipients. What makes me uncomfortable is the easy to follow detour that leads to one dollar, one vote.
Let's disenfranchise that pesky 47%; Mitt and his crew would approve.
Tomato/Tomahto, I say let's encourage the 47% to enfranchise themselves and vote their conscience. What's to stop them?
Identity politics are very effective. See the recent 'War on Women' and 'Old White Men' memes.
I agree that we've taken identity politics to a ridiculous extreme in this country. We've seen a white woman pretend to be black, and becoming president of the Spokane NAACP. We've seen Elizabeth Warren pretend to be part Cherokee, apparently to get some sort of advantage in the academic job market. We've seen Hilary Clinton make false claims about her "immigrant grandparents". We've seen an idiot interviewer ask Ted Cruz to say something in Spanish to prove himself "authentically" Hispanic. We've seen any number of politicians lie about their military records.
Labels seem to be everything.
By "beneficiary" are we including shareholders of GM, Exxon Mobile, Berkshire Hathaway, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc.? Obviously those individuals are on the hook for income and capital gains taxes that offset some or all of their 'benefit'. Should we simply establish a scale to determine at what point their skin in trumps their subsidy out to establish voting eligibility?
I don't entirely disagree that net contributors should have a more prominent voice than net recipients. What makes me uncomfortable is the easy to follow detour that leads to one dollar, one vote.
Now that's a whole nother story. A perfect example of government deciding winners and losers, which is what big government does best. Why do we tolerate it? And why do so many of us applaud big government or socialism when it benefits us but not when it benefits others?
Now that's a whole nother story. A perfect example of government deciding winners and losers, which is what big government does best. Why do we tolerate it? And why do so many of us applaud big government or socialism when it benefits us but not when it benefits others?
The only conclusion I've been able to draw, realistically, is that (our) tolerance is borne of ignorance. I don't know what else you could conclude from a society that continues to exploit its most vulnerable for the benefit of the few at the top and then expects the overburdened lower castes to be grateful for the breadcrumbs that manage to filter down to them. I don't know anyone that would put up with that for long if they realized its happening, but for now the frogs appear to be surviving the hot bath.
ApatheticNoMore
6-15-15, 3:53pm
And I definitely agree with him on Citizens United.
http://movetoamend.org/
I'm wondering how many people have ever read the opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
I'm wondering how many people have ever read the opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Bueller? Bueller? Since I don't have a law degree and thus am not fluent in legalese, and my relatives who did are long dead, I have to rely on reports from people who do--most of whom agree that it opens the door to "the best country money can buy." (I thought we were already there...) Do you--having waded through the text of the opinion--have a rosier view?
http://movetoamend.org/
How would this work in actual practice? I know the intention is to limit what corporate organizations can spend on electioneering, but doesn't it open the door to all kinds of interference with speech by whoever happens to be on top politically at the time? Would Marco Rubio, for instance, have recourse against the New York Times Company for recycling Democratic opposition research in a fairly transparent manner? Could virtually anyone make the case that a Vanity Fair puff piece about Hilary Clinton needs to have a dollar value attached to it so it can be counted against her spending total? Could the FEC crack down on sermons deemed political in nature.
I'm worried that something like this could turn out to be abused in the way the Interstate Commerce Clause has been to exert government control in new and imaginative ways.
The Court's opinion is pretty understandable even to the lay person if they take a little time, and have a basic understanding of constitutional law.
I've found most folks who whip out sound-bite zingers about that decision (or most others) haven't bothered to read the opinions, or try to understand the reasoning.
On Citizens United - note that the ACLU filed an amicus brief in favor of Citizens United:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/citizensunited_v_fec_acluamicus.pdf
Something about a chilling effect on free speech.
Note also that the ACLU is opposed to any constitutional amendments that would quash speech:
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-citizens-united
I'll read your links when I get a chance. I'm all for free speech; I just don't understand how it equates to money. Or when/how corporations became people.
Identity politics are very effective. See the recent 'War on Women' and 'Old White Men' memes.
Personally, I believe no one should be allowed to vote unless they had skin in the game, such as a several year record of paying for government rather than being a beneficiary.
Mitt Romney seemed to have a firm grasp of identity politics, rallying as he did his coterie of rich white men and the poor white wannabes who yearned to win a big-bucks lottery to look down on the 47%. He was referring to the percentage of voters who might vote Democratic, and then labeled them all as grifters and beggars, or words to that effect.
Hooray for recording devices; that was a stunning snapshot of arrogance on the hoof.
Hooray for recording devices; that was a stunning snapshot of arrogance on the hoof.
You should have seen how arrogant and power-hungry his team was at the convention. It was sickening.
I'm all for free speech; I just don't understand how it equates to money.
Speech, of all kinds, certainly equates to money if you are in control of it. You can say just about anything you want, but you don't necessarily get to say it on the Today Show. To get the opportunity to say something in a large audience venue you typically need to either agree with the owners and sponsors of the venue or be inept enough to be an easy target for the owners and sponsors henchmen. Christians accepted, lions need not apply. There is no reason to think that the same rules don't apply to candidates for office.
Speech, of all kinds, certainly equates to money if you are in control of it. You can say just about anything you want, but you don't necessarily get to say it on the Today Show. To get the opportunity to say something in a large audience venue you typically need to either agree with the owners and sponsors of the venue or be inept enough to be an easy target for the owners and sponsors henchmen. Christians accepted, lions need not apply. There is no reason to think that the same rules don't apply to candidates for office.So, if the NY Times or Washington Post or Time Magazine or some other corporate "News" entity endorses a candidate of a particular party and then runs hit pieces on the competition, how do you calculate the $ value and should it be reported as a contribution to the candidate? I'm also curious as to how a non "News" entity choosing to pay for the same type of media exposure is different in the eyes of Citizens United critics.
So, if the NY Times or Washington Post or Time Magazine or some other corporate "News" entity endorses a candidate of a particular party and then runs hit pieces on the competition, how do you calculate the $ value and should it be reported as a contribution to the candidate?
I've wondered that exact same thing. Since most news outlets have published ad rates I suppose it would make sense to value that type of story along those lines be it by column width/length, number of hits/likes or whatever metric is in play. That would be tedious at best, but then again that's one of the few actual strengths of an imperious central government.
I've wondered that exact same thing. Since most news outlets have published ad rates I suppose it would make sense to value that type of story along those lines be it by column width/length, number of hits/likes or whatever metric is in play. That would be tedious at best, but then again that's one of the few actual strengths of an imperious central government.
I never understood the folks who think they've won the argument by declaring "Money isn't speech!" It makes about as much sense to shout that "Ink isn't speech!" or "Bandwidth isn't speech!"
Free speech needs to be as near absolute as we can make it. I think any time you give the government the power to regulate speech under any circumstances, they will find some creative way to interprete the law to muzzle people they don't like. The interstate commerce clause was intended to prevent the states from opposing tariffs on each other. It's since been used to exert all sorts of federal control over all sorts of activities.
ApatheticNoMore
6-16-15, 3:23pm
If free speech means corporate control over government via bribes (well that's an honest way to put it) and the voters having less and less influence over their so called "representative" government which has become darn near unaccountable to them, because it's been entirely bribed by big money, then no it's not working out very well. And in fact this is quite obviously what is happening (all those TPP congresspeople are bought and sold).
If free speech (as you want to define it) can not actually co-exist with democratic and representative government because it leads to corporate ownership and relentless bribing of that government then it needs serious rethinking.
So do you have a solution to this? You know that isn't utopian pie in the sky that is never ever going to happen (I admit move to amend is a longshot perhaps, but it could happen, it's not pure utopianism. Thinking government that is bribed won't act in the interest of the bribers is utopian never never land, and no ideology is going to stop cashing out that is to economic advantage. Does anyone really think some principle is going to keep corporations from bribing their economic advantage if they can? No, they'll bribe if they can for favorable regulation, subsidies, unfair advantage, or anything else, and the politicians will do their bidding. Unless they feared eternal fire and brimstone for bribing a politician maybe :). But if there is an alternate solution that would actually work in the real world to get money out of politics other than "move to amend" ok.
Are there countries that handle the money in politics problem better than the U.S.? (I think there's little doubt there may be countries of even greater corruption, I'm not interested in those bad examples)
I'm not sure preserving the Bill of Rights as written amounts to "utopianism". Nor do I see redacting out a few more liberties to curtail the influence of people you disapprove of a step in the right direction. The likeliest outcome to what you're suggesting would be to leave us less free and just as corrupt.
It may or may not be a technicality in terms of constitutional law, but I'm thinking free speech isn't so much the problem as the distribution of that speech. I can stand on the street corner and preach whatever ideology I hold, but if I'm only able to reach the people within earshot the chances of my message taking hold are slim at best. The first amendment guarantees my right to speak my mind, but it doesn't obligate any media outlet to amplify those ideas. The same problem existed 240 years ago, but with a little will and a fast horse I could reach about the same number of people as the Franklin brothers could with print. Today it is theoretically possible for me to use the internet to rally tens of millions of people to my cause regardless of the resources available to me, but the only way to do it through entrenched media (print, radio, TV) is by outspending the competition. The waters get murky if I don't have resources and even murkier if the competition happens to own/control those media outlets. Money isn't speech, but it certainly does make speech louder.
Money isn't speech, but it certainly does make speech louder.
True, but I think we stand more to lose than to gain by giving government power over how loudly anyone can speak.
True, but I think we stand more to lose than to gain by giving government power over how loudly anyone can speak.
I'm in absolute agreement with that statement. Government intervention is one possible answer, but its rarely a good answer. Unfortunately most alternatives only hand the influence off to a different party...at best. One solution is to devote more resources to education. Considering the current state of public education and the general dumbing down of our society (in large part through the aforementioned media outlets) I have to question the viability of that idea in the real world. The tolerable options seem to get whittled down to grass roots movements pretty quickly. In a way I guess that brings us right back to the OP. Go Bernie! :D
I'm in absolute agreement with that statement. Government intervention is one possible answer, but its rarely a good answer. Unfortunately most alternatives only hand the influence off to a different party...at best. One solution is to devote more resources to education. Considering the current state of public education and the general dumbing down of our society (in large part through the aforementioned media outlets) I have to question the viability of that idea in the real world. The tolerable options seem to get whittled down to grass roots movements pretty quickly. In a way I guess that brings us right back to the OP. Go Bernie! :D
I think the founders had the right idea: Creating as many checks and balances through competing interests as possible is preferable to a government monolith for our best long term interest. The answer to speech is more speech, not some rationing system. As print and broadcast media decline in importance, it probably becomes less of an issue anyway.
As to populist currents, I could be wrong, but I see them trending more to the right than the left. The mass of ordinary Americans still seem stubbornly resistant to the redistributive prescriptions of the left. There seems to me to be a great deal more ideological diversity in the GOP than the Dems right now. How much distance is there really between Clinton and Sanders? The main difference between the two seems to be that Sanders is simply more forthright in outlining what his policies would be.
Oerhaps the answer is limiting anonymous speech but allowing as much political speecg as people are incluned to pay for as long as they have to admit to it. In other words jo anonymous superpacs.
Regarding the difference between bernie and hillary, for me the difference is that i believe bernie would actually follow through to the best of his abilities on the things he says are important. I have no such belief with hillary. At the end if the day i expect her big donors will trump most of what she says on the campaign trail.
As to populist currents, I could be wrong, but I see them trending more to the right than the left. The mass of ordinary Americans still seem stubbornly resistant to the redistributive prescriptions of the left. There seems to me to be a great deal more ideological diversity in the GOP than the Dems right now.
My take is a little different, but we may be watching different time frames. My kids are all in their 20s so I'm trying to look 10 or 20 years down the road by listening to what they are talking about now. That paints a picture that doesn't look a lot like what's coming in 2016, but I don't see it really defined as moving right or left. The kids spend a lot of time talking about "fairness" which, as we all know from previous threads, is a moving target. Contrary to popular media sentiment I don't get a sense of entitlement from the kids. They talk about equal pay for equal work and similar concepts, but I don't hear them saying they "deserve" anything more than a fair chance.
There is also talk of what is "just" in a society. Obviously most of them are concerned with environmental issues. What strikes me is that I don't typically hear them talk about any kind of redistribution. They don't seem to be overly concerned with what anyone else has or wants. I do hear a lot of talk about less profit-centric models. They are enamored with the entrepreneurs who start successful companies then provide on site daycare, full insurance on the first day, never make more than 6x what the lowest paid employee makes... Time will tell how that model works out. Its certainly a great way to attract talent away from more traditionally structured companies. We'll see if its sustainable as those companies go public (or if they do).
The 20-somethings are also far less prone to subscribe to any traditional form of media and so naturally avoid a good portion of the messages broadcast there. In the end that might be the biggest single shift of all. The group is still young and idealistic and all that could change. The 60s became the 80s afterall. But if they manage to stay reasonably close to the current course, and assuming they actually vote in future elections, they are part of a large enough demographic to put a lot of pressure on the good old boy political machines.
True, but I think we stand more to lose than to gain by giving government power over how loudly anyone can speak.
I definitely agree with free speech--I remember I embarrassed my husband when I did a local "Man in the Street" (I was one of the respondents)--the question was about whether people should be allowed to burn the flag in protests, and I said yes because our right to free speech is so valuable. I was the only one who said that. So I'm all about free speech.
In the old days, stump speeches were REAL stump speeches. The "media" were people in the town handing out flyers. The only thing loud about the campaign were people banging on pots and pans to distract people from listening to their candidate's opponent. We are FAR FAR away from that now. (I'm just imagining P.T. Barnum making Stephen Douglas the ringmaster of the circus, and relegating Abraham Lincoln to a side show--maybe even a freak show "Come see the World's Tallest Man!" That's the kind of circus we have now in political campaigns, unfortunately--can't wait to see what Trump brings to the GOP table)
When money is allowed to make the campaign playing field impossibly uneven, we all suffer. As Jane said, do we want the best president money can buy, or do we want the best president period? I think the BCRA is important, and I do think there have to be ways to mitigate the influence of corporate donors--otherwise we are in danger of becoming an oligarchy--and I'll sacrifice a little free speech in order to preserve a true democratic process.
In the old days, stump speeches were REAL stump speeches. The "media" were people in the town handing out flyers. The only thing loud about the campaign were people banging on pots and pans to distract people from listening to their candidate's opponent. We are FAR FAR away from that now. (I'm just imagining P.T. Barnum making Stephen Douglas the ringmaster of the circus, and relegating Abraham Lincoln to a side show--maybe even a freak show "Come see the World's Tallest Man!" That's the kind of circus we have now in political campaigns, unfortunately--can't wait to see what Trump brings to the GOP table)
I'm not sure I'd characterize the 19th century as such an age of political innocence. Lincoln and his handlers did an effective job of spinning a wealthy corporate lawyer into a folksy railsplitter, and took full advantage of the media of the time to get their guy in. I'd put their level of sophistication above the Hillary Eats a Burrito tour. I'd compare the stage management of the 1860 Republican Convention favorably to the crude image-making of Barack Obama standing in a faux-Greek Temple and announcing that the oceans could now begin receding.
I'll sacrifice a little free speech in order to preserve a true democratic process.
The problem is that I don't see the sacrifice leading to your desired result. I might even go so far as to say that setting up some authority with the power to regulate speech (even "a little") will in the long run be detrimental to democracy.
Apparently Bernie isn't progressive enough for the fine city of Seattle...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnbwUT7lBg
Yeah, bae, I was totally surprised by this. I don't get it.
ApatheticNoMore
8-9-15, 7:08pm
It's rumored they are working for Hillary Clinton. Or why not protest her? She has a pretty serious lead in the polls. It's not like Bernie is the front runner. They will probably get Hillary Clinton and all that implies, which includes the blame for her policies, but they'll be paid off well. That's all that really matters in this country - take the money and run.
As it is we're lead to believe that people are just all passionate to protest Bernie Sanders and yet noone wants to protest the bottomless corruption and back door dealing that is Hillary Clinton (just look where she gets her money). Does that make any sense? Although Hillary probably has better security.
The thought crossed my mind that they had been hired by someone--the RNC/Kochs, Hillary.
Maybe I'm too cynical...
Been hearing some talk that one of them was (is?) as Sarah Palin supporter and could be GOP herself:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/09/1410399/-One-of-yesterday-s-BLM-protestors-is-was-a-SARAH-PALIN-SUPPORTER-WTF
I do like the response that this gentleman made though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZaBmWxysFM
His Portland rally seems to be successful; he's got a full house at the Moda Center (maybe 18,000 seats) and they're responding enthusiastically. (The local station is streaming it.)
They turned a lot of people away. Final tally 20,000. Rousing speech.
iris lilies
8-9-15, 11:51pm
Pinning the tail on Sarah Palin is rich. Good lord, that's just nuts.
freshstart
8-10-15, 3:04am
I Feel the Bern, got the bumper sticker. Been an admirer since his Vermont days, my friends there love him. I think he would do the best job for the majority of this country. Afraid to get my hopes up, like I did with Nader. It's rare for me to find candidates who align so closely with my beliefs and they, of course, never seem electable. You never know, though. However, if the final choice is Trump and Bernie and Trump wins, I'm gonna have to be an ex-pat somewhere, lol
As it is we're lead to believe that people are just all passionate to protest Bernie Sanders and yet noone wants to protest the bottomless corruption and back door dealing that is Hillary Clinton (just look where she gets her money). Does that make any sense? Although Hillary probably has better security.
I wondered about that myself. They seemed to shut him down the first day in Seattle, and he made some appeasing gestures the next day and was allowed to proceed unmolested.
I feel the same way, freshstart, though I don't think Trump is any worse than any of the other GOP candidates or vice versa. He's just bluntly stating what they all represent but are sugar-coating to some degree. Bernie is the first candidate in decades that I can legitimately vote *for* rather than being the lesser of two evils. I'll take Hillary over any of the GOP clown car, even though she's an oligarch too, as she isn't going to take away people's healthcare or trample other human rights as much. I'd still much rather have a president like Bernie who puts people over profit though.
Wow--final tally 28,000--Portland isn't that big a city.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/10/bernie-sanders-draws-28000-people-in-portland-his-campaign-says/
Wow--final tally 28,000--Portland isn't that big a city.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/10/bernie-sanders-draws-28000-people-in-portland-his-campaign-says/
He seems to be confining himself to prog-friendly cities like Madison, Portland and Seattle. That's probably a sound strategy early on, especially for raising funds. Ultimately, however, elections aren't won in Berkeley, Brattleboro or Boulder.
At this point, so early in the campaign process, it makes sense that he's working to build enthusiasm among supporters. Especially as the media continues to be ready to coronate Hillary. Of course, eight years ago they were also ready to coronate her... Time will tell whether he can expand his support beyond middle class white folks to the minorities he'll need to become the nominee.
It'll be interesting to see whether his upcoming event at Liberty University inspires more interest than Ted Cruz's event there.
They seemed to shut him down the first day in Seattle, and he made some appeasing gestures the next day and was allowed to proceed unmolested.
It's a shame he felt it necessary to leave the event in Seattle. It doesn't give me much confidence in his ability to respond to pressure.
It's a shame he felt it necessary to leave the event in Seattle. It doesn't give me much confidence in his ability to respond to pressure.
He was the last speaker at a rally celebrating the 80th anniversary of Social Security; it wasn't his event to control.
ApatheticNoMore
8-10-15, 1:42pm
I wonder about who is running security for him, so I do wonder about his campaign organization. Have some bouncers guard the stage. But no it does not give me any lack of confidence in his personal ability to respond to pressure. He responded to it as best as he could with grace and dignity. Bernie is the man!
He could have taken the bait, tried to out-scream the "activists", but this would have been used against him. If he knew when to hold them and when to fold them how would he have acted any differently?
He was the last speaker at a rally celebrating the 80th anniversary of Social Security; it wasn't his event to control.
That's what so tragic about the whole thing. Much of the Dem party has been trying to gut Social Security for awhile (much? At any rate Obama with his Grand Bargain etc.). Hillary will probably continue this. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is probably one of the best bets not to continue it. But what do "black lives matter" activists do? Disrupt a Bernie rally at an event celebrating Social Security. Gah do these people really want their movement blamed when old folks lose their social security?
It's quite possible if not working for the opposition, they are just opportunists, they pick the weakest link. Would their "protest" get past Hillary's security? Unlikely. Would it be tolerated at a Trump rally? No way. So they go pick on someone who might actually be a decent person, because it's the quickest route to their 15 minutes of fame (for their cause if we are charitable). Meanwhile maybe Hillary will do what Obama has been wanting to forever and cut Social Security.
He was the last speaker at a rally celebrating the 80th anniversary of Social Security; it wasn't his event to control.
I read that he stayed for 20 minutes before leaving, and that was when those running the event decided to shut it down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.