dagblog - Comments for "An example of the vetting that Sander's hasn't had"

The political reality was

Oxy Mora — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:40:58 +0000

The political reality was that the state was too small to implement it.

Here's an article that

HSG — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:50:48 +0000

Here's an article that details the demise of single-payer in Vermont under Peter Shumlin's stewardship. Some healthcare activists blame Shumlin. To be fair, others don't. I was wrong to say he's against single-payer. In fact, his decision to abandon it may have been based on political realities rather than personal preference. Moreover, I take your word for the claim that his office acted abusively. I don't have strong feelings about Shumlin one way or the other.

Gosh, don't live there

Oxy Mora — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:36:26 +0000

In reply to "If Sanders is in any way

Gosh, don't live there anymore and didn't know about that endorsement.

Might vote for Bernie.

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that Sanders can't even get endorsed by his own governor?

Why do you say the governor is against single payer?

"If Sanders is in any way

HSG — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:50:56 +0000

In reply to As far as I know, not a lot

"If Sanders is in any way tied to the abusive tactics of Gov. Shumlin, Democrat, the Republicans would have a field day." Shumlin has endorsed Clinton and like her rejects single-payer healthcare. Birds of a feather you know.

Sorry but I have better

HSG — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:47:41 +0000

In reply to ...And not one comment about

Sorry but I have better things to do than regurgitate arguments easily found here and elsewhere in order to rebut a hedge fund industry mouthpiece who herself doesn't provide any support for her debunked claims.

Oh and do you think America's economic interests align with or are contrary to those of financial services industry lawyers like Alperstein?

From Huffington Post, when a

CVille Dem — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:40:56 +0000

In reply to 1) At no point does Sanders

From Huffington Post, when a Sanders campaign operative was asked about his stance on the minimum wage. The purity complex comes out as an example of how compromise (which is how governing gets done) is simply not in his DNA:

“Well, I think you would have to directly ask Senator Sanders that question,” said Symone Sanders (no relation), a spokeswoman for the campaign. “I haven’t asked Senator Sanders myself, ‘Would you sign the $12 bill or would you not sign the bill?’ But what I can say is he is a staunch advocate and proponent that we need a $15 minimum wage, that there are people in this country working 40, 50, 60 hours a week and they can’t earn enough money to put food on the table for their families. He has also said that we don’t have to settle for incremental change, and our opinion is, a $12 minimum wage is incremental change.”

So, evidently going from $7.50 to $12 is just not good enough, we'll just leave it at $7.50. That'll show 'em!

In the end it doesn't really

HSG — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:39:27 +0000

In reply to Well, how do we know he's

In the end it doesn't really matter whether the corporadems really believe the pro-corporate nonsense they spout or are bought off. What truly matters is where people stood, stand, and will stand. Sanders has consistently - excepting guns - stood firmly on the side of the American people against the corporatists. With Clinton, the only constant is an ever-shifting kaleidescope of mutating positions based on the wishes of her corporate funders filtered through the much more progressive preferences of Democratic voters whom she must placate.

Corporadem policies, during both the Clinton and Obama administrations, led to more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands. If you want to call him an economic progressive, you have to account for, among other things, his support for middle-class destroying trade deals and his willingness to cut social security. In any case, this election is between Sanders and Clinton. Obama is not on the ballot.

Well, how do we know he's

CVille Dem — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:20:28 +0000

In reply to I think unilateral

Well, how do we know he's telling the truth? This is from the link I provided below:

· Sanders accepted $10,000 from a Hillary superPAC in 2006 when he was running for re-election. Apparently superPAC money is only bad when Hillary is his opponent; otherwise, he’s okay with it.

· Sanders accepts money from PACs. The PAC money he has accepted has typically been from unions, lobbying groups, single-issue groups, and other special interest groups, but these are still PACs — they just happen to be for groups in industries that he does not revile. The fact that they are left-leaning does not mean they are not PACs.

· Sanders insinuates, and has started to state outright, that Hillary and other Democrats’ positions on Wall Street form, universal health care, and climate change are based on ties to those industries. The insinuation itself is at odds with history. The Democrats enacted Dodd-Frank (which has a process for breaking up banks) after the financial crisis — how or why did they do this if they are all the corporate shills that Sanders claims they are? Obama raised over a billion dollars to get elected in 2008 and then again to be re-elected in 2012 and has done more for progressive causes than anyone since LBJ — is he a corporate shill, bought and sold, corrupt? Did his climate change efforts not go far enough because he is corrupt, or because of implacable GOP opposition? Are the Democrats who have pushed for health care for years, including Hillary, lying when they put forward a platform that calls for progressive change?

As far as I know, not a lot

Oxy Mora — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:17:15 +0000

In reply to An example of the vetting that Sander's hasn't had

As far as I know, not a lot of attention has been given the state of Vermont. If Sanders is in any way tied to the abusive tactics of Gov. Shumlin, Democrat, the Republicans would have a field day. Shumlin hired a gang of auditors to look for tax loop holes. Hundreds of residents and small businessmen were hounded on bizarre grounds, like a dentist who for years had been giving away tooth brushes was in violation of a state sales tax law.. I had to hire a lawyer on what was a completely bogus attempt to extort taxes. I'm still a Democrat but I doubt the dentist is. Bernie doesn't have to be tied directly to this, the sleazeballs will do it for him. I'm just saying that Vermont is not the sanitary state that everyone so far assumes that it is and Bernie is vulnerable in this area, because after all, he is a Senator, and Republicans will be Refuclicans

What happens in the Vatican

Oxy Mora — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:15:35 +0000

In reply to I think unilateral

What happens in the Vatican stays in the Vatican.