Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44545
PAGE 17 of 30
The relationship between Hoover and Roosevelt was one of the most severely strained in Presidential history. Hoover had little good to say about his successor. FDR, in turn, supposedly engaged in various petty official acts aimed at his predecessor, ranging from dropping him from the White House birthday greetings message list to having Hoover's name struck from the Hoover Dam ...
As your own cite (above) indicates, FDR didn't start the New Deal in repudiation of Hoover. No, his repudiation took the form of petty slights. Instead, he was elected on a series of modest proposed reforms. He moved only later to more controversial reforms under pressure from communists and socialists.
This reference indicates FDR's initial actions were modest in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
Many historians distinguish between a "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38), with the second one more liberal and more controversial. The "First New Deal" (1933–34) dealt with the pressing banking crises through the Emergency Banking Act and the 1933 Banking Act. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration provided $500 million for relief operations by states and cities, while the short-lived CWA (Civil Works Administration) gave localities money to operate make-work projects in 1933–34.[5] The Securities Act of 1933 was enacted to prevent a repeated stock market crash. The controversial work of the National Recovery Administration was also part of the First New Deal.
And FDR provided only tepid support for workers' rights, and people's welfare in general, as opposed to the oligarchy
http://www.isreview.org/issues/25/The_1930s.shtml
Roosevelt’s concessions to workers did not have the effect he intended. He expected that granting workers the legal right to organize alone would placate workers so that he could get on with the business of stabilizing the economy. In a 1933 radio address, he specifically urged workers not to struggle to win the right to unionize:
The workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away but, on the other hand, no aggression is necessary now to attain these rights…. The principle that applies to the employer applies to workers as well and I ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit.23
These words undoubtedly began to ring hollow to workers whose employers called out the National Guard when they tried to exercise their legal right to unionize. Meanwhile, it soon became clear that Roosevelt had only grudgingly consented to grant workers the right to form unions–and he deliberately wrote Section 7(a) of the National Recovery Act so vaguely that it could easily be interpreted as ensuring the "rights" of employers to form company unions. Many employers found it convenient to interpret the NRA that way in order to prevent workers from organizing genuine unions. Soon many workers were referring to the National Recovery Act as the "National Run Around."
It wasn't until later that FDR would throw his support behind workers (again, as opposed to the oligarchy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
The "Second New Deal" in 1935–38 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program (which made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the nation),[6] the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers.[7]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton IS corrupt. From her Wall Street speaking engagements to her list of top 20 donors to the hundreds of millions poured into the Clinton "foundation" from nations like Saudi Arabia, to her tenure as neocon head of the State Department, to her private email server...
Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.
I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office: she'll represent the interests that have given her the most money: Banks, international law firms (like the Panamanian one that was just exposed), Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, and the ultra-wealthy. She's for the TTP and TTIP. She's for Saudi Arabia, She's for the banks. Do you really think that Hillary will reform the WH in the way it so desperately needs?
So you believe it's only the White House that needs fixing? And that all politicians have sold the US out. Or is it just Hilary that has turned this
nation into a Third World country? Do you actually know what a neocon is?
SGG
I sincerely doubt you know what a neocon is.
Care to share what your personal definition is?
This ought to be a hoot.
Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney
Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!
SGG
Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?
Actually, what is a conservative? Define that!!!
SGG
In the Political Spectrum of America, there are 5 partitions.
In the middle are Centrists, generally not heavily biased.
On the far left of the diagram are the Radicals.
Between Radical and Center are Liberals - still well left of middle.
On the far Right of the diagram are Reactionary.
Between Reactionary and middle are Conservatives, still right of Center.
In the Golden Age of Radio and Television broadcast "journalism" or "news" when many yellow journalists pretended to be unbiased or balanced, and attempted to give the impression of being Centrist, they were merely liberal while trying to appear Centrist.
But Uncle Wally (Cronkite) was able to put a severe spin on the content and ushered in the current Hard left, Radical, and extreme Liberal position of the MainStream Media, while most of America resides in Conservative or Right side of Middle. This mismatch is why MSM so vehemently tries to claim that they are unbiased or Middle, Centrist - so that the most gullible will believe them and suspend disbelief while pretending to accept this falsehood.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The fact that he's running so close is probably as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.
...Bernie ... seems like the same guy we've seen every four years. They all have one or two issues they care about. They want those issues on the table, and running for president is a good way to do it.
WOW. Is the author dismissive of "issues" or what? Because aggressing against the nuclear power called Russia (that has already said it will use nuclear weapons if threatened) is, well, just another thing called an "issue". Banks counting derivatives as assets that are 20x the global GDP, and which could plunge he world into a depression the likes of which we haven't seen, is just another thing called an "issue". Bail-ins which would impoverish every entity that has money in a bank is just another thing called an "issue". The income gap that threatens not only the middle class but the ability of the economy to function is just another thing called an "issue".
So the FACT that Hillary is on the wrong side of these doesn't matter, because, hey, they're just "issues" And everyone has "issues".
Right?
What a stupid-ass lame argument.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The fact that he's running so close is probably as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.
...Bernie ... seems like the same guy we've seen every four years. They all have one or two issues they care about. They want those issues on the table, and running for president is a good way to do it.
WOW. Is the author dismissive of "issues" or what? Because aggressing against the nuclear power called Russia (that has already said it will use nuclear weapons if threatened) is, well, just another thing called an "issue". Banks counting derivatives as assets that are 20x the global GDP, and which could plunge he world into a depression the likes of which we haven't seen, is just another thing called an "issue". Bail-ins which would impoverish every entity that has money in a bank is just another thing called an "issue". The income gap that threatens not only the middle class but the ability of the economy to function is just another thing called an "issue".
So the FACT that Hillary is on the wrong side of these doesn't matter, because, hey, they're just "issues" And everyone has "issues".
Right?
What a stupid-ass lame argument.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not an argument, but an observation that the Democratic party has seen Bernies before with different names:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What a stupid-ass lame argument.
Eugene McCarthy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy
George McGovern, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern
Mo Udall, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Udall
Gary Hart, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart
Paul Simon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Simon_%28politician%29
Paul Tsongas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas
Bill Bradley, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bradley
Howard Dean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean
Dennis Kucinich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich
I was wondering who the hell these people were? Wiki helped.
Bernie will go back into obscurity, remembered only because he, also, has a wiki page, if he does NOT beat Clinton. But if he does beat Clinton, Bernie will be remembered forever with his face on Mt Rushmore or somewhere semi-permanent like youtube, with millions of hits when you enter the word Bernie.
Need I say that Obama was raised from obscurity the same way Bernie will be raised? By beating Clinton!
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Silly me! I thought you posted it in response, and because you agreed with it.
In any case, as I opined days ago, my hopes are with Bernie, but my expectation is that Hillary will win the nomination. But nothing says I have to vote for her. Nope, I'll be among the rest of the 52% who view her unfavorably. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump
-hillary-clinton/ And I can't speak for them but I intend to take my vote elsewhere. Because she may have the "D" name on her but her policies are "R", and she's creepy.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Cronkite was a leftist/communist shill!? And all the media as well!?
And here I thought that "Yellow" journalism was part of the reactionary right
using sensationalism to further their cause and sell newspapers - I'm thinking
of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the sinking of the Maine.
I would consider the Guardian as a leftist radical newspaper, but not part of
the mainstream media. Somehow I don't see CBS news and "Uncle Wally" waving
the communist flag in one hand, while clutching Stalin's communist manifesto
in the other. It's news to me that the majority of the country is "Conservative
or Right side of Middle."
CBS, NBC and ABC are all part of the mainstream media, along with Fox, although
they lean more to the right, and, for the most part, they are all conservative
more so than leftist - more middle of the road in that regard. They mostly play
it safe so as to appeal to the broadest audience. It's what you guys call
"political correctness."
For example:
The local Fox 5 News here maintains a very middle of the road approach to the
news of the day, to appeal to a wider variety of folks and sell more stuff
during commercial breaks. While the national Fox News broadcasts in the
colorful and often sensational style of "Yellow" journalism that mainly appeals
to the extreme right of the spectrum. The ultra-conservatives and their ilk.
SGG
But I would consider Fox as part of the "Yellow"
kind of journalism.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton IS corrupt. From her Wall Street speaking engagements to her list of top 20 donors to the hundreds of millions poured into the Clinton "foundation" from nations like Saudi Arabia, to her tenure as neocon head of the State Department, to her private email server...
Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.
I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office: she'll represent the interests that have given her the most money: Banks, international law firms (like the Panamanian one that was just exposed), Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, and the ultra-wealthy. She's for the TTP and TTIP. She's for Saudi Arabia, She's for the banks. Do you really think that Hillary will reform the WH in the way it so desperately needs?
So you believe it's only the White House that needs fixing? And that all politicians have sold the US out. Or is it just Hilary that has turned this
nation into a Third World country? Do you actually know what a neocon is?
SGG
I sincerely doubt you know what a neocon is.
Care to share what your personal definition is?
This ought to be a hoot.
Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney
Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!
SGG
Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?
Actually, what is a conservative? Define that!!!
SGG
In the Political Spectrum of America, there are 5 partitions.
In the middle are Centrists, generally not heavily biased.
On the far left of the diagram are the Radicals.
Between Radical and Center are Liberals - still well left of middle.
On the far Right of the diagram are Reactionary.
Between Reactionary and middle are Conservatives, still right of Center.
In the Golden Age of Radio anNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What else are we talking about?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Being a jerk is sometimes necessary to get your point across, but I have no idea what point that would be, and I daresay neither does anyone else.
It's a political statement using sarcasm .... So what if I'm being a jerk, sometimes that is needed to get a point across.
So let's start with something simple:
Quote:WHICH post is doctored? The Youtube of Hillary beaming and giggling because she just got someone killed?
You want to know the real reason why I laugh at this post.............Because,
it's so heavily "doctored" it's not even FUNNY.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I read your post, about 95% of it. I found his answers - interesting!
I don't get this love affair with Bernie, I really don't. You say he speaks
truth, that he's going to "change" the White House and turn the country around.
Based on his speeches and debate performances, I gather. And you say that Hilary
is a witch, and the most evil person on the planet. Whether or not that's true
is irrelevant, because people believe it. But all in this race have made speeches
and promised things that, quite frankly, border on the spectacular.
Believe in your candidate, that's the ticket. I don't think he will accomplish
half of what he's promising. This is no slight on Bernie, or his followers, just
an observation based upon watching the office these candidates are striving for
over the years. It changes a person.
As I have stated numerous times, it certainly is about time for the "little guy"
to gain something positive in this country. For far too long, especially these
last 8 years, the politicians have run this country ragged. We, the people need
to take back control. With our vote and with keeping the elected officials feet
to the fire. Bernie believes in his heart that he will be the person to lead
the country into a new direction, I say Bravo! Lead away! But I don't think he
will make the drastic changes he claims he will make, that is yet to be determined.
Like I said, just an observation. By the way, just because I criticize Bernie
doesn't necessarily mean I'm against him and what he's hoping to do; the change
he's looking to affect. Nor does it mean that I'm blindly pulling for Hilary.
I have my concerns about her as well. I am not afraid of Trump, Cruz or any of
the candidates. But I am concerned for this country and the future of this
Democracy.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Lesson received loud and clear.
SfGGQuote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG
Have you read the article? Just curious. You mean the one I quoted from beginning to end, with the FULL context of the questions and each entire reply in green; rather than the dishonestly reported version 2nd posted? Yes.
A woman has a major leak in her house. She steps outside her door to find 2 people waiting there. One has his truck parked in the driveway and it says 'licensed plumber' and he's wearing overalls with his name above his left breast pocket that says "Bob" The other is her next door neighbor Susie, in her yoga pants and brand new Reeboks holding a Do-It-Yourself book that reads "Plumbing For Dummies" written on the cover. Yours is a wildly inaccurate analogy. The more accurate analogy would be - she sees a blind licensed electrician with a truck that says on its side "we break it"; and she also sees her concerned neighbor who says "we need to find a way to fix that". Because Hillary has never even admitted to the existence of the problems Bernie focuses on. That's why the woman with the major leaks sees a blind electrician, not a sighted plumber. Also, every decision of Hillary's has led to a disaster. Well, maybe those were her intended goals, but they look like disasters for the American people from where I am. That's why the logo on the truck says "we break it". Meanwhile, Bernie comes over, sees the leak, thinks it's a problem, and goes about finding the fix for it.
Who do you think has the better chance of fixing the leak?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The USA never had a slogan like France: "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" The closest it got was "Give me liberty, or give me death." Bernie, with his talk of an "oligarchy" that Clinton spends all her free time entertaining and her grandchild was born into, is pointing to a real part of the country. The country has always been ruled over by the people with the most money. They are the people who bully their employees and are constantly asking (and getting) special favors from the federal government or state or local. If anybody claims the first Presidents were NOT part of an aristocracy of money, but really middle class, you’d be wrong.
I don’t think Bernie can push back the oligarchy because Americans like the idea of oligarchs ruling. That’s why Americans don’t see a problem with the President, supposedly the friend of the common man, living in the most expensive residence in America. And Americans, except for a mystery arsonist in Austin, see no problem with Governors living in mansions with multimillion dollar a year operating budgets. http://gov.texas.gov/mansion
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And FDR provided only tepid support for workers' rights, and people's welfare in general, as opposed to the oligarchy
http://www.isreview.org/issues/25/The_1930s.shtml
Roosevelt’s concessions to workers did not have the effect he intended. He expected that granting workers the legal right to organize alone would placate workers so that he could get on with the business of stabilizing the economy. In a 1933 radio address, he specifically urged workers not to struggle to win the right to unionize:
The workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away but, on the other hand, no aggression is necessary now to attain these rights…. The principle that applies to the employer applies to workers as well and I ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit.23
These words undoubtedly began to ring hollow to workers whose employers called out the National Guard when they tried to exercise their legal right to unionize. Meanwhile, it soon became clear that Roosevelt had only grudgingly consented to grant workers the right to form unions–and he deliberately wrote Section 7(a) of the National Recovery Act so vaguely that it could easily be interpreted as ensuring the "rights" of employers to form company unions. Many employers found it convenient to interpret the NRA that way in order to prevent workers from organizing genuine unions. Soon many workers were referring to the National Recovery Act as the "National Run Around."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME