He’s never been pro Democratic Party if you look at his life. The only reason he caucuses with Democrats is so he can go back to Vermont and say he did things. You have to keep in mind that his political hero is not FDR, but Eugene Debs. If he were the old school New Deal Democrat that his apologists claim him to be, he would have been b…
He’s never been pro Democratic Party if you look at his life. The only reason he caucuses with Democrats is so he can go back to Vermont and say he did things. You have to keep in mind that his political hero is not FDR, but Eugene Debs. If he were the old school New Deal Democrat that his apologists claim him to be, he would have been best buddies with Tip O’Neill in the 1970s and 1980s. Not trashing JFK for trashing Castro back in the day.
I have no problem whatsoever with a fellow socialist identifying with Eugene V. Debs. I do have a problem with his current unjustified and highly untimely trashing of the Democratic Party. But no, he doesn't caucus with Democrats to "say he did things"; he does it to actually have an effect on Democratic legislation and Executive action - which he did have.
Two reasons why. #1. We now have two generations of American voters who didn't grow up in the Cold War, thus the word "socialist" is no longer poison in some mainstream political circles now, though it still remain very much a minority political sentiment in the USA. #2. The 2008 Wall Street crash did open the door to some left populism in this country, albeit not nearly as much as in 1929. Those two factors don't happen and he has no national audience, and today he'd struggle to have a Vermont audience.
They don't let him get away with it. They largely support him because of it. The cruelty is the point and is why it's ok that he's a convicted felon and good that he's a rapist, as far as they're concerned.
You're talking about political effectiveness. I have no problem with socialists advocating their positions, regardless of whether they are widely accepted or not. That's not my issue with Bernie and never has been.
I do because the Democratic Party simply does not get away with perceived extremism the way the Republican Party does. That's not changing anytime soon.
Socialists aren't going to shut up. If that means the country turns into a fascist dictatorship, that's the fault of the American people, not the socialists.
He’s never been pro Democratic Party if you look at his life. The only reason he caucuses with Democrats is so he can go back to Vermont and say he did things. You have to keep in mind that his political hero is not FDR, but Eugene Debs. If he were the old school New Deal Democrat that his apologists claim him to be, he would have been best buddies with Tip O’Neill in the 1970s and 1980s. Not trashing JFK for trashing Castro back in the day.
I have no problem whatsoever with a fellow socialist identifying with Eugene V. Debs. I do have a problem with his current unjustified and highly untimely trashing of the Democratic Party. But no, he doesn't caucus with Democrats to "say he did things"; he does it to actually have an effect on Democratic legislation and Executive action - which he did have.
Two reasons why. #1. We now have two generations of American voters who didn't grow up in the Cold War, thus the word "socialist" is no longer poison in some mainstream political circles now, though it still remain very much a minority political sentiment in the USA. #2. The 2008 Wall Street crash did open the door to some left populism in this country, albeit not nearly as much as in 1929. Those two factors don't happen and he has no national audience, and today he'd struggle to have a Vermont audience.
Trump is better at populism.. we should acknowledge that
Never said he wasn't. It's easy to be good at populism when your voters let you get away with "punching down."
They don't let him get away with it. They largely support him because of it. The cruelty is the point and is why it's ok that he's a convicted felon and good that he's a rapist, as far as they're concerned.
You're talking about political effectiveness. I have no problem with socialists advocating their positions, regardless of whether they are widely accepted or not. That's not my issue with Bernie and never has been.
I do because the Democratic Party simply does not get away with perceived extremism the way the Republican Party does. That's not changing anytime soon.
As you said, he's not a Democrat.
It doesn't matter. He caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Thus the Democratic Party is expected to own his actions.
Socialists aren't going to shut up. If that means the country turns into a fascist dictatorship, that's the fault of the American people, not the socialists.