According to Bernie Sanders, I am a "Corporate Democrat."

[MineralMan]

I'm not, but I do plan to vote for Joe Biden in the primary election, and then vote for our party's nominee next November. That's what I always do and always have done. Because of that, I'm sure Senator Sanders would class me as a "moderate" Democrat, and therefore a "Corporate Democrat," one of the "running dogs of corporate imperialism."

Well, Bernie, I don't think your approach is a winning one for 2020. Nope. I and my fellow "Loyal Democrats" are the real base of the Democratic Party. We don't like being called names, I'm afraid.

[Turin_C3PO]

1. It's a ridiculous thing, to call any of our nominees "corporate"

or even “centrist”. Joe Biden’s positions are well within the progressive tradition of our party and Bernie Sanders should know that. He’s just throwing things at the wall, seeing if anything sticks.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, I think it's a desperation move.

Senator Sanders isn't really running against Joe Biden. He's running against the other 23 nominees, Elizabeth Warren in particular. Really, he's in danger of losing his own base of support to her. So, he's attacking Joe Biden as a too-moderate candidate for the presidency. For some reason, he thinks that will solidify his support base and keep them from drifting over into the Warren camp.

Bernie is running for second place. He's running for his political life, it looks like. His 2016 followers are looking at other candidates this time. He's not in a two-person race for the nomination, and doesn't have the support he needs to be a close second to the leader.

So, now, he's resorting to name-calling. That trick won't work. It never does.

[Turin_C3PO]

7. Yes exactly, a desperation move.

My hope is that, if/when he concedes that his supporters will be good sports and support our nominee. If not, they have the potential to ruin our 2020 chances.

[NurseJackie]

78. That's the PERFECT description. Desperate.

Thank you.

[stonecutter357]

3. I have two strikes against me I'm from Alabama and a "Corporate Democrat " !

[MineralMan]

4. Well, I guess Senator Sanders doesn't want your vote, then.

Mine, either. I'll be happy to oblige.

[George II]

13. Careful, does your third strike qualify you for "Three strikes and you're out" penalties under....

....the Crime bill that he voted for?

[LibFarmer]

5. Bernie being divisive again

No evolution whatsoever

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I suppose a hard-line approach like that

is useful in a two-person race, like things were in 2016. But, things are very, very different this time. We have a talented field of 24 (well, 25) candidates. All have something to offer voters. All are Democrats. Really, all are long-time Democrats, and so is the majority of the primary voting pool.

Alienating what is arguably the largest bloc of Democratic voters this primary season doesn't look like a good plan, really. Folks who want a more progressive candidate have several voting options this time, not just Bernie.

Bernie's not looking like a confident winner right now, so he's resorting to name-calling and categorizing. I don't think that's going to play out well for him, really. Elizabeth Warren is nipping at his heels, in terms of polling. She attracts the same voters Bernie does, really. And then, there are several other candidates on call if you need someone else to vote for in your primary.

Bernie's not the only other game in this primary season.

[brooklynite]

6. I don't eat canapes at fundraisers...

...but I do go for the cheese plate.

[MineralMan]

10. Or the fruit. I'm really fond of strawberries this time

of year. A little cheese; a little fruit. I prefer a well-balanced plate.

I do remember one rather classy fundraiser many years ago. I was there with the woodwind quintet I was part of, playing background music for the moneyed set that paid prettily for their invitation. We volunteered our music for the evening. The musicians, of course, get to nosh on the food during breaks. Well, over there on the left was a caviar service table. For some reason, it wasn't very popular with the guests, and the catering guy wasn't very busy.

So, I wandered over there on a break and nibbled. Since I was in a tux, the server knew I was with the musicians. He asked, "would the band like some caviar?" I allowed as how they certainly would, so he made up a plate with a bunch of it and the thinly sliced hard-boiled egg, lovely toast points, and other accessory items and passed it to me, "for the band."

Well, "the band" didn't really like caviar so much, but I certainly do, so I polished off the entire plate myself. Another table, visited by our bassoonist, yielded up a fresh bottle of very excellent Champagne and five flute glasses. The rest of the snack options also found their way to our quintet, thanks to our creative members. There are perks to being a musician at times. Everyone enjoyed the champagne.

Since that wind quintet played a lot of wedding receptions and similar events, I made a set of five custom music stands for us. I was a woodworker at the time who designed projects for various magazines. Each stand featured a triangular shelf which connected the folding three legs of the stand. Its secondary function was to hold drinks and snacks. We all found those shelves very useful.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. I'm glad you were able to avail yourself of the caviar, which I regard as

high-end cat food. Someone gave me a jar of it once. I couldn't gag it down, but my cat liked it a lot. The Champagne, on the other hand... I am generally a fan of canapes, especially if smoked salmon is involved. My cat likes that, too.

[MineralMan]

33. I do not give my cats caviar. I fear they would become accustomed to it

and become even more picky about what they will eat. I will, however, give them small slivers of smoked salmon as a treat, but rarely, for the same reason.

Oddly enough, my cats do not care for anchovies. But, neither does my wife, so go figure. I, on the other hand, consider anchovies on pizza to be an excellent choice. For my 70th birthday, we invited friends and relatives to join us at Punch Pizza, an excellent wood-fired pizza place here in St. Paul. We were a party of 18. Before we started ordering, I asked for a show of hands from people who liked anchovies on their pizza. Six people raised their hands. So, we rearranged the seating, and ordered a range of their crispy Neapolitan Pizzas, including some with only tomatoes, olives, and anchovies. Those were shared by the Select Six. The rest of the party ordered whatever they wished. I don't remember exactly how many pizzas got ordered, nor bottles of wine. I do remember my heart skipping a beat when I paid for the check with my credit card, though....Yikes!

I do like caviar, generally. And not only costly sturgeon caviar. Lumpfish caviar, much more affordable, is just fine with me, as is the pretty orange flying fish roe sometimes used on certain sushi types. I find that about the same percentage of people who like anchovies like caviar. I suspect the same people like both.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. You paid for that dinner with a credit card?

You must be a corporate Democrat. You should have eschewed such a bourgeois act and instead proved your proletarian bona fides by bartering for the meal with a couple of your home-made music stands.

[MineralMan]

42. I did. Not enough cash in my wallet.

Like I said, it was a heart-stopping sort of bill, really. But, you only turn 70 once, so...

I like the idea of the celebrator paying for the fun. Especially for landmark events. However, I let my guests leave the tip. I have very generous friends, so I expect that there was plenty on the table for the servers. I saw some $20 bills as I was leaving.

My 60th birthday was less expensive, but had about 50 people show up. We reserved a large area at Lake Phalen in St. Paul. The food was bratwursts and hot dogs, along with whatever potluck stuff people brought. I had several coolers full of adult and non-alcoholic beverages, and we bought paper plates, plastic utensils, etc. at Costco. People ate, played volleyball, and sat around and talked with one another.

For the children, I brought a dozen fishing poles and several containers of worms. There's a fishing dock right near the area we reserved. I spent about an hour there with the kids, baiting hooks and unhooking and releasing dozens of fish. That was the most fun of all. I had one 12-year-old girl, my wife's niece, who pitched in and helped the kids fish. For several kids, it was the first time they had been fishing.

I let other people grill the hotdogs and brats, and moved around from table to table, just chatting with everyone. My wife had ordered paper hats with a photo of me at age 10 on it. It was a total blast, that party.

I'm probably still paying off that pizza party bill, one way or another.

[emmaverybo]

71. 😂 lol

[MaryMagdaline]

8. Right here with you

Corporate Dem whose candidate is for radical climate action.

[mcar]

11. I'm so tired of these labels, MM

I'm a Democrat - so are you. These picky classifications do us no good. I wish people would stop trying to put us into separate boxes.

[NYMinute]

12. Anyone who doesn't support Sanders

is a corporate Democrat.

"AnyoneButBernie, Inc."

"NotBuyingBerniesRhetoric, LLC"

[Cha]

79. Precisely, NYMinute!

[George II]

14. I like to go to Democratic functions and parties, does that make me a Social Democrat?

[MineralMan]

15. I never thought of it that way, but absolutely.

We are all Social Democrats now!

[Vegas Roller]

18. As long as the parties only serve beer or moonshine

No bourgeois drinks like wine or single-malt or cognac.

[George II]

19. I've been to some where canapes were served, others where donuts were served.

[Vegas Roller]

21. Canapes are corporate. Epic fail.

What were they thinking?

[True Blue American]

34. Honestly, I prefer the donuts!

But then, I am also a moderate Democrat. What does that make me?

I exercise in the pool to get rid of the donut. Does not always work!

Seriously why do we care what anyone lables us?

[Blue_true]

96. As long as they don't serve sushi and fresh fruit.

Not that I like attending them to start (never been to one and don't plan to start).

[SouthernProgressive]

41. Only if you get dressed up on Sunday...

and go to Church, or maybe to a 'revolutionary' political meeting.

[Vegas Roller]

16. What a ridiculously divisive thing to say

[Blue_true]

97. Par for the course. That is how that campaign rolls.

Anyone even slightly out of tune are corporate somethings.

[aikoaiko]

17. You're making some leaps based on assumptions.

Please proceed.

eta: But if you prefer protecting credit card companies and banks from their bad lending practices over consumers and families, then yes you are a corporate democrat.

[MineralMan]

25. Why would I do that? I'm a consumer of such products,

not an issuer of them. I find them useful in my life, those banks and credit card companies. Like most people, I sometimes use consumer credit, and certainly use some banking products.

Why would I protect those corporations in bad lending practices?

I'm talking about my voting practices. I am, indeed, moderate in that regard, since I find that we do better, overall, when Democrats are in power, and worse when Republicans are. So, I vote for Democrats.

I'd vote for Bernie if he became the Democratic nominee for President, of course. However, I doubt very much that I will have that opportunity, largely because he's not talking to the Democrats who will vote in the various primary elections. Right now, those are the very people he needs to avoid alienating. He seems not to realize that, and it's hurting him in the polls and will hurt him at the polls next year.

I'm not making any leaps. It seems pretty obvious to me, really.

[Voltaire2]

74. So you aren't a corporate democrat

but you are backing a candidate who, at least while he was a senator, more or less epitomized the “third way, neoliberal” ideology of one faction of our party.

So I don’t know what that makes you ideologically. If you are just backing Biden, for example, because you think he is the most electable, and don’t care where he stands on policy issues, then yeah, not a “corporate democrat”.

[MineralMan]

75. I think, of all the candidates, he is

far more electable than anyone else running. In the current environment, that is my top priority. We must win, or we might lose our last opportunity. I firmly believe that.

[True Blue American]

36. Elizabeth Warren

Certainly does not fit that image. The woman who created the Consumer Agency.

[aikoaiko]

48. I wouldn't say she did.

[True Blue American]

61. I was not referring to you.

The nitwits on cable are like leeaches. Sucking every drop they can get!

[Blue_true]

98. Wow. Haven't heard that one before. nt

[questionseverything]

80. or the three strike law or private prisons

or the Iraq war

or Clarence Thomas

but evidently mm loves those things

[pwb]

20. You cant be that MM?

You also cant be a religious Democrat, Pro life democrat, patriotic Democrat, Gun owning democrat, family values Democrat, ???????. If your not part of a fringe group your not a real democrat these days. Fuck Bernie MM you are a real democrat. Accepting things for others that we personally don't approve of makes a Democrat. Free will is ours.

[MineralMan]

23. Here's the thing: Joe Biden is leading the pack in polling.

Why? Because he is appealing to good old plain Democrats. Not hyphenated or types of Democrats. Just Democrats who want Democrats to win elections.

That's why he has a double-digit lead in the polls. Attacking him might seem like a good idea to some of the other candidates, but they are wrong. Attacks won't cut his lead, but it might well cut the polling numbers for the person doing the attacking.

The problem as I see it is this: Too many people misunderstand who is the "base" of the Democratic Party. The real "base" is that group of people who always vote in every election and always vote for Democrats. That is the base. It is not those who want to make the Democratic Party something it has not been. It has not been the "Democratic Socialist Party," nor the "Democratic Justice Party." It still is not those things.

Democratic voters see themselves as Democratic voters. They are the base of the party. They vote. Every time. And they vote for Democrats every time there is a general election.

If you alienate that base, you will always be in the minority. It's that simple.

[Hortensis]

22. First of all, Sanders believes it.

To this day Sanders says there’s very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. It’s what he’s always believed, and we should believe that’s really what he thinks.

And what does that make him?

[MineralMan]

24. Bernie Sanders Is a Democrat by Convenience

It is convenient for him to be a Democrat if he is running for President. Either a Democrat or a Republican always wins in presidential elections. When he is not running for President, he stops being a Democrat.

That won't work for him, because voting Democrats are Democrats for the long haul. They have always voted as Democrats and FOR Democrats. They're skeptical of Democrats by Convenience.

[George II]

30. As I've said elsewhere here, next summer after the convention closes....

....most if not all of us will still be Democrats. Him?

[Hortensis]

38. Yes, but I'm thinking it goes to rationality

and judgement. That “first” in my post was meant to be “worst.”

Whether he sincerely does not see a difference for whatever strange reason And between liberal-dominated Democrats and conservative-dominated Republicans, which I pay him the courtesy to believe is the truth, or whether he knows there is an enormous difference and has spent 40 years denying it, is an exercise for psychologists.

But voters should take note that neither case reflects reality (!) and that the first would mean that he does not recognize or respect liberal/Democratic Party morals, principles, and often goals. As for 40 years of the second?

[NYMinute]

92. And David Sirota, Brihanna Joy-Grey and Nina Turner

will be campaigning for Jill Stein or whichever loon the Green party nominates.

[True Blue American]

101. Maybe they

Are the only ones that are willing to sell their souls to whom ever will have them. Jumping from one candidate to another. That is what Kelly Anne does.

[True Blue American]

62. 100%

Fool me once, well I was not fooled the first time

[True Blue American]

37. Why does

Bernie want to run in the Democratic Party, then?

If you dislike something you stay away from it.

[hack89]

83. $$$$$

He needs money to win. No money in third party bids.

[SHRED]

26. He is vague on purpose

Easy to throw out accusations without details for "true believers" to lap up.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. I don't even know what that is.

Is a corporate Democrat a CEO? A shareholder? A person who works for a corporation? A person who is corporeal rather than incorporeal? If I started my own business and organized it as a corporation would I then be a corporate Democrat? I can write up articles of incorporation, send $135 to the Secretary of State's office, and presto! I'm the CEO of a corporation, and maybe even a corporate Democrat! If I organized my business as an LLC or a limited partnership instead, would I still be a corporate Democrat? Is an S corporation OK? Or, in order to be correct in Bernie's eyes, do I have to be a sole proprietorship and expose my personal assets to all the liabilities of the business? Not that I should even have assets, because they might have the taint of corporateness on them. So, do I have to cash in my modest IRA (and get taxed on the whole thing at once) so as to divest myself of the evil corporate stocks held in the IRA's mutual funds? Can I even do business with corporations? Should I live in the woods in a hut I made with my own hands out of fallen logs and mud (I couldn't use an axe or a hammer to build it because a corporation probably would have made those tools), and live on nuts, berries, and small animals I caught and strangled bare-handed and skinned with a sharp rock? I could go on and on...

The short answer is that the "corporate Democrat" label is straight-up stupid, not to mention meaningless. Yes, many of our laws are structured to benefit large businesses. Businesses need to be stringently regulated and fairly taxed to ensure that their owners (because corporations aren't really people) don't take advantage of the corporate entity to amass wealth at the expense of the rest of us. I don't know of any Democrat, candidate or regular person, who doesn't believe in regulating businesses to prevent the reverse-Robin Hood effect. But the "corporate Democrat" canard sounds like a relic from the '60s and it doesn't add anything to the debate about how much regulation is too much or not enough.

[MineralMan]

29. "A relic from the 60s..." A lot of us are.

But, that doesn't mean that most of us haven't grown since then.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. I'm definitely a relic of the '60s.

As a college student in those days I attended a few Socialist Workers Party meetings. That's where I first heard Bernie's jargon, and why I made the comment. I also quickly decided that the SWP was kind of stupid because they didn't have much else going for them besides posters and jargon.

[MineralMan]

35. Yes. Exactly.

[Maru Kitteh]

63. And anger. Lots of fuming, broiling, pouty, selfish, perpetual outrage.

Some people will always find that kind of group attractive and comforting. Gives them a sense of belonging while they collectively tilt at windmills. Meanwhile, Democrats do the actual hard work of progress for ordinary people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. Yeah, that was college. The antiwar anger of the times was real and justified, but

the bloviations of the young SWP members wanting a "revolution" against the oppression of the ruling classes was just a lot of ideological jerking off, and they couldn't even come up with original jargon.

[Maru Kitteh]

84. Yup. And that's the part that hasn't changed. Revolution bloviation. The war on immigrant babies now

is surely a cause for real and justified anger for sure, but nothing that revolution bloviation will amend in even the slightest manner.

Not that they seem overly interested, anyways.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. Well its not your conflation of definitions.

You are purposely being abstruse. That or you truly didn't comprehend what Sanders means when he, if he, used the term "corporate Democrat". Its usually framed as "the corporate wing of the Democratic party" And that criticism of a coziness to the corporate class by some Democrats he has been saying it for decades. Odd that so many in this thread seem to be shocked at this revelation, like this is the first time they've ever heard Sanders political positions.

No, he's not talking about Democratic voters. Even those that work for a corporation. Even those that incorporate their small business. Corporate Democrat would of course be in reference to actual elected Democrats in Washington that lean heavier in favour of the Clinton era Third Way policies. Democrats that lean more....not totally....but more towards corporate influence in their decision making. Big corporations. big enough to have an impact politically. And it doesn't hurt that they return the favour with large campaign donations. Here's where your "stringent regulations and fairly taxed" efforts, or lack thereof, come into play.

As opposed to the candidates that run clean, with small donations, and have taken the no-corporate-PAC pledge. And then there's probably some in the middle of that, who take limited corporate donations.

This is a bit exhausting because you know all this, right? But I'll repeat it for you, the term "corporate Democrat" is not in reference to the average citizen. But someone that actually holds power, and has the ability to decide for themselves just how much control and influence large corporate players will have, and/or be in a position to have, on their policy proposals.

The OP set it up as a Straw Man argument. Its disingenuous. Bernie is not calling MineralMan a corporate Democrat. I'd gather Bernie has never even met MineralMan. Being labelled as one as a politician, and voting for one, are two different things.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. It's pointless, divisive labeling no matter how it's defined.

I don't think any Democratic politicians favor unregulated or lightly-regulated businesses that unfairly burden consumers. I just get sick of Bernie's '60s-era rhetoric that doesn't advance the discussion at all and just pisses people off. Bernie isn't even a Democrat except when it's convenient for him. Also, I note your spelling of "favour"; are you a US voter?

[LiberalLovinLug]

56. Well, it has to be called something.

No politician wants to be seen favouring any policy that can be spun into a narrative that it unfairly burdens consumers. Even Republicans. But lets not pretend there are not some Democrats that have less of a problem with corporate influence than others. Or that the Third Way or Triangulation is not a real thing. That is was not devised under the Clinton presidency by the newly formed DLC, which was made up of big business executives and high ranking Democrats. It was clever, I'll grant you that. Basically a plan to pull the wool out right in front of Republicans. To steal much of that corporate cash support for themselves. A bit of if you can't beat em, join em. And it worked for Bill. Sure he had to compromise on some things, 3 strikes law, welfare reform, and the final nail in the coffin for the fairness doctrine, but it probably also assured him of a second term, where he also accomplished a lot in education, and financial stability. I understand there are benifits to that compromise, but there are also risks. One being that the Republicans just shift even more to the right, even more towards corruption and vote stealing, and whatever corporate friendly bills DLC Dems like Biden propose, they simply double down to offer corporations even more. Like their latest tax bill.

I am Canadian. But we are each others largest trading partners. What goes on in the US greatly affects countries all over the world, but it affects Canada the most. I have always closely monitored what goes on a couple hundred miles to the south. I come from an international liberal view. Act locally, think globally and all that. I believe that the right, the extreme right, and conservative authoritarianism have made huge advancements around the globe in the last decade or two. And that liberals need to work together in a more global outlook to combat rising fascism everywhere. That is why I find it imperative to contribute my voice in here. I always say I'm a supporter, not a voter, for a particular candidate.

I am tired of the "Bernie isn't even a Democrat" red herring though. Your Democratic party has officially said that Sanders can run as a Democrat. That should be enough. Furthermore, under DU rules, Sanders is to be regarded as a Democrat in regards to all rules about criticizing him, although on him there seems to be lax enforcement. He works with Democrats, shares most all of their goals, votes with them more than some actual official Democrats. Its beyond tiring to hear this again and again. There's nothing you can do about it, accept it and move on. Its a convenient way to ignore his platform. When policy should be the paramount thing Democrats voting should be weighing. But then again, I'm looking at it from a left of center internationalist position. It matters more to me what's in their platform than what letter they have or don't have in front of their name. We lambaste Republicans for putting party ahead of country. Surely we mustn't do the same. Or in my case putting party ahead of continent.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. See my post #53.

While your points are well-taken, my objection is not to the concept that politicians should not be beholden to so-called "big money," but to the meaningless and divisive characterization of other candidates as "corporate Democrats," which as far as I can tell means all Democrats who are not Bernie. Because we are stuck with the idiotic Citizens United case, we are stuck with big money contributions to politicians. That means candidates have to decide whether to reject PAC contributions and risk being overwhelmed by the GOP, which will take money wherever they can get it. If candidates refused contributions from any PAC that did not disclose its donors, we as voters would be able to decide whether and to what extent a candidate was likely to be influenced by that PAC's donors' money, and vote accordingly. This seems to be a better solution than just rejecting anyone Bernie calls a "corporate Democrat," that is, everybody but him.

It doesn't bother me that you're Canadian; you are free to express your opinion of our politics, just as I am free to express my opinion that, for example, Brexit is stupid. I was just curious.

[LiberalLovinLug]

70. You make good points as well

It is a conundrum. Even if you as a candidate are disiplined enough and idealistic enough to never allow big donors to influence your support on a bill that would greatly affect their bottom line, just the act of accepting their money, has an influence. Even if just optically, because, if most other candidates do it too, because everyone else is, it normalizes it. Which it is the situation now. Many Americans regard both parties as being in the pockets of the wealthy.

And yet if they don't accept corporate cash, like you said, they may run at a big disadvantage as far as being able to properly finance a long campaign. And dang do you guys ever have long campaigns. (In Canada, a PM can call an election overnight, if they think that is advantageous to them, as long as its called before the 4 year fixed election date in October. Then campaigning and ads and debates start and the election is required to be held and done after only SIX WEEKS!). As well , there is no such thing as "mid terms", only individual bi-elections between 4 year federal elections if someone retires or dies. I don't know how politicians can ever get things done at all down there, it seems like its always in campaign mode. But I digress.

But I thought Bernie proved that it can be done. And I think this strategy can only gain traction, with more and more candidates signing the no PAC pledge. I also take umbrage with your view of Sanders saying that "everyone except Bernie" is a corporate Democrat. I do not think Sanders regards Gabbard, or Warren, or O'Rourke, or any of the other four no Super Pac pledgers to be corporate Democrats either. Even someone like Kamala Harris who co-sponsored his Medicare-for-all bill I doubt he has called a "corporate Democrat". That term is clearly targeted more towards the old guard now, that rose to prominence during Clintons third way strategy term

And I wouldn't dismiss the small donor effect either.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5126883/bernie-sanders-fundraising/
Bernie Sanders raises $18M, takes early lead in 2020 fundraising

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/10/democrats-small-dollar-donors-essential-bernie-sanders
‘Not the billionaires’: why small-dollar donors are Democrats’ new powerhouse

Think of the advantage of going head to head against Trump, who promised to drain the swamp, and being able to use the comparison of your small donor funding to his no doubt large corporate and dark money contributors. I think that's a powerful campaign message, that you are being funded by grass root Americans at an average $27 donation. It may be difficult to win with the limited cash, but its a big advantage politically. Not to mention actual independence from big money during their term in office, which is the real benefit to the average Americans.

[BlueWI]

93. Pointless, divisive labeling?

You mean like Bernie Bros, far left, Bernie or Busters, etc.?

There's been no shortage of reductive labels in these discussions. Corporate Democrat at least implies an ideological position where, for instance, banks get bailouts in much greater proportion than debt relief for the average consumer, and policies that have potential benefit for large swaths of the public (infrastructure, MFA, college access) are lower priority and/or on such a small scale that it reduces impact.

There's a reason why Warren and Sanders scare not only Wall Street but segments of the Democratic party: they would not provide corporate interests with the level of access and influence in decision making that they have been accustomed to. I think it's overdue that the lean in policy towards corporate interests gets challenged and a better balance sought, especially as we look for transformational environmental policy and try to prevent the next crisis in the finance sector.

You call this 60s era rhetoric, which is quite reductive too. We didn't solve many of the key issues then, and wealth inequality is at Gilded Era levels and worsening. Small wonder that there's anger.

[Vegas Roller]

77. Corporations cannot donate to a Federal campaign

only individuals can.

So, stop the Senator BS's innuendo of "Corporate contributions."

We know that in any society, a few people at the bottom are envious and resentful of the people with money and want to get a piece of their pie. When in excess, such envy and resentment can cause revolutions - like the Bolshevik revolution and some people celebrated robbing the rich for a while. Same thing with the French revolution. Senator BS uses this envy and resentment to the extreme and most of his support is fueled by it.


The resentment is wrapped in velvel such as workers' rights, employee benefits etc. and it is evident how successful corporations are used as punching bags and threats to break them up. This is whether the corporation provides decent wages, great working conditions or benefits or not. They still have to do more.

So, please stop this "corporate contributions" business -- there are 0 campaign contributions to any Democrat's campaign.

[Turin_C3PO]

82. I'd say

we have a much bigger problem with the rich punching the poor than vice versa. Corporations have way too much power in this country. Pretty much every Democrat understands that, including Joe Biden.

[OilemFirchen]

81. Does that "big corporations" include Alphabet, Inc. (Google)?

Ya know, the largest contributor to the 2016 Sanders campaign?

[Vegas Roller]

85. Or Ben and Jerry's n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

87. Corporations can't contribute to political campaigns.

Their employees can, though. https://govpredict.com/blog/alphabets-political-contributions/

[OilemFirchen]

88. Apparently my interlocutor is unaware of this. (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

28. Coming from someone who isn't a Democrat

[MrsCoffee]

49. My thoughts exactly.

[question everything]

51. and who is now a multimillionaire

[ProfessorPlum]

40. I would call you a corporate democrat because you don't seem to have any problem

with corporations running our government. You probably have your reasons for that, but it leads to bad governance.

[MineralMan]

43. Clearly, you do not know me at all.

You do not know with what I have a problem, nor how I deal with such problems. I am a practical man who realizes that I am not the center of the universe in any way. I live in this country and do my best to elect people who will help it make progress, but I'm not naive enough to think I can make it the country I think it should be.

I'm a process person. I want the processes to function as well as they can. I do not expect them to function perfectly, any more than I expect perfection from much of anything, including myself, and you, for that matter.

So, you can call me whatever you wish. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest. But, you're wrong.

[ProfessorPlum]

44. I know that when I write posts about the dangers of corporate control of our governance

you reply by defending the status quo.

As is your right. I respectfully disagree. But I don't know why you wouldn't embrace the term.

[MineralMan]

45. If you knew me and how I've lived my 73 years, you'd understand.

But, you don't. So, never mind. Process. It's all process.

[question everything]

50. Not sure what he means

Both my father and my father in law worked for corporations. This allowed them to provide a comfortable middle class life, to send their kids to college - first generation - and to have generous pensions that allowed their widows to continue to live comfortably.

Both my spouse and I worked for corporations. Not much of a pension but we did contribute to 401K and IRA and so far - touch wood - are OK in our retirement.

But then, we do not have the millions that Sanders has thanks to, I am sure, corporations. I am sure that he does not keep his millions under the mattress.

[MineralMan]

52. Well, I stopped working for a W-2 paycheck in 1974.

My father stopped doing that in 1967, when he opened his own auto repair business, instead of working for a car dealership.

I started being a freelance writer in 1974, knowing that it was not a very reliable or lucrative profession. Against all odds, I succeeded at it. I also opened and operated a couple of one-person businesses of my own for several overlapping years, while still writing. Both were successful, but were far from making me wealthy.

I'm a pretty long way from having much to do with corporations. While the magazines and book publishers I wrote for were corporations, they had no control, really, over what I wrote.

Most people depend, in one way or another on corporations, either directly or indirectly. We live in a capitalistic country, after all. Even small businesses with employees are usually corporations. I even had to start an S Corporation once, when one of my clients, Intel, had no mechanism for paying vendors that weren't corporate entities. When my contract with them ended and the writing was done, I shut the corporation down.

However, I drive a car that was built by a corporation. I keep my money in a bank that is a corporation. I buy my groceries and other things from corporations. My electrical power and natural gas come from a corporation. I deal with corporations all the time. There's really no alternative in this economy.

There is not a single candidate in the current primary race who will shut down the corporate economy. That's impossible, without completely disrupting our entire way of living in the USA. At best, corporations would come under more legal controls. That's about it.

Bernie Sanders would be President of a corporate, capitalistic nation. Whatever his ideas are, that will not change in any major way. It simply cannot. So, he would be a President in a corporate, capitalistic society.

So will anyone else who wins that office. And there it is.

[George II]

68. Interesting:

"I drive a car" - that means you're beholden to the auto industry and the fossil fuel industry
"I keep my money in a bank" - that means you're beholden to the financial industry
"I buy my groceries and other things from corporations" - that means you're beholden to the farm lobby
"My electrical power and natural gas come from a corporation" - again, beholden to the fossil fuel industry

THAT is why some here consider you a "Corporate Democrat"!!!

I hope you're not taking any prescription drugs, we can add beholden to Big Pharma.

[MineralMan]

69. I do! I do take prescription drugs!

Three of them, in fact. Now, all three are generics, made in China, but I'm sure Big Pharma is getting most of the money.

I'm so ashamed!

[Blue_true]

99. You should be ashamed, you're beyond hope.

No "fresh-kill" meals featuring critters that you skinned and gutted with your bare hands. No foraging the forest for berries and roots. You just let corporations do everything for you. Corporate democrat!

Actually, corporate democrat is a term that Bernie and his followers use for anyone that disagrees with them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. I was admonished in another post that I intentionally conflated individual "corporateness"

with candidates taking corporate contributions. I intended no such thing; I was merely trying to point out the absurdity and meaninglessness of the "corporate Democrat" canard. It is, of course, illegal for corporations to donate directly to political campaigns, so if that's the concern it's unfounded. No Democrats, corporate or otherwise, can legally accept such donations. But corporations can donate to PACs, and according to the heinous Citizens United case, that's perfectly OK because corporations are people, which means they have the same right to free speech as actual people, and since the court has also said money is the equivalent of speech, corporations and individuals can give PACs as much money as they want, and without any cap on the amount. And there's no requirement that the PAC disclose the sources of their donations.

We will be stuck with Citizens United for the foreseeable future, since the only way to get rid of it is by the Supreme Court overturning it (not gonna happen) or a Constitutional amendment (not gonna happen any time soon). So what are candidates to do? Should they refuse PAC contributions and try to finance their campaigns entirely with donations from individuals, thereby placing themselves at a huge disadvantage relative to the GOP, which has no qualms about getting money anywhere from anybody? It seems to me that one solution would be in the nature of full disclosure: A campaign should voluntarily disclose all contributions from all sources, and should refuse all PAC money from any PAC that does not publicly disclose its donors. That way voters would know exactly who supports the candidate, and they can choose whether that candidate is likely to favor or be beholden to "corporate" interests. And then we also wouldn't have to deal with Bernie and his supporters looking down their perfectly pure noses at those they call "corporate Democrats," which apparently means all Democrats other than Bernie.

[MineralMan]

54. Well, the more Bernie narrows down his supporters, the fewer he will have.

So, I'm not concerned. I'm perfectly happy to let him work his way out of the running, if that's what he wants to do.

[melman]

55. "running dogs of corporate imperialism."

[MineralMan]

57. Well you might roll your eyes.

Sloganism. Some folks love the slogans of politics. I'm not so fond of them.

[melman]

58. Yes I might

Because it's really ridiculous to suggest he's ever said anything like that.

[dsp3000]

60. I work for a large corporation

does that make me a corporate democrat?

[MineralMan]

64. No. It makes you like most Americans, really.

As long as we have to earn a living, and we all have to do that, we'll work somewhere to make money.

It doesn't matter where. You can work for yourself as a freelancer, as I have done all my life, or you can work for someone else who pays you regularly.

Very few people live entirely outside of the economy. I've known half a dozen such people in my 73 years. None of them were really happy with how they lived, but did so based on some idea or another. Even so, all of them had to do something for some money sometimes. It's almost impossible to live in this country completely without spending any money. So, you have to get that somehow.

About the only job that doesn't involve working in some way for a corporation is being a politician. Then your paycheck comes from taxation, but that ends up being the same thing, really.

[George II]

67. My sister worked as a bank teller. Several years ago some clown here called her....

....a "Wall Street bankster", even though she worked at a local branch of a small bank in Queens.

[Maru Kitteh]

65. Sick to damn death of Mr. Sanders attacking Democrats and the harmful divisiveness of his rhetoric

There is SO MUCH he could concentrate his efforts on without attacking Democrats, but that doesn't seem to be his priority.

I believe the timing of his departure from this primary will likely have a direct correlation to our margins in 2020. The sooner he leaves, the greater our chances of victory in all races, across the country.

[MineralMan]

66. It's clearly a desperation move to try to save

enough of his supporters to remain relevant.

[Trumpocalypse]

73. The purity left strikes again nt

[MineralMan]

76. Along with some others who are riffing off their

lead.

[Gothmog]

86. I really do not care what sanders thinks

I will support the nominee of the party but right now it is clear that the nominee of the party will not be sanders given recent polling

[Eric J in MN]

89. Bernie Sanders didn't say that

...Joe Biden supporters are corporate Democrats. He said Third Way is. Why do you think he would consider you a corporate Democrat.

[MineralMan]

91. Oh, I've been called a "third-wayer" here

dozens of times. So have many others who aren't Sanders fans. I'm not, but that doesn't matter. I just wasn't on board for Sanders. Bernie Sanders doesn't know who I am. Neither do you, apparently.

[Kentonio]

102. So in fact he didn't say a damn thing about you?

But apparently everything has to be personalized and shouted about because we're all so gosh darn important.

[Eko]

90. I am a corporate Democrat!

I work for a corporation, I'm in management and I donated to Biden. I guess that means that my corporation donated to Biden now also lol.
Eko

[betsuni]

94. Biden is now beholden to your corporation. You can call him up and tell him what to do.

He has to do it because quid pro quo. Tell him the DU Establishment says .

[Eko]

100. Obviously.

Lol.

[Blue_true]

95. I am left-center and business oriented. That qualifies me for a hanging in the eyes of a few

democratic socialists.

[BlueWI]

104. Really?

Much of the critique of the economic system has been levied at larger or multinational enterprises that have surplus access to decision makers and outsized lobbying influence. As you may be, I am an LLC operator in part of my working life. But as a small entrepreneur and being ideologically close to the Sanders wing of the party, I do not think I am at risk for hanging by Democratic socialists.

I think we frequently misunderstand and undervalue the critiques of capitalism presented by the Sanders wing of the party. We have long lacked such discussions in our public politics, and supposedly, we are the big tent party that welcomes the 30% or so votes from the left flank of the Democratic base.

[Blue_true]

105. Criticism has to be realistic, that is what I think the Sanders camp lacks.

I am far more drawn to Senator Warren's brand of progressivism, it is analytical and grounded in reality. I like you would like to see the tax code changed to put small business people and workers on an equal footing with large corporations, I just think that of everyone, Warren has her finger closest to the correct basket of changes that are needed.

The thing about hanging was a joke. I don't approve of their prescriptions for fixing what is wrong in society, but I do feel that their analysis that there are serious problems is dead on target, it is what happens after that which is off putting to me.

[BlueWI]

106. I agree with much of your post and Warren's a #2 for me this campaign.

IMO they reach different audiences, although Warren's policy knowledge of finance matters is unmatched in an excellent field. Sanders has excelled at cultivating a small donor base and that is a counterweight to balance the interests of large donors and lobbyists on legislative priorities.

[KayF]

103. Bernie has always distinguished himself from corporate democrats

why are people treating this as a new effrontery?