[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Skroe]

I'm with Yvaelle on the this one - the Democrats (as in the overwhelming majority of party officials and office-holders) are corporate Tools with a capital T. Sure, they're socially liberal, but economically they're awfully pro-corporation.

What wouldn't make them corporate sock-puppets? Some or all of the following:

• Rejecting all campaign contributions from large corporations. (Sander's greatest sin is proving that small donations are a viable funding model.)
• End the megabanks. (You don't have to nationalize them, just refuse to give them special treatment and they'll dissolve all on their own, later if not sooner.)
• End the revolving door, in both administration and regulation.
• Stop bending over backwards to allow outsourcing and the employment of immigrants (both legal and illegal).
• Stop subsidizing cheap labor via social welfare. Either shit or get off the pot - either no social safety net (making crap minimum wage jobs impossible to live on), or, far better, provide a real social safety net, including a basic income.
• A progressive tax structure, with no more exceptions for privileged income streams.
• End offshore tax evasion by corporations. (If Apple wants to do business in the US, it can damned well pay taxes on its real income from US operations. Otherwise, it's C-levels and board can rot in jail, and the public can live without new iStuff.)
• End the massive gallimaufry of corporate welfare.
• Stop using tariffs to protect influential US industries.
• Stop enabling the rent-extractors in the health-care industry, FIRE sector, and elsewhere.
• Ban the import of goods coming from slave labor, or otherwise abusive working conditions.

That's some big ones off the top of my head - all things the Democratic Party has demonstrated zero interest in providing more than lip-service to, at best. (I wouldn't demand across the board success before giving them some credit as non-corporatists, but neither would I settle for a generation or more of "fighting corporations" without significant progress.)

With respect to this list... some of which I agree with... but this isn't remotely a fair metric of "if the Democrats weren't corporatist they would support this". Much of this (but not all) is a hard left wish list. The Democratic Party is a left of center party. It is not a hard left party.

Business is an integral part of American society. We're a capitalist society. That is not going to change. Small businesses make up 99.7% of US employers, create 64 percent of new private sector jobs, provide 49.2% of private sector employment and so forth.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/fi..._Sept_2012.pdf

There are 27.9 million small businesses in the US... with 18,5000 firms with 500 employees or more. 52% of them are home-based businesses and only 19.5% of them are "corporations".

Being anti-business makes no sense in a country whose very welfare of it's citizenry is dependent upon a strong business environment. Democrat's being business friendly reflects the reality of the country... this is bottom up not top down. If the nature of the country were different, so would their approach.

That does not make Democrats corporatists. If anything, it makes them pragmatists, trying to gel their social/economic agenda with the strong entrepreneurial culture this country has. Many times they have stood in the way of a corporate agenda. Just look at what's been going on in the FTC since Obama took over. Or even the Affordable Care Act's healthcare provisions. These are very anti-business, tangible policy choices that have had a strong pro-consumer, liberal (somewhat) policy direction.

No one calls themselves a corporatists anymore than anyone calls themselves a fascist. It's only a term used as an accusation. And why Democrats certainly have played ball with business, that is very far from making them corporate lackeys, and it's far from a clear argument that an anti-corporate direction is uniformly the right one. Frankly I grew up with this nonsense, 17 years ago, when you had would be iconoclasts cheering Linux against "Micro$oft". Why? Some anti-corporate crap, nevermind Linux was a mess and 17 years later, Linux is still niche in the consumer market (and crashed and burned on mobile, if you exclude android which is very distantly related at this point). Being reflexively anti-business out of principle when the practical matter is, business has enriched quality of life more often than not, is nonsensical. That's not to say that business should always win, or even should usually win. However your list of things treats it as an evil. If that's what it takes to be considered "not a Corporatist"... seriously, fuck it.





And frankly, on a personal note, as someone who has been an entrepreneur since I was a teenager and I consider it a defining characteristic of me as a person, the Sanderistas anti-business message I find personally revolting. Not just philosophically.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope the city makes them take out extra insurance for water damage. The deluge of tears is gonna be epic when Bernie gives Hillary a big hug on the convention podium.

I hope he knees down and kisses her ring.

[Milchshake]

I hope he knees down and kisses her ring.

Ring kissing is for republicans. Maybe its a step up from ass kissing, like Romney sucking up to Trump in 2012.

As a big-tent party, Dems are cool with hugs.

[Shadowferal]

Democrats Can’t Unite Unless Wasserman Schultz Goes!

The Democratic National Committee chair has thrown fuel on the flames of infighting just as the party faces a critical November election.
As we recently wrote, “… She embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence.”

And that ain’t all. As a member of Congress, particularly egregious has been her support of the payday loan business, defying new regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would rein in an industry that soaks desperate borrowers. As President Obama said, “While payday loans might seem like easy money, folks often end up trapped in a cycle of debt.”

But we digress. It’s the skullduggery going on within the Democratic Party establishment that’s our current concern and as we wrote in March, Rep. Wasserman Schultz “has played games with the party’s voter database, been accused of restricting the number of Democratic candidate debates and scheduling them at odd days and times to favor Hillary Clinton, and recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper that superdelegates — strongly establishment and pro-Clinton — are necessary at the party’s convention so deserving incumbent officials and party leaders don’t have to run for delegate slots ‘against grassroots activists.’ Let that sink in, but hold your nose against the aroma of entitlement.”

The Nation’s Joan Walsh, a Clinton supporter critical of the Sanders campaign, concurs: “Once again, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz escalated a conflict that she should have worked to defuse,” she writes. “… Wasserman Schultz is not helping her friend Hillary Clinton with her attacks on Sanders. Just the appearance of fairness can go a long way in assuaging worries about fairness. Wasserman Schultz’s defiant rebuke to the Sanders camp has made it worse.”

Unless she steps down now or Hillary Clinton has her removed, Philadelphia will be dominated by someone who represents everything that has gone wrong with the Democratic Party and Washington.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Time for her to go.

---------------------------

[Skroe]

The Sanders Thugs want a scalp now? That's what they've been reduced to?

The Democrats shouldn't give into their sore loser-ism. So much for dignity.

[hrugner]

Democrats Can’t Unite Unless Wasserman Schultz Goes!
[i]
snippy

Yep, there's a few articles like this floating around. They're just preparing the sacrifice and hoping it works, she's been pushed out in front of many of these problems already so this may have been the plan for awhile now.

[Deleted]

I am not sure what the logic of your post is. Are you saying that because there is an idiot on Hillary's graphic design team the CBS/NYTimes poll is inaccurate?

The tweet has nothing to do with my reply to you. That should be more than obvious, but since apparently it's not, I added an aid in the post to allow the more confused people to understand that as well.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-su...ic-convention/

There's a bit of a civil war between the Hillary-leaning corporate networks and some others around the utter propaganda and lies about "violence" in Nevada. Some outlets are actually making it clear that there was absolutely no "chair throwing" or "violence", at all. Hillary propaganda outlets, however, keep pushing the bullshit.

[Yvaelle]

Skroe, you took ringpriests list of good points - and then you went on a rant about us being anti-small-business. That's a strawman - not a single point on Ringpriest's list is anti-entrepreneurship. You being a teen entrepreneur, is not at all similar to a megabank, or a healthcare insurer, you didn't benefit from offshore tax evasion, or slave labour in the developing world as your sourcing strategy, you didn't receive corporate welfare.

It is possible to get corporations out of our systems of government, without impacting small businesses. If anything, if policies did curtail major corporations - they would create opportunity for small businesses to compete.

It is hard to go up against the big fish in any industry when they keep the local government on their payroll - and that is what campaign contributions are, in effect - politicians are contracted employees of their donors, hired to do a job.

[Nadiru]

Yep, there's a few articles like this floating around. They're just preparing the sacrifice and hoping it works, she's been pushed out in front of many of these problems already so this may have been the plan for awhile now.

I'd have preferred Dianne Feinstein as the sacrifice. Wasserman is just irritating; Feinstein is nuts.

[Dextroden]

Skroe, you took ringpriests list of good points - and then you went on a rant about us being anti-small-business. That's a strawman - not a single point on Ringpriest's list is anti-entrepreneurship. You being a teen entrepreneur, is not at all similar to a megabank, or a healthcare insurer, you didn't benefit from offshore tax evasion, or slave labour in the developing world as your sourcing strategy, you didn't receive corporate welfare.

It is possible to get corporations out of our systems of government, without impacting small businesses. If anything, if policies did curtail major corporations - they would create opportunity for small businesses to compete.

It is hard to go up against the big fish in any industry when they keep the local government on their payroll - and that is what campaign contributions are, in effect - politicians are contracted employees of their donors, hired to do a job.

So, tell me. After proving to me that the anointed saint Bernie is just as prone to the techniques of your regular, run of the mill politician, what's going to keep his ass from switching to being pro corporate? Obama showed you can "be against them" while still eagerly lapping up any funding they provide.

Last I checked, he still needs money to keep his fever dream of dismantling the very party he needs the support of to win. (And stay relevant in politics. You don't get to come back to the table when you try to be a repeat of the tea party.)

[Pterodactylus]

The tweet has nothing to do with my reply to you. That should be more than obvious, but since apparently it's not, I added an aid in the post to allow the more confused people to understand that as well.

I see. Well, have fun pushing your false narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

It is possible to get corporations out of our systems of government, without impacting small businesses. If anything, if policies did curtail major corporations - they would create opportunity for small businesses to compete.

What I do is, wherever possible, is spend my dollars on local and small businesses and boycott places that are ideologically at odds with me. Obviously, not always possible because it's not like I can get my internet from anyone but comcast in my local area, and I am limited on who sells certain products, but it's a start.

[Vynestra]

Remember when Jeff Weaver said "Hillary Clinton must be careful not to destroy the democratic party to satisify her ambitions"?

Who is destroying the party now to satisfy their ambitions?

Hint: It rhymes with birdie sanders

[Shadowferal]

Last I checked, he still needs money to keep his fever dream of dismantling the very party he needs the support of to win. (And stay relevant in politics. You don't get to come back to the table when you try to be a repeat of the tea party.)

What did Theodore Roosevelt need to dismantle big business?

[Forogil]

What did Theodore Roosevelt need to dismantle big business?

A murder of the president. I am not sure where you are going with this..

[Shadowferal]

A murder of the president. I am not sure where you are going with this..

Try..."political will."

Without it, Roosevelt would never have led the country through the "Progressive Era" getting rid of government corruption by breaking up big business, enacting regulation that would make competition more equal, and no pay-to-play politics and shenanigans.

[hrugner]

So, tell me. After proving to me that the anointed saint Bernie is just as prone to the techniques of your regular, run of the mill politician, what's going to keep his ass from switching to being pro corporate? Obama showed you can "be against them" while still eagerly lapping up any funding they provide.

Last I checked, he still needs money to keep his fever dream of dismantling the very party he needs the support of to win. (And stay relevant in politics. You don't get to come back to the table when you try to be a repeat of the tea party.)

Yep, it's a fair concern. He's been at this awhile and is still on the same path so his prospects look better than most, but seriously that's a whole lot of power and influence to drop on someone and expect them not to get change. Obama's done a decent job of being "against them" by choosing some groups over others within the larger "them". It seems to work out alright.

I'm much more concerned that Bernie won't find a good foreign policy team than that he'll suddenly turn evil though.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd have preferred Dianne Feinstein as the sacrifice. Wasserman is just irritating; Feinstein is nuts.

That's some old blood, the elder things may not find it wet enough.

[Forogil]

Try..."political will."

I stand by "presidential murder" as the thing needed, since political will didn't make him president (his run as sitting president was different; you need less to be re-elected).

Since we discussing the necessities of a political campaign (including money from donors) to get elected I still don't see where you are going with this - especially not when we consider that Theodore Roosevelt owes his presidency to not one but two deaths. (Not blaming him for them, though.)

[Matchles]

....

I came up with stats and figure and video evidence to show how our congress is corrupt, but then I realized if you believe billions of dollars being thrown at candidates doesn't have a corrupting influence you're a lost cause. Have a good day.

No, no you didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm really sorry, but I'm going to need you to reiterate and explain your position a little further in this case. Are you making the argument, and I admit I'm paraphrasing here, that in order to get bills passed, all you need to do is go see your representative a lot, make good arguments, and that middle-class Americans are too plebeian to do that?
Is that what you're saying? Because that sounds like, at best, an extreme mixture of handwaving and oversimplifying.

Especially when you consider the following results from a randomised field experiment by Joshua Kalla and David Broockman.


That's just the first thing I could point to as it's mentioned in the Washington Post article I linked earlier.
Aside from that experiment, more or less every reasonable study points to campaign contributions being a means of basically buying influence and access to politicians. It might vary from one office to another, or on a state or local level compared to, you know, congress, but I'd say it's really quite naive to assume that the influx of money into the US political system and its effects on election campaigns can be countered by just talking to your elected officials more often.

The argument basically is that personal communication with your Congressmen is the best way to bring about change and those outside the rich elite rarely do so. Polls and petitions are impersonal and are treated as such. First, because you can rarely discern whether the individuals on the petition are constituents or not. Second, if the entirety of your effort to voice your concern to your Congressmen is placing your name on a list, expect the same amount of effort to respond to your complaint. I am not saying middle-class America can't effectively communicate with their representatives, I'm saying they don't.

As to your study, I never said donations don't have an influence on access. But there are plenty of ways to contact the politicians representing you that will reach their eyes and get noticed. Yeah you alone aren't going to demand a half hour meeting that a rich donor might. But if your ideas are really popular, you should have a large number of people that feel that same way. And you could easily demand the same meeting if a dozen or so like-minded constituents come with you.

[Magicalcrab]

The argument basically is that personal communication with your Congressmen is the best way to bring about change and those outside the rich elite rarely do so. Polls and petitions are impersonal and are treated as such. First, because you can rarely discern whether the individuals on the petition are constituents or not. Second, if the entirety of your effort to voice your concern to your Congressmen is placing your name on a list, expect the same amount of effort to respond to your complaint. I am not saying middle-class America can't effectively communicate with their representatives, I'm saying they don't.

As to your study, I never said donations don't have an influence on access. But there are plenty of ways to contact the politicians representing you that will reach their eyes and get noticed. Yeah you alone aren't going to demand a half hour meeting that a rich donor might. But if your ideas are really popular, you should have a large number of people that feel that same way. And you could easily demand the same meeting if a dozen or so like-minded constituents come with you.

I'm sorry. I realise I should have clarified that when I asked you to reiterate and explain yourself, I meant you should come back with more evidence to back up your thesis.
I'm making the case that the US political system is extremely unfairly rigged to benefit those with the ability to influence politicians with their money, and that it has had a hugely negative effect on public policy for nearly forty years. The Princeton study proves this and suggests that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

So when you say things like:

The reason the rich person gets their way is not because of their money. It is because they are in the representative's office at least twice a month advocating for their bill.

And then say things such as:

Yeah you alone aren't going to demand a half hour meeting that a rich donor might. But if your ideas are really popular, you should have a large number of people that feel that same way. And you could easily demand the same meeting if a dozen or so like-minded constituents come with you.

... then you might say it's fair to raise an eyebrow and ask you what you're actually trying to say and/or defend here. Are you trying to downplay the gargantuan influence of money in politics with handwaving and hypotheticals? Why is it unlikely that you'd get as long a meeting as a rich donor if money has nothing to do with it? How easy is it for a dozen constituents with no money or large union support to lobby a bill through congress? How many times has this happened since the late 1970s?

In short, citation needed.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Remember when Jeff Weaver said "Hillary Clinton must be careful not to destroy the democratic party to satisify her ambitions"?

Who is destroying the party now to satisfy their ambitions?

Hint: It rhymes with birdie sanders

Answer: Hillary Clinton

[hrugner]

Well, this tears it! How can I possibly support someone who doesn't actively disavow this practice!
https://www.change.org/p/bernie-sand...rom-trebuchets