Hi list
Miriam
this is good article, but Miriam I am not support him,
I have 2 reasons
number 1
where is menschen in this article where is say that sanders didn't
explain 3 issue of America facing to day.
If you read last 2 reasons you will see why I say it. For bee more clear I
will copy this 2 paragraphs here.
and my 4. reasons is that before
he support Israel often time, and never didn't say this is not right what
Israel do there.
here does Sanders stand on foreign policy, particularly on Israel?
It wasn't until the last question of the Q&A that Sanders said anything
about foreign policy, and then he dealt only with the dangers posed by
Islamic State. Chastising Saudi Arabia for not leading the fight against IS,
he said that under a Sanders presidency, the United States would never again
commit to fighting a ground war in the Middle East but would continue to
play a "supportive role."
Whether that supportive role might mean withdrawing military and other
assistance from repressive regimes like the Saudis' or Benjamin Netanyahu's
Likud government in Israel, we can only wonder. So far, he's not saying.
3. As president, would Bernie Sanders issue an unconditional pardon to
Edward Snowden?
As I wrote in my last Truthdig column, the president's pardon, commutation
and clemency powers under the Constitution are plenary. Pardons, even
pre-emptive ones dispensed before criminal convictions, require no approval
from the Senate or House, and they are not subject to judicial review.
Surely, no one on the political scene today is more deserving of a
presidential pardon than Snowden for blowing the whistle two years ago on
the National Security Agency's pervasive and illegal surveillance practices.
In a better society-the kind that Sanders promoted in other respects
Saturday-Snowden would be welcomed home from exile in Russia as a national
hero.
Sanders, for his part, voted against the original Patriot Act, under which
many of the worst spying abuses were committed. He also voted earlier this
month against the USA Freedom Act, believing the new bill does not go far
enough to curb future abuses.
In the past, Sanders has said that Snowden-who faces charges of espionage
should he return to this country-deserves some kind of leniency. It's time
for Sanders to go further and promise a full pardon if he's elected.
Had the Sanders campaign permitted, I would have raised these issues
directly with the candidate Saturday. Unfortunately, because I was admitted
to the fundraiser as a member of the press rather than as a donor, I was
asked simply to observe the event. Perhaps now, with this column, we'll get
a response.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 2:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] My Weekend With Bernie: Three Issues Candidate
Sanders Didn't Address at His L.A. Fundraiser
My Weekend With Bernie: Three Issues Candidate Sanders Didn't Address at His
L.A. Fundraiser
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/my_weekend_with_bernie_three_issues_cand
idate_20150621/
Posted on Jun 21, 2015
By Bill Blum
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders. (David Becker /
AP)
For American progressives, as the 2016 presidential election approaches, the
question of the hour is simple: Is Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist
senator from Vermont, the real deal, or is he just another election-year
diversion before the inevitable anointment of Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic Party's nominee?
To help answer the question, I attended a Sanders-for-president fundraiser
Saturday morning in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles. Having
done so, I'm still in the undecided column, although I'm leaning in Bernie's
direction. The reason I remain unconvinced has more to do with three vital
issues Sanders avoided at the fundraiser, rather than anything he actually
said.
I'll list those issues in a moment, but first let me lay out the contours of
Saturday's event:
Staged on the shady front lawn of a relatively modest home owned by actress
and liberal activist Mimi Kennedy and her schoolteacher husband, Larry Dilg,
the convocation drew over 200 fervent Sanders admirers, who gathered to hear
their candidate deliver what has become a standard stump speech on the greed
and depredations of the Koch brothers and the super-rich, and the plight of
middle- and working-class families.
Like many Sanders rallies across the country to date, the crowd was heavily
weighted with senior citizens and was overwhelmingly, though not
exclusively, white.
The price of admission each attendee paid-$250 per ticket-was hardly middle
class, but it paled in comparison to the $50,000 reportedly remitted by the
corporate fat cats who attended Mitt Romney's infamous "47 percent" dinner
in 2012, or the $16,700 forked over Thursday by a gaggle of limousine
liberals for the privilege of hobnobbing with President Obama at a swanky
fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in nearby Pacific
Palisades.
Sanders arrived 10 minutes behind schedule for Saturday's fete, held up in
traffic on the perennially gridlocked Interstate 405. He entered, finally,
to a standing ovation as Dilg ably sang Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free
World" over a well-amped sound system.
The ovations persisted over the course of his prepared remarks, which lasted
about 15 minutes. The message Sanders offered was one of determination,
optimism and commitment. Throughout, he exuded an energy and level of
enthusiasm uncommon for anyone, much less a 73-year-old conducting a
50-state campaign.
"Yesterday," he began, "we had a rally in Las Vegas attended by close to a
thousand people. Tonight in Denver," his next scheduled city, "we have 7,000
RSVPs."
"Our campaign is catching fire," he continued, "for one simple reason: We
are telling the truth. The truth is what the American people want to hear."
Anyone who has listened to Bernie Sanders over his long and distinguished
career in the Senate-or for that matter, anyone who happened to catch his
short segment Friday night with comedian Bill Maher on HBO's "Real Time"-is
well acquainted with Sanders' views. For the most part, they are views
nearly all progressives share.
As Sanders' campaign flier, distributed Saturday, proclaims:
"Our country is in serious trouble.
"Our economic system benefits the rich and large corporations and leaves
working families behind. Our political system is dominated by billionaire
campaign contributors and their lobbyists, which threatens the very
foundations of our democracy. Climate change endangers the planet.
"We need bold leadership willing to stand up to the billionaire class."
Offering a broad set of remedies ranging from single-payer health care to
free tuition at public universities and paid family leave, Sanders called
for a "political revolution" to mobilize the American people. "The antidote"
to the prevailing corporate control of government, he thundered, bringing
the crowd (at least those sufficiently nimble to stand) to its feet, "is
tens of millions of people looking at Washington politicians and saying, 'We
know what's going on' " and it has to stop.
But is Bernie Sanders really the candidate we need to spark a revolution?
Before I'll be able to answer in the affirmative, Sanders will need to
address at least three basic issues he pointedly avoided during his prepared
remarks and the question and answer session that followed:
1. Is he really in the presidential race to win, or to move Hillary Clinton
to the left?
If we take Sanders at his word, he aims to be president of the United States
and believes he can be elected. Many political pundits, however, think he
entered the race to make Clinton a better candidate, to give her competition
and drive her to the left.
If and when Clinton secures the nomination, as virtually every odds-maker
continues to forecast, how will Sanders respond? Will he mount a third-party
campaign of his own, emphasizing the need to build social movements beyond
the electoral process, or will he fall in line with Clinton and urge his
supporters-many of whom see Clinton as an unrepentant war hawk and pawn of
Wall Street-to follow suit?
Sanders not only ducked these questions Saturday, he didn't mention
Hillary's name one single time. Sooner or later, he'll have to comment.
2. Where does Sanders stand on foreign policy, particularly on Israel?
It wasn't until the last question of the Q&A that Sanders said anything
about foreign policy, and then he dealt only with the dangers posed by
Islamic State. Chastising Saudi Arabia for not leading the fight against IS,
he said that under a Sanders presidency, the United States would never again
commit to fighting a ground war in the Middle East but would continue to
play a "supportive role."
Whether that supportive role might mean withdrawing military and other
assistance from repressive regimes like the Saudis' or Benjamin Netanyahu's
Likud government in Israel, we can only wonder. So far, he's not saying.
3. As president, would Bernie Sanders issue an unconditional pardon to
Edward Snowden?
As I wrote in my last Truthdig column, the president's pardon, commutation
and clemency powers under the Constitution are plenary. Pardons, even
pre-emptive ones dispensed before criminal convictions, require no approval
from the Senate or House, and they are not subject to judicial review.
Surely, no one on the political scene today is more deserving of a
presidential pardon than Snowden for blowing the whistle two years ago on
the National Security Agency's pervasive and illegal surveillance practices.
In a better society-the kind that Sanders promoted in other respects
Saturday-Snowden would be welcomed home from exile in Russia as a national
hero.
Sanders, for his part, voted against the original Patriot Act, under which
many of the worst spying abuses were committed. He also voted earlier this
month against the USA Freedom Act, believing the new bill does not go far
enough to curb future abuses.
In the past, Sanders has said that Snowden-who faces charges of espionage
should he return to this country-deserves some kind of leniency. It's time
for Sanders to go further and promise a full pardon if he's elected.
Had the Sanders campaign permitted, I would have raised these issues
directly with the candidate Saturday. Unfortunately, because I was admitted
to the fundraiser as a member of the press rather than as a donor, I was
asked simply to observe the event. Perhaps now, with this column, we'll get
a response.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
My Weekend With Bernie: Three Issues Candidate Sanders Didn't Address at His
L.A. Fundraiser
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/my_weekend_with_bernie_three_issues_cand
idate_20150621/
Posted on Jun 21, 2015
By Bill Blum
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders. (David Becker / AP)
For American progressives, as the 2016 presidential election approaches, the
question of the hour is simple: Is Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist
senator from Vermont, the real deal, or is he just another election-year
diversion before the inevitable anointment of Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic Party's nominee?
To help answer the question, I attended a Sanders-for-president fundraiser
Saturday morning in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles. Having
done so, I'm still in the undecided column, although I'm leaning in Bernie's
direction. The reason I remain unconvinced has more to do with three vital
issues Sanders avoided at the fundraiser, rather than anything he actually
said.
I'll list those issues in a moment, but first let me lay out the contours of
Saturday's event:
Staged on the shady front lawn of a relatively modest home owned by actress
and liberal activist Mimi Kennedy and her schoolteacher husband, Larry Dilg,
the convocation drew over 200 fervent Sanders admirers, who gathered to hear
their candidate deliver what has become a standard stump speech on the greed
and depredations of the Koch brothers and the super-rich, and the plight of
middle- and working-class families.
Like many Sanders rallies across the country to date, the crowd was heavily
weighted with senior citizens and was overwhelmingly, though not
exclusively, white.
The price of admission each attendee paid-$250 per ticket-was hardly middle
class, but it paled in comparison to the $50,000 reportedly remitted by the
corporate fat cats who attended Mitt Romney's infamous "47 percent" dinner
in 2012, or the $16,700 forked over Thursday by a gaggle of limousine
liberals for the privilege of hobnobbing with President Obama at a swanky
fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in nearby Pacific
Palisades.
Sanders arrived 10 minutes behind schedule for Saturday's fete, held up in
traffic on the perennially gridlocked Interstate 405. He entered, finally,
to a standing ovation as Dilg ably sang Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free
World" over a well-amped sound system.
The ovations persisted over the course of his prepared remarks, which lasted
about 15 minutes. The message Sanders offered was one of determination,
optimism and commitment. Throughout, he exuded an energy and level of
enthusiasm uncommon for anyone, much less a 73-year-old conducting a
50-state campaign.
"Yesterday," he began, "we had a rally in Las Vegas attended by close to a
thousand people. Tonight in Denver," his next scheduled city, "we have 7,000
RSVPs."
"Our campaign is catching fire," he continued, "for one simple reason: We
are telling the truth. The truth is what the American people want to hear."
Anyone who has listened to Bernie Sanders over his long and distinguished
career in the Senate-or for that matter, anyone who happened to catch his
short segment Friday night with comedian Bill Maher on HBO's "Real Time"-is
well acquainted with Sanders' views. For the most part, they are views
nearly all progressives share.
As Sanders' campaign flier, distributed Saturday, proclaims:
"Our country is in serious trouble.
"Our economic system benefits the rich and large corporations and leaves
working families behind. Our political system is dominated by billionaire
campaign contributors and their lobbyists, which threatens the very
foundations of our democracy. Climate change endangers the planet.
"We need bold leadership willing to stand up to the billionaire class."
Offering a broad set of remedies ranging from single-payer health care to
free tuition at public universities and paid family leave, Sanders called
for a "political revolution" to mobilize the American people. "The antidote"
to the prevailing corporate control of government, he thundered, bringing
the crowd (at least those sufficiently nimble to stand) to its feet, "is
tens of millions of people looking at Washington politicians and saying, 'We
know what's going on' " and it has to stop.
But is Bernie Sanders really the candidate we need to spark a revolution?
Before I'll be able to answer in the affirmative, Sanders will need to
address at least three basic issues he pointedly avoided during his prepared
remarks and the question and answer session that followed:
1. Is he really in the presidential race to win, or to move Hillary Clinton
to the left?
If we take Sanders at his word, he aims to be president of the United States
and believes he can be elected. Many political pundits, however, think he
entered the race to make Clinton a better candidate, to give her competition
and drive her to the left.
If and when Clinton secures the nomination, as virtually every odds-maker
continues to forecast, how will Sanders respond? Will he mount a third-party
campaign of his own, emphasizing the need to build social movements beyond
the electoral process, or will he fall in line with Clinton and urge his
supporters-many of whom see Clinton as an unrepentant war hawk and pawn of
Wall Street-to follow suit?
Sanders not only ducked these questions Saturday, he didn't mention
Hillary's name one single time. Sooner or later, he'll have to comment.
2. Where does Sanders stand on foreign policy, particularly on Israel?
It wasn't until the last question of the Q&A that Sanders said anything
about foreign policy, and then he dealt only with the dangers posed by
Islamic State. Chastising Saudi Arabia for not leading the fight against IS,
he said that under a Sanders presidency, the United States would never again
commit to fighting a ground war in the Middle East but would continue to
play a "supportive role."
Whether that supportive role might mean withdrawing military and other
assistance from repressive regimes like the Saudis' or Benjamin Netanyahu's
Likud government in Israel, we can only wonder. So far, he's not saying.
3. As president, would Bernie Sanders issue an unconditional pardon to
Edward Snowden?
As I wrote in my last Truthdig column, the president's pardon, commutation
and clemency powers under the Constitution are plenary. Pardons, even
pre-emptive ones dispensed before criminal convictions, require no approval
from the Senate or House, and they are not subject to judicial review.
Surely, no one on the political scene today is more deserving of a
presidential pardon than Snowden for blowing the whistle two years ago on
the National Security Agency's pervasive and illegal surveillance practices.
In a better society-the kind that Sanders promoted in other respects
Saturday-Snowden would be welcomed home from exile in Russia as a national
hero.
Sanders, for his part, Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. the original
Patriot Act, under which many of the worst spying abuses were committed. He
also voted earlier this month against the USA Freedom Act, believing the new
bill does not go far enough to curb future abuses.
In the past, Sanders has said that Snowden-who faces charges of espionage
should he return to this country-deserves some kind of leniency. It's time
for Sanders to go further and promise a full pardon if he's elected.
Had the Sanders campaign permitted, I would have raised these issues
directly with the candidate Saturday. Unfortunately, because I was admitted
to the fundraiser as a member of the press rather than as a donor, I was
asked simply to observe the event. Perhaps now, with this column, we'll get
a response.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/controversial_british_intelligen
ce_unit_engaged_in_psychological_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/controversial_british_intelligen
ce_unit_engaged_in_psychological_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/controversial_british_intelligen
ce_unit_engaged_in_psychological_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/what_have_we_learned_from_wikile
aks_saudi_arabia_documents_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/what_have_we_learned_from_wikile
aks_saudi_arabia_documents_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/what_have_we_learned_from_wikile
aks_saudi_arabia_documents_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_dont_think_online_harrassme
nts_big_deal_white_penis_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_dont_think_online_harrassme
nts_big_deal_white_penis_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_dont_think_online_harrassme
nts_big_deal_white_penis_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/through_feints_and_provocations_
the_greek_debt_drama_will_continue_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/through_feints_and_provocations_
the_greek_debt_drama_will_continue_20150622/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/through_feints_and_provocations_
the_greek_debt_drama_will_continue_20150622/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/user_agreement/http://www.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.t
ruthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
