"to promote his book"

and low income people, and a whole host of others as well.

This is more untrue smearing of the democratic party by berni.

He's telling them to participate, just like you say has always been possible. What is the problem with that??

(With thanks to DUer portlander23 for this link)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-people-voted-for-bernie-sanders-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/?utm_term=.d1d49a551eec

... and Hillary went on to trounce him in the primary shows why the under 30 vote is unreliable, even when someone like Sanders fired them up. They may help out some, but putting all our eggs in the under-30 basket is not a good tactic. They give back much less than they receive.

Sanders energized them. I'm saying why have they previously been apathetic if they had all of this opportunity in the Democratic party?

Why are they suddenly out in force and so dedicated to someone outside the party mainstream?


Sorry if I was confusing.

It's just a shame it takes Trump.

Its kind of both I think.

(who could afford a $5,000/plate dinner)

Sid

To start with, he made huge mistakes regarding the people he chose to run his campaign. For example, every time Jeff Weaver opens his gob, I realize that all the obnoxious things I tend to associate with the campaign must come from him. it makes me wonder if he's still in Bernie's ear and that's why Bernie is still attacking Hillary and her supporters and blaming them even though the primaries are long over. If so, he needs to cut him out of his life completely. The circular firing squad will not help get more progressives heard. It will only shore up the defenses and ensure they get shut out. It's a stupid strategy.

The guy is just out padding his retirement at this point. Half his statements are completely empty. How about he tell the students they should have shown up in greater numbers for the progressive running in the GE, Clinton.

Her campaign was very open and had so much for progressives. If one thinks that is not the case, it's for personal reasons.

to be in a place where people listen and that is in the halls of government. We need more young people to step up to the plate in government. Every event I go, it is filled with gray haired people and MAYBE one or two young people.

It's easy to rally, but difficult to govern. Maybe from all the rallies, there will be a few who hear the need to do more than buy a book or listen to someone tell them how fucked up everything is.

Double dip and participate solely for personal gain. They are fine with that, and it makes it easier for them to affordable to get into politics.

Contrast that with Dems who are vilified as "establishment" for having good working relationships with the best non-profits in the nation. We have Dems that call THAT nefarious and it's disgusting and naive. It's mind boggling that the left think that building coalitions translates into "marching orders" or "shilling".

big money is a farce. It is continuing to believe in the face of contrasting evidence that you can get big money to do the right thing without giving them something they want even more. You can only sell them on needing to do it if there are pitch-forks at the gates, and the Democrats aren't rallying crowds with the pitchforks. Without that, all wheeling and dealing has to operate according to the terms of the people who hold the resources and the power. This strategy has continued to enrich them. Whether it has helped the poor and middle class to a far lesser extent or not, the preponderance of gains have continued to go to the top 1%, and that money and power has then been used against us by continuing to corrupt our system, our media, our voting integrity.

Those who keep thinking we can win by playing nice with the aristocracy are the ones who are naive.

And yeah- people on our side damned well DID denigrate important work with non profits instead of supporting t. Because they have a utopian vision someday those non profits won't be needed. (Bus- put us under it)


I'm not falling for the dishonest crap about all "establishment" being inherently corrupt. It was a
Losing strategy in the primaries as well as the general election. The influence of big money is going to happen through elections, not some fantasy uprising.

change?

No doubt, we need people inside who want to effect change, but they are powerless to do so without a convincing argument that the people up in their tower need to change. Generally that convincing argument is something like pitchforks, or the threat of pitchforks. I'd rather the castle not get stormed, because revolutions tend to replace what existed with something just as bad or worse, but our system of government IS corrupt. Our democratic leadership isn't equipped or clean enough to call it out on the other side. Whether they have better intentions than the GOP is not at issue. Whether they are getting us closer to those goals is.

what is a losing strategy is pretending that we can keep playing the game the way it has been rigged to be played, and get better results.

But what is dishonest about saying money corrupts...that politicians need money to run and favor not to be destroyed by a corporate owned media? Isn't there something dishonest about saying that our democratic leaders are above these primal forces? Do you really believe that they are?

Working for the common good is about serving their community and/or state. By it's very nature I think it's wrongheaded to expect that all decisions are egalitarian as they do have to balance the needs of the citizens with those of the companies employing them and other players in the communities for the best win-win scenario.

I think this past election was a "pitchfork" moment, and thats kind of what we get when we put personality above good policy. Too much emphasis on "saviors" and "outsiders" this year- we bought into the myth that all government is bad government. And by we, I mean a sizable chunk of lefties too.