But it should.

Yes, it should.

His endorsement of Turner was a major turnoff for me. Of course he did bring her on his presidential campaigns twice, so I have to wonder about his judgment when it comes to people.

I really loved Sanders for many years, but since he ran for president in 2016, I've begun to think that for him, it is more about his ego at times than a progressive agenda.

he seems to use it when he needs it, but does shit like supporting people who aren't really strong Dems all the time.

Bernie generally votes with Dems, I don't really trust Turner to do the same.

I guess it depends on what one means by "generally". Bernie ranks LAST in the Democratic caucus when it comes to his support/votes for the Biden agenda. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but it's interesting to note that even Manchin and Sinema vote with the Biden agenda more than Bernie has.

I sincerely agree with you on that point. She's made it clear that she has nothing but contempt for the Democratic party. She started her OWN party for pete's sake! And we have "on tape" a ranking member of the People's Party who spilled the beans and admitted that Nina Turner is using the Democratic party to get into office ("as a Democrat&quot but as soon as she's in, she'll renounce the Democratic Party and declare that she's actually representing the People's Party.

All I'm saying is that's clearly bait-and-switch. Dishonest. Ugh!

" Bernie ranks LAST in the Democratic caucus when it comes to his support/votes for the Biden agenda. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but it's interesting to note that even Manchin and Sinema vote with the Biden agenda more than Bernie has."

It seems like an overstatement to me... but if actually true, I would like to be better informed on it.

It's my pleasure! Here you go! I hope this helps.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

Sort by "Biden Score". 35 Senators are at 100%, then it drops to 11 Senators tied at 96.9%, the last four are: Gillibrand, Murray, and Van Hollen tied at 96.8%. Sanders stands alone at 93.5%.

It's interesting to note that Bernie is FURTHER WAY from #49 than #49 is from #1. What do you make of that?

That's not so bad.


What I find really bizarre is Mitch McConnell scoring 62.5%, since he has represented himself as wanting to block everything Biden... and the number of other Republicans scoring more than 50% in agreement with Biden. I did browse the list of "votes" quickly but saved the link for later.

I guess they can agree on some things, that they don't consider part of 'the Biden agenda'? way down in the "fine print" of congressional action.

Seriously? I guess I just have higher standards and expectations.

Honestly... last place among the Senatorial Democratic Caucus is really nothing to crow about. Of course it's bad. It's last place. We deserve better, especially from someone whose entire career is built on being "progressive". Right?

It's time to SUPPORT BIDEN and get things done! All-hands-on-deck!

It's an interesting site.

I can't really pass judgement, based upon a "statistic" alone. Perhaps Sanders opposed some things because he felt the Biden position was not progressive enough? Sanders is to the left of Biden. I suspect that was the case on most of those "wrong" votes. I certainly don't believe his percentage was less because he supported the Republican position on much of anything...

If you happen to know any of the specific votes where Sanders opposed the Biden position, I would welcome knowing about those. I do recall there was one vote where Sanders voted "weird" earlier this year, but I don't recall what it was about... I haven't had time to dig deeper into the 538 link, not sure if that will show every vote for any specific officeholder...

"Honestly... last place among the Senatorial Democratic Caucus is really nothing to crow about. Of course it's bad."

No one is 'crowing'. Yes, last place isn't where one would want to be... but 93.5 percent is pretty good. If anyone had voted "93.5% liberal" in past times, it would have been considered to be pretty damned good. "Good enough", in fact.


" I guess I just have higher standards and expectations."

Especially when it comes to Sanders ? Yes? I understand that is what this whole thread is really about. No, I don't support Nina Turner in this election, and think her comments to be deplorable... but given their history, I also believe Sanders had little choice but to support her. Paybacks to old friends. I cannot fault loyalty to friends. I think her opponent will eventually win this election, and support her.

Sanders caucuses with us as an independent. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect 100% adherence to the Biden 'party line' from him. We don't get 100% adherence to the Biden position from many senators who are Democrats. It seems clear to me that he is with us on the most important current issues-- indeed, a leader on some of them.

I know one very important issue where it would appear that Sanders is right, and President Biden is wrong-- the preservation of the filibuster.

Nobody is perfect.

PS Yes, I supported Sanders in the 2016 primary. I stood in a pretty long line to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election... and in 2020, I cast my primary vote for Joe Biden. I believed that I was probably closer to Sanders "on the issues", but thought Joe Biden was the better choice to beat Donald Trump, and I've always liked him-- I was supporting him for president in 1988 before his debacle then, and always thought he was unfairly shafted on the alleged "plagiarism" thing, and should not have withdrawn from the race. Since his inauguration, I could not be happier with his performance in office (except with his current position on the filibuster, but I understand that may be evolving still)

Yes, I would be happier if Sanders had a better "statistical percentage" in supporting Biden-- but if I knew the actual specifics of such opposing votes, I might agree with Sanders.... then again, I support "good", if the "perfect" is politically out of reach...

It seems as though the Senate has been voting on a lot of things that we never really hear much about, in the news.... How else could Mitch McConnell have a 62.5% result in voting to support Biden positions? lol

Ridiculous! What an absurd reason for NOT supporting something. Once again, this is the perfect example of "perfect being the enemy of good". Or the god damned "all or nothing" philosophy. What good purpose does it serve?

I thought someone who is "progressive" should be happy to do ANYTHING that brings around a little progress. Maybe not everything... maybe not perfection... but a little here, a little there... eventually we get to where we want to be.

Yet the ones who are least perfect are often lauded by their loyal fans and followers as being the MOST perfect. Funny, eh?

We have no argument on that. The "perfect" can be the enemy of the "good", I already said something like that...

However, you failed to address any of my other points. Nor did you give me any specifics where Sanders "voted wrong" on any issues of importance.... or any issues whatsoever. The voting record percentage is only a statistical exercise, when given without specifics.

Come up with a specific "egregious vote", and I might well agree with you, on that issue. I have asked you to do so. I have invited you to attack his voting record "specifically". You have not done so.... only based on "percentages".

"Yet the ones who are least perfect are often lauded by their loyal fans and followers as being the MOST perfect. Funny, eh?"

I suppose one might not call fairly call me "a loyal fan", since I voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 primary. I know, most "Bernie fans" are more vehement than me... I was more concerned with getting Drumph out of office, and I did my part.

"I thought someone who is "progressive" should be happy to do ANYTHING that brings around a little progress. Maybe not everything... maybe not perfection... but a little here, a little there... eventually we get to where we want to be."

93.5 percent is more than "a little".... but so far we still have no specific failures-- only a number.



I suspect you are still trying to "refight the previous presidential primary"... That's against the forum rules, don't cha know ?
(I had to read the forum rules recently, since I joined recently. Perhaps you should review them)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/bernard-sanders/

He voted against Vilsack for Agriculture secretary
He voted against a bill which was designed to cause Investing in science and technology manufacturing and research
He was absent for the trade representative vote (I don't think they counted this but it did lower his base thus increasing the percentage off of 100 those two votes accounted for).

Vilsack was approved 92 to 7 and the bill passed 68 to 32.

and his opposition was meaningless to the outcome, as both passed anyway.

The Senators that had 96.9% had ONE vote where they voted against the Biden stances. Many voted No on Lloyd Austin to become Secretary of Defense.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00004#position



Here are the votes for Sanders:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/bernard-sanders/

One Sanders NO vote was nomination of Tom Vilsack to be secretary of agriculture, a nomination opposed by many different Democratic-affiliate groups, especially black farmers. It passed 92-7.

Black farmers, civil rights advocates seething over Vilsack pick

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/black-farmers-tom-vilsack-agriculture-usda-biden-cabinet-444077


The other No vote was against the Endless Frontier Act (it passed 68-32) because it contained a 10 billion dollar pay-out to Jeff Bezos that was added in as an amendment.

Bernie Sanders wants to stop NASA funding for Blue Origin

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/bernie-sanders-seeks-to-eliminate-the-bezos-bailout-in-space/





That poster is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

....President Barack Obama nominated four members to the USPS Board of Directors. Sanders blocked all four. They didn't even get a vote.

The next year trump filled those four seats with his nominees and the resulting Board (sans four Obama nominees but with four trump nominees) appointed Louis DeJoy as Postmaster General.

wanted them to be blocked, as they were pro privatisation, pro wage reduction, etc and Sanders obliged. Moscow Mitch then blocked the rest.

You so often repeat the same things over and over and misrepresent them, and it takes people like me to have to come in and correct the record, as I do the actual historical research to show what revisionist games you are playing.




APWU, Federal, Civil Rights Groups Oppose Nominees to USPS Board of Governors


http://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/apwu-federal-civil-rights-groups-oppose-nominees-to-usps-board-of-governors/
September 30, 2015 APWU,

Federal Unions and Civil Rights groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressing opposition to USPS Board of Governors nominees —particularly James Miller III and Mickey Barnett.

Stephen Crawford (D) was nominated by President Barack Obama in June 2012 for a term expiring December 8, 2015
James Miller, III (R) was nominated by President Barack Obama in March 2012 for a term expiring December 8, 2017 . Miller was on the Board from 2003-2012.
David Michael Bennett (D) was nominated by President Barack Obama on April 23, 2013 for a term expiring December 8, 2018
David S. Shapira was nominated by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2014 for a term expiring December 8, 2019

In every Senate hearing regarding the nomination of James Miller III (R) to the USPS Board of Governors –his views on privatizing USPS has taken center stage? Does Miller still hold the view that USPS should be privatized? Yes and No. During his confirmation hearing Sen. Susan Collins asked Miller if he still holds the view that USPS should be privatized, this is what he said :



Miller also would like to explore the idea of hiring college students (similar to FedEx) during high peak seasons. And finally, Miller along with Carper would like for USPS to look into expanding the ‘Staples concept’ (this idea was discussed before all of the Staples protests). The plan would pay postmasters of these revamped offices $15 per hour instead of a $50,000 -$60,000 annual salary.

snip



Here is the letter:

Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Reid:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our opposition to the confirmation of the current slate of nominees to the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS).

It is our understanding that the Senate will consider as a package the four nominees approved by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on May 6, 2015. Our organizations are in agreement that it would be preferable to continue with a stripped-down Board of Governors than to fill those vacancies with a slate that includes nominees whose policy stances would be harmful to the USPS and ultimately to the public it serves. Given the harmful effects of payday lending on the communities we represent, and given the value of and need for a vibrant, public Postal Service that provides affordable, universal mail service to all – including rich and poor, rural and urban, without regard to age, nationality, race, or gender – we are especially troubled by the nominations of Mickey D. Barnett, who has previously worked as a lobbyist for the payday lending industry, and of James C. Miller, III, who dating back at least to his tenure as director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 1985-88, has strongly supported privatizing the Postal Service.

Our opposition to Mr. Barnett’s nomination is based on his work on behalf of the New Mexico Independent Financial Services Association, where Mr. Barnett lobbied policymakers to oppose regulation of the state’s payday loan industry. His efforts included opposing a modest reform bill in New Mexico in 2007 that still allowed 400 percent annual rates on payday loans. He said that at that rate, “I guarantee you they can’t make money.”[ii] Several years later, Mr. Barnett represented the World Finance Corporation of New Mexico, a short-term lender, arguing that a customer was required to seek arbitration of any disputes – in this case, over the company’s misleading and abusive debt collection practices – but that the company itself was not. The Supreme Court of New Mexico unanimously rejected Mr. Barnett’s and his client’s position as unconscionable.[iii]

We are especially concerned about Mr. Barnett’s ties with this industry, in the context of his reappointment, because of the close relationship between the USPS and the communities of color that have been disproportionately affected by payday lending and other predatory forms of credit. Because the USPS is located nationwide in both urban and rural areas, it serves as an important employer in these communities and a potential lifeline to other essential services. It is no surprise that a Gallup poll released in November 2014 shows that Americans deliver high marks to USPS, rated highest out of 13 major federal agencies. [iv] This suggests the public’s willingness to consider the USPS as a potential venue for an array of important financial services. We would be deeply troubled if anyone confirmed to a leadership position within the USPS used that position to promote the sorts of practices we have seen in the payday lending industry, or to block the advancement of alternatives.

Mr. Miller, on the other hand, has been clear about his own troubling preferences for the future of the U.S. Postal Service. As OMB Director in 1988, Miller stated, “There is no good reason why [the Postal Service] should remain part of the U.S. government and no good reason why it should enjoy a monopoly over the delivery of letter mail.”[v]Speaking at his 2012 Senate confirmation hearing on his second nomination to the board, Mr. Miller stated that “I think it would be best for the world, for the economy, and for the American people if the Postal Service was de-monopolized and privatized.”[vi]Our organizations believe that a public Postal Service is vital to our democracy and to commerce. While proponents of privatization point to cost savings and efficiency, recent examples such as the privatization of parking meters in Chicago cast serious doubt on these assertions.[vii]

Furthermore, recent studies show that outsourcing government functions lead to a weakened infrastructure, insufficient oversight, crumbling tax bases, and a decline in wages and benefits.[viii]Privatization of our public Postal Service also undermines a fundamental tenet of democracy: a network that allows universal and affordable civic and political discourse, binding together each and every household in the country. At a time when the future of the USPS is unclear, largely because of Congress’s inability to pass a comprehensive reform bill, it is especially important that the Board of Governors be composed of individuals who have demonstrated a strong commitment to the public service role of this great institution, and who have shown an openness to exploring all reasonable, public service-oriented options which might contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the USPS. Unfortunately, on this basis, we must urge you to reject the current slate of nominees.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava, Senior Counsel at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at (202) 466-3311.

Sincerely,

Wade Henderson
President & CEO
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Lee Saunders
President
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)


https://abcnews.go.com/US/years-turmoil-postal-service-governing-board-fueled-political/story?id=72482926

Last edited Sat Jul 24, 2021, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

He had objections to two so he held up the vote for all five.

They all were approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (with a republican majority) and sent to the Senate.

The last of the Board under Obama left in December 2016, and that resulted in essentially an "all-trump" Postal Board of Governors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-trump-dejoy/2020/08/18/a9b4dd18-e14c-11ea-8181-606e603bb1c4_story.html

would nominate people who openly said they wanted to privatise the US Postal Service (as I again showed) and/or had ties with dodgy financial payday loan services (again which I showed).

Moscow Mitch is the true villain as well (and as usual) but you tried to spin it like it was all on Sanders.

Also, your link in your post I am now replying to is a slanted screed by a goddamn RW asshole, former Rethug congressional staffer and a former Heritage Foundation stooge.

No idea why you are trying to fob off right wing talking points here.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/311113-post-office-loses-another-51-billion-bernie-continues-to





BTW, Sanders two votes that were not in alignment with Biden were simply symbolic and had zero effect on their passing.

BUT

Manchin actual DID block Biden's nominee for the head of OMB, Neera Tanden.

He said nope, I am not going to vote for her, and when no Rethug stepped up to save the nomination, Biden pulled it.

I would think that you would be much more concerned about a Democratic Senator who actually DID stop Biden dead in his tracks with a major nomination versus two symbolic votes that had zero impact.

But hey,... Bernie


White House pulls nomination of embattled budget chief pick Neera Tanden

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-pulls-nomination-embattled-budget-chief-pick-neera-tanden-n1258738

It's required that there be a certain number of Governors from each party, and nine of the eleven are nominated by the President.

Had there been a better understanding of the makeup of the Board of Governors perhaps those nominations would have been blocked. But the fact remains that Sanders blocked the nominations (two or five, I won't quibble but his block resulted in all five being blocked) and we would up with five trump appointees.

As for Machin and Tanden, Manchin never blocked her nomination, although he said he wouldn't vote for her. A block is entirely different from a Nay vote. A block prevents all 100 Senators from voting for a nominee. Manchin never said he would block it, he would have let it go to the floor for a vote.

Manchin stopped her nomination dead in its tracks, and you know it. Biden would never have let it go up for a sure defeat via an actual vote.

If Sanders had done the exact same thing with another nominee, you and others would still have the outrage Wurlitzer cranked up to 11 until this very day.

I am letting my previous responses stand, they have exposed enough of your typical slanting, historical revisionism, and very selective outrage. Your posting of that RW bellend's talking points was just the cherry on the top.

cheers

Cel

....from the Washington Post.

Facts are, again, the five nominations by Obama were blocked by Sanders and Senator Manchin never blocked Neera Tanden's nomination.

I'm off for my afternoon power walk.

https://www.reformer.com/local-news/sanders-stand-for-usps-in-the-spotlight-amid-crisis/article_b4e7583a-e66c-5356-9cfe-01f3f49456f4.html




https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-political-tide-begins-to-turn-postal-service-crisis/




done

Two votes? omg, Omg, OMG TWO VOTES ???!!!


"LOCK HIM UP!"


lmao

"That poster" has a vendetta that goes back years. I may be a new membership, but I am a "long time lurker".

I think I actually joined DU first sometime in 2004, but I have no recollection of what username I had, so I lost it. lol
I was supporting John Edwards as a "reverse southern strategy" at that time.. although I loved the Howard Dean line,
"I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"

I think Howard Dean was our best party chairman in the past 20 or more years, for dedicating the party to making a fight for "all fifty states".. maybe that strategy finally paid off last year, in Arizona and Georgia..

....either of those.

I hope people keep this in mind the next time they start bashing them for voting against this, that or the other. Fact is, they haven't.

"That poster"? Surely you're not bashing another member of DU now, are you?

Perfect!

Seriously... if it were anyone besides Sanders, you would all be defending that percentage of voting support.

For all I know, his percentage was less than all of the Democrats because he is to their left, and wanted more on certain things. I can understand that, I myself 'want more' on certain things. He may be an impractical progressive ideologue at times, but I can't fault him for voting his conscience. Bernie Sanders may be the LAST person in the senate whom I would ever accuse of voting against his conscience.

I consider him to be "MY senator", after the death of Ted Kennedy, who previously held that distinction.
Neither were my senator 'in fact'.

I doubt that. Last place is LAST place. The numbers don't lie.

Compared to what? A Republican?

We should all have higher standards and higher expectations. This is NOT "pretty good"... it's LAST place among all fifty members of the Democratic Caucus.

I blame "Youth Soccer" for this type of laissez-faire philosophy of "no-score-keeping" and everyone gets a "participation-trophy" no matter what their contribution was (or wasn't). We should DEMAND excellence. There's no reason to praise and flatter someone just because he or she did the bare minimum and bothered to put on the uniform and show up.

Conscience? Seriously? So you're telling me that his "conscience" wants a WHOLE LOAF of bread of starving people, but realistically, the best we can hope for is half-a-loaf, and he can't even bring himself to do THAT? WTF?

All I'm trying to say is this: any politician who votes AGAINST half-a-loaf, and then boasts about bringing home NOTHING is doing these things for ego and pride. Nothing more.

Listen, here's the thing... It's an all-out battle against the GOP. It's an all-hands-on-deck moment in dong anything and everything possible to see that Biden's agenda is pushed through NOW!! We need TEAM PLAYERS who look beyond themselves and their own ego and who know how to work as a unit. We need military precision... we need LOYALTY... and I'm just not seeing it.

The last place (50th out of 50) position backs me up on that.

when you talk like that ??!


"I blame "Youth Soccer" for this type of laissez-faire philosophy of "no-score-keeping" and everyone gets a "participation-trophy" no matter what their contribution was (or wasn't). We should DEMAND excellence. There's no reason to praise and flatter someone just because he or she did the bare minimum and bothered to put on the uniform and show up."

Those were all "Faux Newx" talking points in the past. You should be ashamed of yourself for allowing them to come from your fingers to the keyboard to a post on this site. Get ahold of yourself, why don't you!

Ridiculous! What I sound like is someone who has high standards and high expectations and who demands more loyalty from our elected representatives. No free passes just for showing up. It's time to SUPPORT BIDEN. It's time to present a UNITED FRONT against Republicans and their obstructionism.

What a cartload of horse shit. I haven't attacked YOU. Why do you feel that it's okay to attack and insult ME?

So, what you're saying is you agree with the facts and that you cannot refute the numbers and the record, and that creates anger that is directed at me? Charming.

OMG! That's hysterical! Here's what I can tell you, DemocraticPatriot: I'm not the one losing my temper, and I'm not the one who's insulting others, and I'm not the one who's engaging name-calling.

So, please explain to me how it is that you believe I need to "get ahold of" myself?

so you need to get a hold of yourself and listen to the pompous scold being directed your way. Obviously you need schooling and 'splaining. A lot of Ssssgoing on here and you know what word also starts with S.

It's nothing new. It never shocks me any more.

Anyway... I hope YOU are having a great weekend!

Not Fox, I misspoke about that, since I have never seen much of it... I meant right-wing radio, and there is little to choose between them.

If I "insulted you", it was based only upon your own speech. Perhaps you should re-examine it. You basically quoted talking points which have been repetitive on right-wing radio--- against giving "awards" to student athletes who didn't actually "win" contests, and aimed those same talking points, almost word-for-word, against a senator who caucuses with our party. ( i have listened to it extensively-- just to know what "the enemy" was saying.)

I might have lost my temper... when I read someone on this board quoting right-wing talking points that I have heard on right-wing radio, on this board, and aiming them against a senator who caucuses with our party.... that pisses me off, and I will not apologize for being pissed off about that.

"So, what you're saying is you agree with the facts and that you cannot refute the numbers and the record, and that creates anger that is directed at me? Charming."

I already admitted that the Sander's percentages are less than "ideal" in relation to "Biden positions" on these particular senate votes. However, as another poster informed us, it was a matter of 2 votes... No, this is not about that.

I really don't give a damn that Sanders is "2 votes less" in support of Biden positions on votes in the senate than the "least loyal" Democratic party senator..... "statistically". I asked you to offer evidence of Sanders' votes that were particularly "wrong" for the Democratic party, and you offered nothing. Instead, you made a dialogue that I have heard on right-wing AM radio.... about how the "less than perfect" athletes should receive no honors for participating, as an attack against Sanders. I don't care much about your attack on Sanders... but using right-wing tropes to do it goes way over the line.

Maybe you did not realize the sources of what you were quoting?
I give you the "benefit of the doubt" on that, for the moment.

Bullshit. Everyone knows perfectly well that I'm not "quoting" anyone's talking points. I've made VALID points and LEGITIMATE criticism. Also, it's easy to see that my criticism is LESS about "a senator who caucuses with our party" and MORE about the fact that the over-the-top adoration is misplaced.

Instead of admitting I'm right, and instead of rebutting the facts... I'm being PERSONALLY ATTACKED AND INSULTED (yet again) as being a "right-wing" mouthpiece. Attacking the messenger is a lazy defense. Please stop. I haven't attacked you. Nobody is entitled to attack and insult me. Mature people should be able to control their temper and not use it as an excuse to lash out at others.

The numbers don't lie. People can try to split hairs and "massage" new meanings into the numbers, but the facts are the facts and they're plain as the nose on someone's face. Right there for all to see.

Last place is STILL last place. It will always be last place. Nothing will change that. It's not subjective or in need of anyone's interpretation or excuses.

I never said "least loyal" ... so what good purpose does it serve for anyone to put those words in quotes and attribute it to me as if it was something I said. Why? That's dishonest. Stop it!

That's not true. Nobody ever asked any such thing of me. Please do not use false statement to try and score-points against me. Stop it!

I have not attacked him. I. Have. Not. Attacked. Him. Continually repeating something that's false does NOT make it true. Stop it! Just fucking stop it!

I do not use "right-wing tropes". Every word I've spoken or written has been carefully considered and is true. I'm very thoughtful and measured in what I say. I do not over-react. I do not attack. I do not smear.

I also do not make FALSE ACCUSATIONS about others on this discussion forum. I don't try to excuse bad behavior by claiming to lose my temper.

No, I never said anything of the sort. Stop making shit up! I never attacked Sanders. Stop making shit up!

Intelligent readers understand that the "youth soccer" comment is about a harmful laissez-faire philosophy, helicopter-parenting, my-child-can-do-no-wrong, and an intellectual trap, that the most ardent defenders have fallen into. This is POLITICS, not youth-soccer... and it shouldn't be treated that way. It should be results-based, not effort-based. It should be about doing things that benefit the citizens, not building egos or engaging in political stunts for fundraising.

In the real world, politicians should not get points for showing up and "trying"... or for "sticking to their guns"... or for "never compromising". Politicians should not be praised for voting against GOOD legislation simply because it's not "perfect". In the end, those types of politicians accomplish NOTHING (but inexplicably their fans praise them anyway.) Politicians should not be encouraged to "tank" bipartisan hard-fought-for legislation because it involved compromise. Their fans shouldn't encourage that type of destructive and regressive behavior either.

The hard work is not in "being stubborn" with a doomed-to-fail philosophy of "all or nothing". Instead, the HARD work is done by SMART legislators who know how to negotiate and make difficult deals... and who know how to swallow their pride and make compromises and find common ground. Wise legislators know that some progress is better than ZERO progress.

We accomplish things with an all-hands-on-deck attitude. We hold back the GOP by voting consistently WITH the Biden/Harris administration. Without fail. Every single one. There should be ZERO "last place" senators. Everyone should be TIED FOR FIRST PLACE!! Everyone!!

What bullshit! I don't know how anyone could be more INSULTING to me than this is right now. Please be aware that I'm perfectly capable of independent thought, and that the words and ideas that I speak and write are my own. I live in the real world. Nobody speaks for me. I don't go around quoting right-wing sources. Do not treat me as though I do not have a brain. Fact of the matter is this... if someone is going to accuse me of quoting RW sources, then they need to PROVE their accusation. Otherwise, nip it!

Oh good lord! You'll do WHAT? Spare me! Cut the sanctimonious and insulting crap, please.

What would be more productive is to explain to me why it is that anything less than fawning praise is characterized as an "right-wing"? Why is even the slightest criticism from perfectly RATIONAL and loyal Democrats characterized as an "attack"? It's ridiculous. Total farce.

I only pointed out that she was quoting right-wing talking points from AM radio (I mis-spoke calling them 'Faux'--- but one is the same as the other) about student athletes, and using them to attack Sen. Sanders' voting record.

Kindly do not attempt to put words into my mouth, that I never said.

(Some would call that 'lies', some would call that 'straw-men'), but I will only say that you are "mis-stating" the situation.


I know that she is no right-winger-- but she surely should not be using their talking points here.

That goes against the rules of the site--- yes ??!

As you can see, a great deal of effort is being made to split hairs and parse words to extract different meanings that are contrary to what reasonable people would understand. When I see such great effort being spent in things like that, it suggests to me that someone knows they are arguing from a position of weakness.

Fact of the matter is this. No reasonable person is going to believe this "interpretation" of events. Accusing me of "quoting right-wing talking points" is in fact accusing ME of being a right-winger. There are no two ways about it. At best, it's an accusation that I'm STUPID.

As you well know, I'm not a stupid woman... and I appreciate you speaking out on my behalf in in my defense. But you know, I see exactly what's going on. I've dealt with this kind of shit all my life!

Obviously, I'm not a right-winger. I'm a loyal Democrat. Right here in the center. Left-center on some issues. Right-center on other issues. (In the past and over the years, some on the far left have also accused me of being a right-winger... but that's a problem with THEIR skewed perspective.)

That's a false accusation. I am doing no such thing. Attacking the messenger and treating someone like they are stupid is a weak defense that shows a lack of character... it's something that I'd never do.

Clearly, I did not do that either. His record and his rank (50th) speaks for itself. Nobody needs me to "attack" him for anything. Pointing out the facts is NOT an attack. I think it's notable that nobody has actually denied the facts. Instead, we see excuses, interpretations, rationalizations... AND (of course) the standard tactic of attacking and insulting the messenger.

It's bullying for anyone to keep repeating the same accusation about me over and over and over again. I don't like being bullied.

Another thing: have you ever noticed, George II, how religious zealots and other fundamentalists can cherry-pick Old Testament Bible Quotes to use as a cudgel against their adversaries. --- We were talking about this the other day. The Bible-thumpers can quote (and misinterpret) chapter and verse when it suits their own purposes. But when their own behavior is compared to ALL of the "forgotten" Bible Quotes, the hypocrisy is revealed. (Seems like there's a news report EVERY WEEK about some religious extremist being outed and revealed.)

Anyway... that's all I wanted to say to you. Thank you very much for standing-up for me. I'm not stupid, even though I'm often treated as though I am.

Yet that wasn't "oh, pretty good, she's progressive, not that much difference between them," it was she's corrupt and beholden to Wall Street and a warmonger and the lesser of two evils. No double standards.

"Bernie Sanders may be the LAST person in the senate whom I would ever accuse of voting against his conscience." NOPE. Bernie:

"Well, look, sometimes in a large bill you have to vote for things you don't like." He's a politician, that's the job.

So the 35 senators at 100 voted for Biden on all votes (unless they didn't vote in which case it isn't counted)
The 11 at 96.9 voted with Biden on all but one vote and voted on all votes.
The 4 at 96.8 voted with Biden on all but one vote but were absent for one vote
Sanders voted with Biden all but two times and missed one vote.

So the only reason he is further away from 49 than 49 is from 1, is because of a missed vote on the trade rep which was 98 to 0 (so one can assume he would have voted for). Had he attended that vote, his percent would be 93.75.

The two votes he opposed Biden on are
Vilsack for Ag Sec
and a bill that was intended to cause investment in scientific research and development.

Krysten Sinema is a terrible Senator. The fraudit is taking place here in Maricopa County but Sinema couldn’t care less. We need to combat voter suppression but Sinema won’t abolish the filibuster so we can get voting rights. I just want to live in a state where my vote counts and Sinema has been a huge disappointment on that which I will remember in 2024. I also voted for her several times as I live in her former district.

I do donate to Mark Kelly and glad he listens and he has our backs.

We need to pass voting rights. That is my top concern at the moment.

Others on DU may disagree, but in my opinion he is partially responsible for our Governor who only won by 15000K votes.

Of course our candidate was more responsible. He welcomed Sanders here for an endorsement rally. At that point it was impossible for Gillum to escape the Socialist label because he welcomed and appeared at a rally by the most high profile self-identified Socialist in America.

I’m fully aware Gillum did it because he thought he was in a closer race with Graham than he was. And history has proven doubts about Gillum were justifiable. But his appearing with Sanders really hurt.

I get it the good people of Vermont like him and continue to vote for him. That’s democracy. As it should be. But he can really hurt candidates in purple states. And even more in red states that have a chance a rare chance of electing democrats.

Especially if they fear monger with the Socialist label.

TBH I thought it was a joke at first when both Hillary Clinton & Clyburn endorsed Nina Turner’s opponent but apparently that is serious.

I love Nina Turner so I must be living in a different bubble.

As far as the OP Biden has exceeded my expectations.

… because of his support for her.

Seems to think it don't matter. Not sure what the followers think.

It does for me.

How familiar is the average voter with the statement and the person who made it?

....and I'm sure many voters in the District are fully aware of the comments (she said it twice).

You don't think the voters in the district are familiar with the woman who bills herself as "the daughter of Cleveland"?

Especially if politicians claim to be more principled, consistent, authentic and so on than anybody else. They tell their supporters and staff to vote for Hillary and Biden but some of them very publicly say no, and even more than that, say terrible untrue things about those candidates, repeat conspiracy theories about rigged primaries and corruption and urge everyone to vote third party.

If I were that politician, that would be it. They didn't do what I told them to do. If they trusted my judgement, why didn't they? It would be obvious if I endorsed such a person that I didn't disagree with what they said and did. It would hurt my integrity as a progressive focused on fighting for the working people of this country. No way would I hurt my reputation like that.

I don’t think it hurts REPUBLICAN politicians. They do it in any numbers of ways on a daily basis anyway.

As for Democratic politicians, I sure hope it would hurt them, unless they think Biden has been doing a horrible job so far, and if there is any Democratic politician out there who believes THAT, I’d sure like to hear the logic with which they want to back up their argument.

When it comes to the “what was she thinking” question, I would hope that Katie Porter, herself, can be counted on to join the ranks of those asking.

I donated to her earlier this year. She saw the last of my money.

who shockingly refused to vote Democrat in 2016 and encouraged everyone else to do the same.

The "bowl of shit" slip of implacable hostility to the Democratic Party agenda was not just a passing mood.

It's a sure sign of a character flaw.

and certainly question their judgment. Does he really think she should be in Congress. I truly hope this is their last gasp.

Still want that cash flow though.

... so she grudgingly is running "as a" Democrat for her own benefit. And we've all seen the video of "People's Party" organizers letting us know and ADMITTING PUBLICLY that if Nina wins, she's going to "switch back" to the People's Party.

BAIT... and... fucking... SWITCH!!

We deserve better, that's all I'm saying.

Engages in a lot of propaganda or Russian disinformation.

She had a short association with them but I wouldn’t trust anyone still with the People’s Party at the moment.

I think Nina Turner is a Democrat in the sense like I’m a registered Democrat so I can vote in primaries.

One doesn’t have to fawn over Biden to be a Democrat or vote for Biden.

But she didn't vote for Biden. She also didn't vote for Hillary. (Her words, not mine. Her own admission. It's on tape.)

IMHO

I’m forgiving as long as they didn’t vote for Trump.

I understand that other people feel differently.

Still Turner is running as a Democrat.

...that SHE co-founded last summer:

"The People’s Party isn’t on the ballot in Ohio yet so she will have to run as a Democrat"

https://peoplesparty.org/nina-turner-congress/

It's not that she WANTS to run as a Democrat, but to be on the ballot she "HAS" to run as a Democrat.

How can anyone trust her?

(Kick!)

....is something entirely different.

That was uncalled for, and it wasn't the heat of the moment or slip of the tongue. She said it right around the time of the convention last year and the followed it up a month or so later.

We don't need divisiveness like that in Congress.

Shontel Brown has been attacked relentlessly for the last several weeks, including from three or four outside groups who have spent more than a million dollars (probably MUCH more) of dark money telling outright lies about her. She takes it and keeps moving along.

In fact the lies and attacks got so bad that a group of clergy and community leaders felt the need to hold a press conference last week to set the record straight.