I think it is disingenuous of Bernie Sanders to state, in response to a very good question about

[politicaljunkie41910]

how he (Bernie Sanders) is going to get his radical agenda through a previous reluctant GOP controlled congress, that "he has always been able to find common ground as a Senator", when there is no common ground to be found between Bernie’s agenda and the GOP Congress specifically related to:

• Universal Health Care for all whereby Bernie has propose an increase in Federal Taxes AND an increase in the Payroll tax to pay for it;
• Free college Tuition for all which he will make Wall St pay for through a new tax on Wall St speculation;
• Expanding Medicare to close the donut hole to include making all drugs affordable;
• Make Mental Health Care available to all who need it and have it covered by the universal health care for all;
• Raising the cap on Social Security funding by eliminating the current cap on income earned and make the Rich pay for it;
• Doubling the size of the social security pay out ( and I presume that the wealthy will also pay for this);
• etc, etc, etc.

It is one thing for Bernie to say that he has worked with the GOP to find common ground on "funding benefits for Veterans". It's another whole different ballgame for Bernie to believe that the GOP who have all taken Grover Norquist pledge to not raise a single tax.

For the record, I make no bones about the fact that I am not a supporter of Bernie Sanders because I'm not buying that he can anywhere near deliver on his pipe dream at where we are currently as a nation with the GOP in control of both Houses of Congress and likely to maintain at a minimum the House. I have also listened to Bernie on three separate occasions, outside of viewing all the debates, (Democratic and Republicans) and I think I can give Bernie's stump speech myself, because he constantly repeats the same things, without talking about how he's REALISTICALLY going to pay for all this stuff. He won't find common ground between his ideas and the GOP because there is no COMMON GROUND. The GOP is not going to participate in growing the Federal Government to the tune of trillions of dollars, taking over the entire Health Care Industry after voting 52 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and creating a new drug entitlement program, a new free college tuition program, a new mental health entitlement program, while doubling the Social Security payout.

It just ain't going to happen; WITH OR WITHOUT a revolution.

[hollysmom]

1. that is only true if you believe that his program is radical, elsewise it is an insult.

[artislife]

39. I "love" the use of the word radical and phrase "pipe dream"

in this OP. It made it so easy to understand where this poster was coming from!

[riversedge]

52. Well, Sanders agenda is radical-and a pipe dream given our Congress

[hollysmom]

121. well maybe DWB should gert off her ass and back progressives when they run for office

[KingCharlemagne]

105. Sort of gives the lie to the OP's persona of being a

disinterested 'honest broker,' if you ask me.

Here's a pipe (as in 'crack pipe') dream: voting for the Iraq War in 2002, simply because you think it will make you look tough on national security for your putative 2008 run.

[Nyan]

2. So you're calling majority opinions radical? nt.

[daleanime]

51. +1

[Thinkingabout]

3. The donut hole is scheduled to close in 2020.

[99th_Monkey]

4. You should stick with your "NO WE CAN'T" candidate then, no problemo.

she agrees that it would just "be too hard" to accomplish anything meaningfully progressive.

[Maedhros]

16. You Liberals tried your best and failed!

The lesson is: never try.

[99th_Monkey]

25. You had me there.

LOL.

[merrily]

26. We had a liberal President?

In my view, FDR and LBJ were both trying to stave off people's riots. But, for the sake of discussion, I'll concede they were liberals, at least in most domestic policies. After LBJ?

[Maedhros]

55. Sorry - I was simply channeling Homer Simpson. [n/t]

[merrily]

116. Funniest reply I've seen to one of my posts in maybe ever. Thanks.

[treestar]

64. We can't unless we have the right Congress

Are people doing anything about that? What districts and which candidates? This simplistic No We can't theme is not really applicable unless you are really working towards that and are willing to do so for many elections. Not just one. Not just the Presidency. Explain how Republicans are going to be a thing of the past when it comes to winning seats in Congress.

[99th_Monkey]

71. Bernie addressed that quite well last night, in answer to the same question

Pointing out how many times he's reached across the isle to build bi-partisan support for
a number of major bills that passed, and also noted the huge number of progressive amendments
he'dgotten included into bills that passed.

!) Unlike Obama when he entered the WH, Bernie' been there for decades, knows how things
work, and how to get stuff done in Congress or with Congress as the case may be.
2) And unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie's not widely hated and despised by the GOP, but in fact wins 25% of the
GOP vote in his own home state.
3) I think his coat-tails will be way wider and longer than Hillary's would be in any GE matchup.

[treestar]

77. Bernie would have a lot of endorsements from Congress persons

if (1) were true.

You thinking (3) does not make it so. It's lazy, too, depending on coattails. Like no one has to do anything regarding the congressional elections. We can just sit back and think the Presidential candidate will substitute for them all. It is not that simple. As I said it would take dedication over several elections.

(2) is a strange argument to make here. You're bragging that Bernie gets R voters? If he does, then why? He must not be so progressive as is claimed. Of course Bernie would end up widely hated and despised by the GOP. If he can't accrue their hatred, he is no progressive.

[99th_Monkey]

95. HRC/DNC/DWS locked down Congressional endorsements when it was still "Bernie who?" out there.

So of course she got most of them, early-on, before Bernie was even a factor. Secondly, the only endorsements that really matter a the end of the day, are voters, you know, those people who elect candidates. Bernie has garnered lots of great endorsements, as he's built momentum and people have come to realize he's actually winning this primary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511041050

As for #2, coat-tails happen when millions of Americans finally stand up and say "enough is enough, fuck this shit!" and
vote straight Democratic/progressive across-the-board. Bernie's building exactly that kind of momentum, and will keep building it through the GE. That's what his campaign is ALL about, it's a political revolution that will not take "no we can't" for an answer.

#3 - Bernie garners GOP voters who are also fed-up with establishment do-nothing on-the-take corrupt politicians, and who are not about to jump on the nauseating Trump bandwagon. GOP Vermonters who vote for him do it because they've grown to trust him, he say what he does, and does what he says, and they love that.

[madokie]

79. If we don't have a majority

in the house and senate after the votes are counted this time around, in two years we will have for sure. The majority of the American people are listening and liking what they're hearing from Bernie and will vote accordingly. And that that can be taken to the bank

[ucrdem]

5. Wait til you read his legislation.

Basically Bernie has honed a campaign speech that starts with a thinly veiled bash of Democrats (the Obama admin and the Clinton campaign) and proceeds to fight old battles and promise to reinvent the wheel. It's very beguiling the first time you hear it, and it's served him well in Vermont. Will Iowans buy it long enough to hand him the state next week? Stay tuned . . .

[FrenchieCat]

13. Very 1960s....

But that's when the congress was all Democratic,
and we still didn't get nada....

But remember, there will be a revolution!
It will be televised after the GOP candidate is elected....

[ucrdem]

15. Yes, but legislatively we've come a long way since then.

To hear Bernie prophecy you'd think we were on the cusp of the 2008 crash. Well, we got past that and who saved our bacon? Oh yeah, Barack Obama. But let's ignore all that and get back to Clinton Cash which gets more clicks on social media. . . .

p.s. I want to like Sanders, and I've always tried to, but I've never been very good at it.

[Armstead]

30. I want to like the Clintons but I've never been very good at it

They both have a way of sounding and looking very good, until they actually get down to brass tacks and do things like support polices that gut the nation's domestic economy, give more power to Big Banks and Big Monopoly Corporations and screw over people who depend on programs like welfare for their survival.

[kristopher]

120. Those who share his values "like" him.

If you don't like him, then you almost certainly don't share his values.

Where do you suppose your values diverge from those of him and his supporters?

[onecaliberal]

6. No we can't! 26 million without healthcare. But you keep telling them how you have it

And they can wait. How their kids can starve, how they don't get a better life through education. I'm done voting for this dead end defeatist incremental policy while the planet burns and humans die.

[uponit7771]

7. Sanders will never answer the "how" and with what tactics questions, it'll be platitudes

... and summations and never a specific tactic cause he knows there is none

[Ed Suspicious]

27. He answers it daily. You simply refuse to listen.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

38. Its getting almost silly

how much some people seem to to ignore those aspects.

Just like how people keep asking "But how wil he pay for those pies in the heaven ideas of his", we answer then 5 mins later its asked again by the same people in other threads.

[uponit7771]

46. His answer is beyond unreal and indicates he doesn't understand gerrymandering or the math behind it

[beam me up scottie]

60. Explain how he's wrong then.

I've seen you make this claim but you never cite exactly what Bernie doesn't get.

Be specific, what has he said about gerrymandering that made you to come to that conclusion?

[hrmjustin]

8. Agree with you completely!

[zalinda]

9. Bernie has found common ground

with Republicans in the past, John McCain for example. He is one of the most respected person in DC on both sides of the aisle.

Z

[politicaljunkie41910]

76. He found common ground on an issue that funded assistance for Veterans. That is not the same as

what Bernie is proposing: universal health care for all including mental health treatment and a guarantee of affordable prescription drugs regardless of the costs; free college tuition, and doubling the social security monthly benefit at a time when we need to make sure that the money is there to pay for the benefits under the current system.

[zalinda]

103. And so we should stop reaching for what we want? eom

[m-lekktor]

10. yes we know, it's a silly unattainable "unicorn" like reparations

according to you Hillary people who like to mock everything that isn't corporate welfare.

[KittyWampus]

14. interesting that you are essentially mocking reparations.

[Odin2005]

11. As opposed to Hillary, who will give in to the Pukes on all the issues that actually matter?

[uponit7771]

21. So will Sanders when it comes to reparations. Sanders can't throw stones

[Odin2005]

24. Clinton and O'Malley are not proposing reparations, either.

[artislife]

40. And neither is Obama. nt

[uponit7771]

44. That's fine, they're not proffering revolution either. Revolution is Sanders thing

[Goblinmonger]

85. So revolution = reparations?

I missed that.

[uponit7771]

90. Yeap, like SP = revolution, Free college = revolution, most of Sanders platform = revolution...

... I'd just like the guy to go 100%

[uponit7771]

68. "gay rights again"... really?! tia

[uponit7771]

92. No, I'm comparing your dismissiveness to an important issue to the black community to the

... dissmissiveness gays faced at one time

[uponit7771]

101. Its extremely important to black people like me... the dismissiveness is crazy

[Autumn]

56. You think Hillary will touch reparations with a 20 foot pole?

That is just nonsense

Not gonna happen.

[uponit7771]

67. Nope, not at all... she's not Mrs's revolution, Sanders is

[Autumn]

70. Keep playing with that.

Bernie's platform benefits all minorities. Hillary's doesn't do squat, well except for Wall Street

[uponit7771]

100. I will, Sanders not being consistent is something I've been complaing about for 6 months and I'm ...

... right about that.

He picked different tenants NOT to be a pragmatist on and chided others for being pragmatist on their pet left wing tenants

[beam me up scottie]

61. Are you asking Hillary to support reparations?

If not, why?

[uponit7771]

65. Nope, she's not Mrs "revolution"... if she was I'd want her to walk the walk. Simple no? tia

[beam me up scottie]

66. Interesting, so you don't believe Hillary should support reparations? Why?

Why should only one candidate support reparations?

Seems like if this was important to you then you would be calling on all of them to advocate.

[uponit7771]

69. No, I'm not... I don't how you got that out of what I posted. I'm ok with her NOT supporting them

... now because she's not proffering the improbable getting past the GOP gerrymandered congress

[beam me up scottie]

74. You just admitted you're okay with Hillary not supporting reparations because they won't pass.

Aren't reparations important enough of an issue that we should be asking all three candidates to support them, not just one?

Seems like people who care enough to keep talking about it would want to be consistent.

[uponit7771]

83. Not supporting them NOW.. the word NOW is in my post... Not into people putting words in my post

... and yes of course they're important enough but one ONE ... ONE candidate is proffering revolution the others aren't

They're not claiming unicorns, Sanders is... saying they all should be held to the same standards as Sanders ONLY is claiming isn't fair game

[beam me up scottie]

86. Now you're comparing reparations to unicorns?

Why should Bernie support reparations or "unicorns" as you refer to them when no one else does?

Sanders is... saying they all should be held to the same standards as Sanders ONLY is claiming isn't fair game

Holding all of them to the same standard is the definition of fairness.

[uponit7771]

102. You're into strawman I'm not and you can read what I typed and I've said over and over again cause..

... Sanders is the ONLY ONE calling for "revolution"!!!

What about that delineator doesn't make sense?!

[beam me up scottie]

106. I think it's demeaning to refer to this issue as a unicorn.

Why would the kind of revolution Bernie is calling for mean he has to support reparations?

Be specific.

[uponit7771]

108. Because he's proffering other issues that are damn near imppossible to pass as passable ...

... why not this one?

[beam me up scottie]

109. You need to explain why not supporting this one issue conflicts with his definition of revolution.

You are the one claiming he had to make it part of it or it's not a revolution.

[uponit7771]

112. I already did!!! Sanders isn't supporting reparations cause its not passiable which doesn't

... jive cause all the other shit he's proffering isn't passable EITHER!!

[beam me up scottie]

114. How does that specifically conflict with his definition of a revolution?

[sadoldgirl]

80. Does HRC intend to give all the land back to

Native Americans? If so, most of us better move fast.

[uponit7771]

84. Nope, again... she's not promising unicorns Sanders is

[beam me up scottie]

87. Native American issues are unicorns to you?

Don't you think that's insulting?

[uponit7771]

88. No, someone proffering the highly improbable is and not answering directly how they'd get around

... the GOP gerrymandered congress other than some unicorns (enough people) to overcome the digitally gerrymandered GOP congress

[beam me up scottie]

91. So we shouldn't ask for something because it won't pass?

How do you suggest we get anything done if we don't propose legislation?

[uponit7771]

96. EXACTLY!! We can propose legislation on reparations, Sanders doesn't want to cause...

... it wont pass.

That's his words not mine...

Revolution with an asterisk

[beam me up scottie]

99. So how is that different from Hillary's position again?

How you personally define revolution is irrelevant.

[uponit7771]

107. HRC doesn't want to proffer the impossible to congress... Sanders does except on reperations...

.. which doesn't sound consistent

[beam me up scottie]

110. Why not?

Does he have to champion every cause?

If so, why and if not where do you draw the line?

[uponit7771]

113. If he doesn't then his critique of the status quo sounds petulant at best because he's saying they

... should've championed every cause.

[beam me up scottie]

115. When did he say they should champion every cause?

[uponit7771]

117. When he chided others for compromising and being pragmatic, calling some weak and righrward

... that's when he said we should champion every cause.

[beam me up scottie]

118. So he never said that? Thanks for finally clearing that up.

[FrenchieCat]

12. reluctant GOP controlled congress?

You mean, one that says no to everything,
even if it means the country falling apart!

[Motown_Johnny]

17. I think it is disingenuous of you to leave out the other half of that answer.

He said he would work with (R)s where there is common ground, but he also said that he would need to bring more voters into the political process to win seats in Congress.

He said flat out in no uncertain terms that it was a two part answer. Why did you leave out the second half?

[politicaljunkie41910]

19. Oh so that's all we have to do; win more seats in Congress. Why didn't I think of that? Duh!!!

No it's disingenuous of Bernie to have a radical plan that touches all the most sensitive, polarizing elements of congressional debate over the past half century, and respond to how he plans to overcome the many obstacles faced by the types of changes he proposes by saying that he has in the past found common ground on aid to Veterans as if that issue comes close to what he's proposing. That might fly with college age kids who just discovered Simon and Garfunkel, but it doesn't impress me. Rather, I find it insulting. The GOP in 2008 did not move an inch when the ACA was being debated. Instead, they did everything they could to hinder, divide, water down, blow up, offer phoney amendments and finely every one of them vote against the ACA. They have since voted to repeal the ACA fifty-two times. If that sounds, like someone Bernie can work with for universal health care and expansion of social security payments, and a half dozen other new entitlement programs, I think Bernie needs some geriatric testing because he appears to have forgotten what's gone on the past 8 years he's spent in the Senate.

[RobertEarl]

20. I get where you are coming from

It is: ""The republicans rule and they always will""

The weird thing is that even with the republican opposition, Obama got the ACA passed, So that blows away your "the republicans are greater than us" idea.

Two, there is the point that the ACA mainly saved insurance companies, and while getting better health care for some, was not anywhere near what we deserve and other nations do provide their people.

Behind Bernie will be all the Democrats, and all the new voters who want what they deserve and they will vote out the republicans and make a new congress.

Or are you not willing to do that?

[artislife]

41. Take a look at this

Look at how many seats will be up to vote, on both sides in 2016

[demwing]

47. "Bernie needs some geriatric testing"

You're a real piece of work, you know that?

I'm comforted by the fact that you're not in Bernie's camp, so please continue with your support of Hillary, and keep up the over-the-top trash talk. It only helps Bernie.

[Maedhros]

57. Some of us have the courage of our convictions, and are up to a fight.

You folks can go cower in a corner with Hillary.

[uponit7771]

22. Then Sanders doesn't understand the word gerrymandered, it's like congress is ... wow

[Ed Suspicious]

29. You are a defeatist when it comes to progressive policy.

I wonder how you are on increased military spending or raising the retirement age. Both of these ideas are are very doable with a republican congress.

[uponit7771]

45. No defeatist is not having a workable plan around a historically gerrymandered congress

[OrwellwasRight]

18. His agenda isn't radical.

It's mainstream Democratic policies, supported by the majority of Americans.

[Fla Dem]

37. Enhanced background checks for gun purchases is also not a radical policy and is supported

by over 90% of Americans. But we still can't even get that on the agenda in Congress. Why? because the gun lobby has the republican congress in their pockets. Just as the health care/insurance industry lobby will block any attempts to move to a universal or single payer health care system

[californiabernin]

23. Presidential elections aren't about policy proposals, they are about big ideas and vision.

You start negotiating from what you want, then move when you have too. You don't move first.

Oh those elections, they aren't mainly about big ideas and vision although those are important, too.

They are about the American people, not a candidate.

[Sheepshank]

28. His stump speeches very closely resemble the idiom "impotent rage"

He gets everyone riled up, hopping mad, frustrated, angry and at the same time lost and helpless in their desire to suddenly be rich as well. He never has realistic proposals for wealth redistribution. And while even I agree this purely capitalist system is rigged in favor of the rich, I've yet to hear any workable, realistic proposal to cure the evils of all the rich people.

[Ed Suspicious]

35. I have never wanted to be rich as a result of a Bernie

speech. I do come away with a desire for better government (not less government) that serves me and mine equally to you and yours or theirs.

[CBGLuthier]

31. Well then go ahead and vote for the SAME OLD SHIT

since you apparently don't believe in progress.

[artislife]

42. Hilary Clinton: The Great Unchange. nt

[Kip Humphrey]

32. But Hillary will ride in on her unicorn and magically transform a generation of hate

for the Clintons into rainbow sprinkles and light.

Chill; take a timeout; read a little Paul Wellstone. You might learn something.

[Armstead]

34. Oh I wish Sen. Wellstone were still around

[Kip Humphrey]

36. me too

[hootinholler]

48. To associate Hillary with a unicorn

Tarnishes the Unicorn, my beloved Heraldic animal.

[Armstead]

33. Another by-the-numbers "Abandon All Hope" and "Give Up your Goals" template post

Message Delivered: "It just ain't going to happen; WITH OR WITHOUT a revolution."

[GeorgeGist]

49. We get it ...

[randome]

50. He pushed for single payer during the creation of ACA and failed.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-role-in-the-affordable-care-act

On the other hand, his relentless push for the single-payer model made passing the bill more complicated, some staffers working on the legislation at the time told TPM, and to say he was behind the core elements -- the exchanges, mandates, and the Medicaid expansion --- would be an exaggeration.

At the end of the day, vetting his claim depends on your definition of “write.”

“Was he involved in the creation? He was deeply involved in a variety of ways. He got some important things in there,” said John McDonough, a Harvard public health professor who wrote the 2011 book "Inside National Health Reform."

“If you take it more narrowly, were his staff people in the room writing what the exchange provisions looked like and so forth? The answer to that is, in a stricter sense, no. So it’s subject to interpretation and not worth contesting, because he was highly involved in it and was part of the creation process,” McDonough told TPM.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Gothmog]

53. All of Sanders' proposals are DOA

There is no way that a GOP congress would consider any of these concepts

[ChisolmTrailDem]

63. And once again someone completely fails to consider any other scenario in Congress when...

...the tidal wave of revolution sweeps across the nation, changing the very nature of the Congress, as it goes.

Why do you assume that the Congress will still be a "GOP congress" if Bernie carries the momentum and wins?

So, you're one more vote for not even trying. It's too hard. Got it. But JFK would be disappointed in you.

[Gothmog]

78. Where is this tidal wave? Has it shown up in any polls?

Sanders is polling well in four states with 90+% white voting populations and is not polling well in states that have demographics that are broader. Where is this revolution?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

82. Hide and watch...

[Gothmog]

93. I have a feeling that Super Tuesday will be a long day for Sanders supporters

[ChisolmTrailDem]

98. Your concern is very touching. Thank you. nt

[Hoyt]

54. Boy I could really use most that stuff. But, a lot of folks are going to have to pay some big

tax increases for me to get it.

Taxing the heck out of the rich won't be enough to get me all that stuff. So, even some of those struggling now will have to pony up some to get me all that. I'm for it.

[totodeinhere]

58. Hillary Clinton is hated by the Republicans and they won't work with her either.

There is going to be gridlock no matter what so why not support the real thing? Bernie's heart is in the right place whereas Hillary is nothing more than a political opportunist.

[JackRiddler]

59. So you're voting for a Republican congress?

Wait, no, maybe I've misunderstood. But...

Isn't there a Congressional election at some point before the next president gets elected? Help me out here.

Or maybe you've already decided the 2016 Congressional results? I would guess with Clinton at the top of the ticket, as you seem to prefer, the outcome would be pretty predictable.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

62. We get it. YOU GIVE UP. You have decided to continue to give your destiny over to...

...the status-quo that says corporations and the moneyed can have anything they want but citizens are nothing and are to be exploited, poisoned, and dismissed.

Or maybe you're in the tax bracket that would be having you pay a few dollars more if Bernie succeeds? In which case your motives would be clear: you don't want people who aren't as fortunate as you are to get a leg up.

[99Forever]

72. We get it. You favor the NO WE CAN'T candidate.

A real favorite of Surrender Monkeys everywhere.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Nope and No Change: Hillary 2016.

[Goblinmonger]

81. How will Clinton get anything done?

Congress has tried like a billion times to repeal ACA. How many Benghazi hearings did they hold?

This argument from Clinton supports is a silly argument. If you are going to say that Sanders won't get Congress to do anything, then neither will Clinton. So we are voting for someone to appoint SCOTUS justices. That's an awesome reason to get out and vote.

[blackspade]

89. So, it's DISINGENUOUS to try?

Really. Huh.
So REALISTICALLY the status quo is all we can hope for.
No social change is possible, no reforms are possible, nothing is possible...sorry, REALISTIC.

Move along citizen, nothing to see here until November. Then you can return to your status quo scheduled life.

[Orsino]

94. The kind of electorate that can put Sanders in the White House...

...can extract further concessions from the GOP, and might even win Congressional majorities.

The OP fails to a knowledge that these agenda items are things we NEED, and must be worked for regardless of how far we might get. If we can't change Congress OR the corporatism bent of the White House, why was there even an OP?

"Give up and accept the current stalemates" isn't a progressive approach.

[bowens43]

111. Its disingenuos to call Bernie's agenda radical

NO WE CANT NO WE CANT NO WE CANT.......LOL

[99Forever]

119. Surrender Monkeys gotta give up without a fight.