In 2003, Rep. Sanders voted to protect "lawful commerce in arms":

[ucrdem]

He also voted to fund Homeland Security (twice) and military construction:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3157/8217/27110/protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act#.VYZ77ra1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3184/8100/27110/homeland-security-appropriations-fy-2004-bill#.VYZ6fba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3184/8556/27110/homeland-security-appropriations-fy-2004-bill#.VYZ7Kba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3185/21023/27110/military-construction-appropriations-act-2004#.VYZ7aba1qSo

On October 10, 2002, he voted against the Iraq AUMF, but on the same day, he voted to fund the Defense Department in fiscal year 2003:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3083/12790/27110/use-of-military-force-against-iraq#.VYZ9uba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3122/8511/27110/department-of-defense-appropriations-fiscal-year-2003#.VYZ8NLa1qSo

So possibly Senator Sanders' record is not as sterling as some would have it?

...................
UPDATE: I took out three nay votes I'd originally included, authorizing funding for Head Start, jobs, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, as they evidently didn't pass muster with Dems either although the bills seemed commendable when I skimmed them. In any case the votes linked above, save the Iraq AUMF, are in my mind problematic, particularly the "protection of commerce in arms" bill, which offers immunity to arms manufacturers and dealers. In the language of the bill its purpose is

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Full text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108oF1Tv6::

[TM99]

1. Funny that the only ones

expecting perfection are Clinton supporters.

I look at an overall picture of his political career. That is what I also do with Clinton. Sadly, she comes up short.

But for shits and giggles, let's address a few of these for their context.

Ooo, yeah, let's start with Head Start. First of all, Sanders actually co-sponsored H.R.1722 fully fund Head Start; Job Corps; and WIC food program in 1993. So I wonder why he would vote nay in 2003 on another appropriation's bill for the program?

Well, I bet it has to do with the fact that it was a GOP sponsored bill which included such Bush era tidbits as this: Religious organizations operating Head Start programs would be allowed use religion as a hiring factor. Bravo Mr. Sanders. I would have voted Nay as well. All of that GW religious shit was odious between 2001 and 2009.

So Ucrdem, you support religious organizations using religion as a hiring factor? My, how fucking progressively liberal of you.

Or maybe you support the changes in general that Bush wanted for Head Start as detailed in this Brookings piece from 2003?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2003/07/childrenfamilies-haskins

I edited my post to had one more choice piece of context as to what was actually going on with Bush and Head Start in 2003.

http://www.govexec.com/management/2003/05/head-start-advocate-accuses-administration-of-using-scare-tactics/14192/



This is fun. Let's do one more, shall we? Let's tackle HR 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Look, another GOP sponsored bill. What bullshit did they add to it to make it unpalatable to the principled progressive liberal this time?

Highlights:
Reduces excessive paperwork for teachers, service providers, and school administrators.
Combines IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act, in order to include disabled students in local accountability systems.
Allows for special education students students to be disciplined the same a as non-disabled students Note: S 1248 has been included in the Senate's version of this bill as an amendment.

https://votesmart.org/bill/3160/8114/27110/individuals-with-disabilities-education-improvement-act#.VYZ5lra1qSo

I bet it was the linking of IDEA with NCLB. Yeah, because NCLB is a stellar education program. I particularly like that last highlight. Let's discipline with compassionate conservatism the special eds students in the same way we do non-disabled ones. Again, if you agree with this, no wonder you love the neo-liberalism of conserva-Dems.

Basically, this is just a bullshit OP. It doesn't discuss the context of any of the votes. But if you dig deep into them, you don't see a lack of perfection but rather a very consistent voting record that is liberal, progressive, and honorable.

Got anything else this fine morning?

[ucrdem]

3. Meant to put reply #2 here. nt

[marym625]

57. Please. Are you seriously trying to condemn Sanders for a no vote on THIS Head Start bill?

I have no idea how old you are but this was a horrendous bill and part of what started the decline in education.

LANDOVER, Md., July 7— President Bush called today for a major overhaul of Head Start, the popular Lyndon Johnson-era preschool program for poor children, that would add an academic focus to its traditional emphasis on health and nutrition and give some states the right to control its financing.

Head Start programs, the president said, are ''working O.K.,'' but ''we want better than O.K. in America. We want excellence.''

Mr. Bush spoke in support of a bill in the House that includes a pilot program that would allow up to eight states to take over Head Start and combine it with existing state preschool programs. But more broadly, Mr. Bush is seeking a fundamental change for a program that has always been directly financed by the federal government, bypassing the governors with whom President Johnson was at war over civil rights when it began as an eight-week summer program in 1965. Even now Head Start advocates fear governors might use the money elsewhere, a temptation that grows in times of budget crisis.

Mr. Bush's words were immediately denounced by the president and chief executive of the National Head Start Association, a nonprofit group that promotes Head Start. The executive, Sarah Greene, has been in an intensifying battle with the White House over its plans to change the 38-year-old program, which serves one million children.

''We think it would absolutely destroy Head Start,'' said Ms. Greene, who said she was not invited to the president's speech and would not in any case have gone because ''I don't have time for floor shows.''

Mr. Bush's speech at a Head Start center at Highland Park Elementary School in suburban Washington, some seven hours before his scheduled departure tonight for a five-day trip to Africa, reflected the White House concern that the president stay focused on domestic policy in the run-up to his 2004 re-election campaign. But his words unleashed a new torrent of criticism from advocates for the poor and political opponents who said that the administration could not be trusted on the issue.

''It makes no sense to start down a totally new path with a program that's been proven effective by three full decades of research,'' Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, the most important member of the Senate on education issues, said in a statement. ''Why would anyone want to turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start?''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/us/bush-seeks-big-changes-in-head-start-drawing-criticism-from-program-s-supporters.html

[ucrdem]

72. It was a $35 billion funding bill. What would have happened if it hadn't passed?

How would that have been a better outcome?

[marym625]

100. A better outcome would have been no messing with a program that worked

And turning it into something bad.

"No Child Left Behind" has done terrible things to our educational system. This is linked in one way or another to a few of bills you are noting here.

This was a terrible time in history for the US and, mostly, the democratic party. We had very few in office that stood up for what was right. It was one of the things that brought true liberals together on sites like this. We had only a handful of Democrats in office that actually stood for anything. We had Edward Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Bernie Sanders.

Please do some research on what the Republicans did to working programs in their constant fight to fuck over Americans in need. Look at who actually fought for what. Read old articles on what these bills really did. Read old DU posts.

I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. Well, maybe a couple people but I am sure, eventually, those people and I will disagree on something. I am sure there is something that you can find that I don't like about what Senator Sanders voted on. But this stuff only makes me like him more.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

207. Good post. Cant believe how far some others here hafta stretch to supposedly find fault with Bernie, when there is none.

[marym625]

212. Thank you!

I am absolutely flabbergasted that they're actually using something extremely good, and something all Democrats with backbone voted the same way on as Sanders did, as something bad. The only thing that makes sense is that the people pushing this are not Democrats.

[Zorra]

276. Yes. The utter desperation is tragic, but kind of amusing at the same time.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

329. Had me laughing earlier. It also gives me confidence Bernie might just pull this thing off...

Just wait, if Bernie continues to enjoy his sky-rocket rise in the polls, without the original name recognition and billions in dirty campaign contributions from questionable sources, the Hillary camp will go after this wonderful man, hammer and tong, to destroy him. The desperation will be palpable, but equally ineffective in overcoming Bernie's genuine passion for articulating progressive principles and solutions to today's societal problems.

But then, that's what happens when you're over-MATCHed - you get BERNed.

Go Bernie Go!!

[Bryce Butler]

5. Bravo

Well done.

[ucrdem]

6. I give it a PG for pretzel google.

You think the Defense bill didn't have "odious shit" in it? How about the Iraq War?

[merrily]

7. Almost every House Democrat voted against the Head Start bill your OP cited, as the pie chart at

your link shows. This is a smear attempt.

[TM99]

10. Of course, it is a smear job.

And a very bad one at that.

Facts be damned. Let's stir shit up!

[ucrdem]

13. Funding Head Start bad, funding Iraq war good? Because that's how his votes sort out. nt

[merrily]

17. Violating Separation of Church and State in Head Start BAD, Iraq war INFINITELY WORSE.

You can't repeal the damage done by a war.

Your OP is shameful and so is your reply.

[ucrdem]

26. He voted to fund that war, also Homeland Security. nt

[merrily]

28. I already responding to your funding comment. BTW, how did Hillary vote on those things?

[Fairgo]

78. There is something vile in using the IDEA in this manner

NCLB is antithetical to the social justice aspirations of the Act. I can't imagine any reason for doing this that isn't evil. Suggesting that it is was a good thing thwarted by Sanders requires some explanation.

[merrily]

89. It was a bad thing, but Sanders was not able to thwart it. It passed the House, but never came to a

vote in the Senate. That probably means they could not get Democratic Senate votes for cloture. Hillary was a Senator at the time.

Suggesting, as did the OP, that voting against this bill is the equivalent of BOTH advocating and voting for the Iraq War is heinous, IMO. Ask over a million displaced Iraqis if they agree. Ask children that were sold into slavery. Ask the survivors of the casualties on both sides. Ask al Qaida Iraq, ISIL and everyone else who grew to hate us more than ever.

Out of kindness, I suggested to the ucrdem that he self delete the OP and let the thread sink. I guess he doesn't see the wisdom in that course. At this point, I guess he can keep digging the hole.

Given that, maybe I'll keep it kicked for a few days.

[Fairgo]

143. Thanks for verifying the banal sophistry...

A mendacious argument that wins only small minds and dark hearts. Children with disabilities and the obscenity of war trivialised for a cheap and specious smear? It's embarassing.

[QC]

182. Banal sophistry and cheap smears are the lozocolo way.

They're what got him banned.

[Rex]

317. Too bad they didn't get his sock drawer.

I wish they would hammer down on people here with multi accounts, it is really embarrassing for this site.

[QC]

323. I'm not sure what's the point of banning disruptors

when they're allowed to waltz right back into this place and resume their old habits.

[Fairgo]

145. Thanks for verifying the banal sophistry...

A mendacious argument that wins only small minds and dark hearts. Children with disabilities and the obscenity of war trivialised for a cheap and specious smear? It's embarassing.

[Mnpaul]

175. Not really

He voted to fund the Department of Defense. As far as I can tell, he voted against the Iraq funding supplemental bills. I looked up two in the House and one in the Senate.

[marym625]

201. unbelievable!

OK, I and others have answered you. You answer this: Would you have had Sanders and the other Democrats not fund the war that was happening despite their votes against it? Wasn't it bad enough that trillions of dollars earmarked for the war disappeared and our military didn't have the right equipment? That they weren't provided with the most basic of equipment like flak jackets, jackets that private citizens bought, paid for and sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our military, and shocks for the humvees. Shocks that would have saved literally thousands of our military from brain damage?

Are you happy with what has become of our educational system due to the bush head start/no child left behind crap? Would you prefer that Democrats just voted for all Republican bills and just roll the fuck over?

How do you justify criticizing Sanders, and therefore most Democrats on funding our service men and women in a war we threw them in? How do you justify criticizing Democrats on standing up against the horror that is/was the Republican version of "helping" children and the disabled?

How do you justify this?

[ucrdem]

208. The fact is that he voted to fund the DoD, imminent war and all, and Homeland Security.

He also voted to give weapons manufacturers immunity. Please tell me those votes were made necessary by his fine liberal principles?

[marym625]

217. Nice that you skip the things I mentioned but I don't find it surprising considering the OP.

I have already answered you. Your questions has been answered in this thread anyway. But I will gladly expand on those responses after you answer me. Gladly.

And btw, gun control is not a liberal agenda. It's mine and many others, but there is a reason they're not allowed in GD.



.

[ucrdem]

227. The fact is that you're avoiding the difficult questions. I don't blame you. nt

[marym625]

228. Bullshit. it is you that are avoiding. I asked a question. YOU didn't answer

I'm not playing your game. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You ignored me. I answered you and gave you facts. You ignored me. I asked you questions on certain bills and you play bullshit games to ignore the question.

What is your agenda? To attack Senator Sanders or the democratic party?

[ucrdem]

230. Look I have no idea what particular question you're harping on. Sorry. nt

[marym625]

233. Wow.

And again, you avoid a question.

[ucrdem]

11. Sanders voted against a $35 billion Head Start bill and for funding the Iraq War.

That's on him.

[merrily]

19. OMG. An even more shameful reply. He voted AGAINST the war. Once those who ADVOCATED for it,

like Hillary, got their way, voting against funding with troops in harm's way would have been horrific.

[ucrdem]

24. He voted to fund it on the same day he voted against the mainly symbolic AUMF.

Bush and Cheney were going to war and the only way to stop them would have been to cut the purse strings, and Sanders didn't vote to do that.

[merrily]

68. The Iraq War AUMF was symbolic? OMG

[TM99]

75. Symbolic?

Have you been drinking?

Contents

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Symbolic my ass. Are they civilian and service people deaths symbolic too?!

[ucrdem]

97. Without the Defense funding the Iraq war wouldn't have happened. Sanders voted to fund it. nt

[TM99]

109. Yeah, now that Bush has his war on

let's fuck the troops in Iraq?

Do you have any idea the horror that was unleashed there and what service people & Iraqi civilians suffered alike?

To attempt to score trite little points for your candidate (who voted for the authorization AND the funding) is beyond the pale.

Go away!

[ucrdem]

112. Sanders voted to fund it the same day as AUMF, five months before Bush declared war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

[TM99]

120. Are you obtuse?

The funding bill you link to is a general Department of Defense Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2003 AND not a special funding for the AUMF.

He voted with ALL the Democrats in the House and Senate for its passage.

Trying to link the two is just a bullshit game. Dude, just give it the fuck up! You are out of your depth and sinking fast.

[ucrdem]

125. Linking 2003 funding to a 2003 war approved the same day and declared five months later?

Just reading the record. Some of us are better I guess.

[TM99]

126. I guess you are!

Do you honestly think that budget for fiscal year 2003 was planned on the same day? It went through committees and planning months in advance.

No you are attempting to create a linkage between the two when anyone with any knowledge and sense knows there is none.

Keep sinking!

[merrily]

135. IRRELEVANT. Funding a war for which Congress voted is the ONLY decent thing to do. Again, ask Kerry

[Sheepshank]

270. Holy cow, 5100 posts in the last 90 days...wow you are busy

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Now you question others perception of relevancy?

[merrily]

287. Did you have a point to make?

Something on topic preferably?

[Sheepshank]

313. I made my point for those cared to read....apparently that wasn't what you'd read

[uppityperson]

326. That is very true, sometimes people get stuck in their snarking rather than forwarding the

discussion in a positive manner.

Welcome to DU, I look forward to your posts.

[pangaia]

189. You just keep saying the same stupid things over and over

like a broken record, even after it is explained to you.

Maybe you need to kick the record player so the needle skips.

"Record player'. That shows you how old I am.

[mythology]

140. Because Bush and Cheney wouldn't have sent the troops anyway?

They sent them to war based on a lie and without a plan to pay for the cost of the war, do you really think that they wouldn't have scavenged the money from somewhere in their lust for death?

[TM99]

148. The DoD funding bill was not just for war.

It also covered ALL DoD fiscal needs including health care and other benefits for the troops.

It is a specious attempt to link two bills that have no bearing on each other.

Ask him if he is an emo-prog who wants to complete get rid of the US military.

[merrily]

50. And this bilious thread is on you. AGAIN, how did Hillary vote?

[secondwind]

48. indeed!

[TM99]

9. So in other words,

you ain't got shit.

Just out of context list of nay votes, some snarky bullshit, and a whole lot of "let's find a new way to smear Sanders since the other ones are failing so badly."

It is both comedic and pathetic.

[ucrdem]

15. In other words, his voting record speaks volumes. nt

[merrily]

22. Yep. His voting record does speak volumes. Thank heaven it does, so it stands up to smears.

[merrily]

25. I wonder where it came from, don't you?

I find it hard to believe that the OP went through every vote of Sanders from 1991 to 2015.

Whoever went through them, if all they came up with was stuff like this, Bernie shouldn't just be President of the US.

Something even bigger would have to be created.

[ucrdem]

27. The links are in the OP.

As for "something bigger," the US doesn't go in for emperors, kings, or permanent presidents. Ask Julius Caesar how that one turned out.

[merrily]

29. No shit. I obviously knew that, given my replies. You might try reading a post before you reply.

[Divernan]

88. From HRC's hard-working, UNPAID interns per chance?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today rolled out a series of programs designed to reduce the youth unemployment rate, but Clinton, herself, is building out a portion of her campaign with unpaid labor.

Clinton’s campaign is establishing a network of grassroots trainees, called “Organizing Fellows,” who are being signed on full-time to work for free. Some, even those who are young professionals with experience in politics, are reportedly being told they need to work without pay for at least the summer months.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-hires-unpaid-labor-tackles-youth/story?id=31830227

CLASSIC HILLARY - WORDS NOT DEEDS - "ooh, ooh, it's so baaaad not to pay student interns, except when they're interning for MY family "charity" or MY campaign!" And CLASSIC Clinton Foundation allocation of those millions in donations - private jets & 5 star presidential suite accomodations at glittering, celebrity filled "meetings", but squat all for new graduates with student loans - although the received wisdom is that only young people of independent means and without student loan debt can afford to "volunteer" for HRC OR the Clinton Foundation.

(Headline)
Hillary Doesn't Like Unpaid Internships, but Clinton Foundation Sure Does
(Subheadline)
The charity spent $30 million on salaries last year but not one cent on interns, unlike the Ford or Gates Foundations. What gives?

Hillary Clinton may be running for president as a champion for the middle class, but the Clinton Foundation’s interns do not get paid. “Businesses have taken advantage of unpaid internships to an extent that it is blocking the opportunities for young people to move on into paid employment,” Clinton said at UCLA in 2013. “More businesses need to move their so-called interns to employees.”

That doesn’t happen at her own business, the Clinton Foundation that Bill started in 2001.
The foundation goes through about 100 interns each summer, with slightly less during the school year. Summer interns volunteer 30 to 40 hours a week, while interns who work during a college semester may work 25 hours. The most some interns receive is a $2,000 stipend for a four-month period, and that depends on financial need.

Paying them all New York’s minimum wage of $8.75, for instance, would cost a fraction of the foundation’s budget, which spent $29.9 million (PDF) on employee salaries, compensation, and benefits for about 2,000 employees worldwide in 2013.

“There is no section of the Labor Law that exempts ‘interns’ at not-for-profit organizations from the minimum wage requirements,” a New York Department of Labor handout clarifies (PDF). Unlike for-profit corporations, nonprofits in New York are allowed to employ unpaid volunteers. Unpaid volunteers can’t be required to work certain hours though (Foundation interns are), and they cannot be compensated in any way except for reimbursement for expenses (some Foundation interns get stipends).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/30/hillary-doesn-t-like-unpaid-internships-but-clinton-foundation-sure-does.html

[merrily]

96. Well, I am not leaping to the conclusion that the OP actually checked 24 years of Bernie's votes,

yet couldn't spend the time to check anything about the few votes he chose to create an OP about. I mean, someone that diligent would surely have at least check the first vote, no?

BTW, have you made an OP of that anywhere? GD? Populist Group? Labor Group? Buehler?

[Autumn]

178. It's a Loco thing. Just crazy, they got nothing else. Edited to thank the jury.

A little comment this is alerted because it's hurtful?


On Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's a Loco thing. Just crazy, they got nothing else.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6875560

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another DU'er crazy is rude, hurtful, and over the top. Also it's not like Autumn was involved in this thread, she just came in to pile on in a hurtful fashion here that isn't okay.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:41 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster seems to be referring to "opposition research", not to other DU'er(s).
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There seems to be a load of thin skinned wusses here anymore.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Atumn isn't calling the poster crazy. She is calling the person Lozocolo- - who is a banned troll. Which the op is. Lozocolo zombie troll.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[merrily]

282. Hmm. A post of mine on this thread got alerted on as well. Same vote, too: 0-7 to leave. Bad alerts.

Yesterday in latest threads, I saw a post in the gungeon saying how many alerts they're getting. Interesting.

[Autumn]

288. Yeah strange. The consequences of a 0-7 to leave is that the

alerters are locked out of alerting for 24 hours. The admins set that up really well.

[merrily]

293. I don't know if that's enough. Some of the alerts I've seen, especially lately, have been

totally out of order. It doesn't seem to be about civility or TOS, but about harassment.

[Autumn]

294. The admins see all the alerts so if that's going on I would think

and hope they would stop any harassment.

[merrily]

297. One would hope.

[Sienna86]

8. Yes, bravo.

Thanks for your detailed response.

[jtuck004]

12. Well now, that's how one answers a question! Nice! n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

331. Yup yup, knocked that one outta the park...kiss it goodbye...it's a Grand Slam!...

Never question Bernie's progressive credentials. He's the genuine article, the real deal, the very thing we've been waiting for. He needs our support like never before; I say we give it to him.

Now Hillary on the other hand...hmmm?? She seems a bit late to the progressive party on so many important issues that Bernie has been leading on for years - not just when running for president, holding a finger to the political winds to feel which way the wind is blowin, with hundreds of consultants advising what to think and say.

Go Bernie Go!!

[jtuck004]

333. Actually it's his ideas that need the support. But yeah, he's the only choice out there

as far as I am concerned, to drive the efforts to put them into practice.

Saw this before with Jimmy Carter, though, and we got R. Reagan. We shall see.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

339. Yes, I see your point, but this is a WAY different political climate. Times have changed a lot since the early 80's. It's our time now.

[jtuck004]

341. Understand, I heard the same story back then. Really nothing new, though I know many can't see that.

We couldn't see it back then either.

It was our time then too. That was actually in writing. Ask anyone.

Not disagreeing, just an observation. We shall see.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

357. Fair point, I see where you're coming from. Yes, we'll see. And we saw what the media did to Howard Dean more recently, so obviously, anything csn happen.

[madokie]

30. As soon as I seen the subject line

I knew in my all knowing mind that this was OP was bullshit. The odorous kind I might add.
As it is going forward Bernie Sanders will be our next President

[JustAnotherGen]

37. Bravo!

Well, I bet it has to do with the fact that it was a GOP sponsored bill which included such Bush era tidbits as this: Religious organizations operating Head Start programs would be allowed use religion as a hiring factor. Bravo Mr. Sanders. I would have voted Nay as well. All of that GW religious shit was odious between 2001 and 2009.

[secondwind]

46. Glad you did this!! I was going to do the research myself... n/1

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. Great work and great rebuttal to the OP's selective thinking

and facts. The OP is owned.

[zentrum]

92. Thanks TM99

Really appreciate your knowledge.

[Bonobo]

206. ++++++++++1,000 - The OP is SHREDDED and left destroyed with this post.

There is no read to go any further.

[treestar]

218. It is food for thought though

for those who condemned Obama for signing things that might have things we don't like in them in order to keep the government running or even proposed things they don't like as a possible bargaining point. Seems some of those people are going to do what they called "making excuses" for Bernie. True no one is perfect, but when people are attacking Obama and Hillary on terms of what is not perfect but then being reasonable for Bernie, we can see that. Not saying you are one of the ones doing it, but they exist.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

248. Well said!

Some folks here will not just stretch the truth, they will mangle it into something unrecognizable. Yet when it comes to Hillary, she can do no wrong, even when she eventually admits the errors of her ways.

[SusanCalvin]

252. I figured it wouldn't take long for some kind soul

to tear the OP to shreds. Thanks!

[MADem]

321. I am afraid I have to disagree with your conclusion.

I support Clinton, and I understand that most politicians have to make compromises when voting on bills--the thing you like is paired with the thing you hate. So of course, EVERY politician will have "questionable" votes (cough-where did those planes hit on Sep 11? Who keeps getting ripped for a war vote? Cough!) that appealed to their constituents even though they might not sell well on a national scale.


Similarly, when a politician is appointed to a diplomatic role--like, say, SECRETARY OF STATE--their job is not to advocate for their own desires, but to represent their BOSS's wishes and advocate for HIS goals. Yet, I see all this bullshit "Waaaaah, Clinton LIKES the TPP" bullshit here, when in fact she hasn't had shit to say about it under her own steam. And why is this? I'd suspect that there's bifurcated reasoning afoot here--no matter what she says, there will be people pissed off at her, and her input makes no damn difference anyway (it's not like she has a vote). Plus, speaking out against her former boss might be regarded by some as disloyal.

It's a third rail, and it does her no good to advocate either AGAINST it, or FOR it, because her input doesn't matter. Smartest political decision is to stay generic on the topic. People who don't understand that don't live in the real world. It'll be a done deal, either way, if she makes it to the WH.

Nuance--it's missing on this board, which is probably why a lot of people have dropped off the rolls or are on holiday. I find the atmosphere here toxic on some days. It's just not fun, mainly because of all the newcomers who haven't read the TOS and like to name-call when their beloved candidate doesn't get sufficient "respect"... in their opinions. Anyone who thinks that kind of "Eff YOU" discussion is going to win hearts and minds isn't thinking logically. People don't get motivated to support a candidate by being insulted. I mean--really--do you think you changed a single mind with My, how fucking progressively liberal of you. ...?

What's "bullshit" is when the same tactic that is used against Clinton supporters is turned around and directed at the opposition primary candidate, and that candidate's supporters play the "Aggrieved" card like they're being treated unfairly. In actual fact, it's a bit of tit for tat, and nothing more.

If you think the GOP is going to employ kid gloves in dealing with Senator Sanders because you happen to think he's a cool guy, get real--this IS "kid gloves" treatment. They'll tear him to shreds and toss him to the wolves, and there will be nothing left by the time they are finished with him. Ask John McCain (Google his name, South Carolina, whispering campaign and see what you get) --and he's one of THEIRS. They won't handle an "outsider" quite so gently.

[TM99]

356. So are you back for another tumble

with me MADem?

The OP took votes out of context. Period.

The votes were with the majority of Dems at a time when the Congress was in GOP control. Period.

When called out on that smear tactic, they doubled down even when facts contradict their assertions. Period.

This was not about compromising or difficult votes. This OP was about lies and distortions in order to make a Democratic candidate appear different than he actually is.

Peronsally, I don't care that Clinton ALSO voted for DoD 2003 fiscal year funding. I do care that she voted for the Iraq war and Sanders did not. That would be a more reasonable discussion to be had.

By supporting this POS OP, why would I want to discuss anything reasonable with you like that? You are defending the indefensible and rationalizing it about the GOP in the general. I am quite certain that Sanders and his supporters can handle the GOP quite well in the general. After all, we are handling the neo-liberals right now in the primary, kicking ass, and taking names.

[MADem]

359. What does that even mean..."So you are back for another tumble with me?"

People DO "take votes out of context" don't they? Period?

It's a common occurence here, unfortunately.

That was the point I was making. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...but that shoe pinches like hell on the other foot (to mix a few metaphors).

It's not really about what you, "personally" care about, it's about the tone on this board, the comments that fly back and forth. Shitty accusations invite other shitty accusations, and the quality of discourse is lowered. Nuance is the first casualty. The race to the bottom of the barrel begins. Shit gets stirred....and the wingnuts laugh.

I could take this comment of yours and apply it to dozens of posts made about the former SECSTATE, by just changing 'he' to 'she':

This was not about compromising or difficult votes. This OP was about lies and distortions in order to make a Democratic candidate appear different than he actually is.

Like I said, that shoe pinches on the other foot.

[TM99]

360. You always claim that Clinton suffers the same.

She does not.

There is ZERO context for why she voted for the Iraq war. There is context for why Sanders, who had been funding Head Start since the 1990's, voted against it in 2003.

You, like the OP, are trying to say they are equivalent so therefore it is ok and just accept.

They are not equivalent. I and other reject this. We will not just accept it.

My feet feel just fine. Thanks.

[MADem]

362. She does, but you refuse to see it. You only cry out when your ox is gored.

You refuse to see context (hello, where did those planes crash? It wasn't Dubuque..her constituents backed the concept, the same way Sanders' constituents back some of the shitty gunny stuff he signed off on).

Context only counts for you when you're waving the pompoms for your team. Your bias blinds you to the realpolitik of any vote your favorite didn't make.

Your feet feel fine because you're afraid to even put those shoes on.

[TM99]

364. That right there is the biggest pile

of steaming bullshit I have ever heard.

Clinton, the carpet bagger, who became a NY state Senator had to vote for the Iraq War (whose entire intel was based on lies!) because of 9/11 which had everything to do with Saudi Arabia and nothing to do with Iraq because she was just supporting her constituents?

I can no longer even remotely take you seriously. I love the projection though.

[MADem]

365. You and your "steaming pile" can go have a nice day.

As for taking you seriously, that comment took you right out of the running. Frankly, the way you talk, I don't seek your "approval." In fact, I don't want to be anywhere near anyone who can't express themselves without getting all personal and scatological.

You delivered for all to see--now there's no doubt what you're all about. Heckuvajob.

[ucrdem]

2. Purpose of the Head Start bill, from the bill text:

to promote school readiness by enhancing the development of low-income children, through educational instruction in prereading skills, premathematics skills, and language, and through the provision to low-income children and their families of health, educational, nutritional, social and other services that are determined, based on family needs assessments, to be necessary.

It authorized appropriations in the amounts of:

There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out the provisions of this subchapter $6,870,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004, $6,988,750,000 for fiscal year 2005, $7,106,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $7,245,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $7,427,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

Among other things it provided for:

(m) ENROLLMENT OF HOMELESS CHILDREN- The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe policies and procedures to remove barriers to the enrollment and participation of eligible homeless children in Head Start programs.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:4:./temp/~c108qXuhU1:e864:

Yes, I support that appropriation. No, voting against Head Start and voting for no less than 4 military bills, five if you count "lawful commerce in arms" (let's see, who might benefit from that one?) is not liberal, progressive, or by my lights, particularly honorable. JMHO, YMMV.

[merrily]

4. Couple of things

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 07:22 AM - Edit history (2)

First, I don't know why Sanders voted against the 2003 Bill. That was a very Republican year. Could some undesirable things have been tagged onto the bill or some very desirable compromise have been involved? Didn't a lot of other Democrats vote against it as well, including Kucinich?


The reason I ask: Sanders' Senate website shows he is for Head Start. (Text from his Senate website is quoted below.)

Second, Head Start has mixed results in that children who complete a Head Start program do better in the first few years of elementary school. However, by third or fourth grade, it levels out to no difference. So, there is a question about the program, but, apparently, not in the mind of Bernie Sanders. Here's the text from his Senate website:

Head Start, the early childhood development program, has been a success story since it was created in 1965. It provides nutrition services and helps develop reading and math skills for children up to three years old. Legislation that would reauthorize Head Start for the first time in almost a decade is moving through Congress. Senator Bernie Sanders is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has approved a bill that would authorize $7.3 billion for next year.
Thursday, June 14, 2007

Head Start, the early childhood development program, has been a success story since it was created in 1965. It provides nutrition services and helps develop reading and math skills for children up to three years old. Legislation that would reauthorize Head Start for the first time in almost a decade is moving through Congress. Senator Bernie Sanders is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has approved a bill that would authorize $7.3 billion for next year and more in the future. The amount would have been much less without prodding by Sanders in committee. In Vermont, there are seven Head Start programs serving about 1,400 children and their families. More children are eligible. More children could be served with the adequate funding. "We are working very hard to make sure Head Start is available all over this country and in Vermont for people who are eligible," Sanders said.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/head-start

ETA: ONLY 12 HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR the 2003 HEAD START BILL CITED IN THE OP, HR 2210!

Independent Bernie voted with vast majority of Democrats.

Republicans voted for it. It passed by 1 frickin' vote out of 435, thanks to a dozen defectors from the House Democratic Caucus.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll444.xml

The pie chart at the OP's own link reflects that most Democrats voted against it. Doesn't look as though it ever even came to a vote in the Senate.

Where in hell did this bs talking point/smear originate?

[Depaysement]

164. So you support John Boehner nt

Don't get all weepy on us now.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. this tactic will backfire

It is clear to everyone that Sen. Sanders is far to the left of Sec. Clinton. Trying to paint him as not progressive enough will just point out how badly we need the most liberal candidate possible.

It is easy to pick apart a bill here or there if you go back nearly 15 years. Nobody is claiming he is perfect, but he is the best possible candidate for those of us on the left.

[MoonRiver]

16. I never expect perfection from anyone.

But we have been told ad nauseum that he's practically God and Hillary is absolutely the devil. Yeah, it's been just about that black and white.

[TRoN33]

20. As far as I am concerned, religious doesn't applied to Sanders' campaign and he's becoming strongest

Opponent to Hillary's left.

There is nothing black and white about Sanders but it sure applied to Clinton very well.

[MoonRiver]

21. Have you ever heard the word analogy?

Edit: Wow, talk about making my point!

[merrily]

31. Have you been reading the replies to this thread? HE VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

[MoonRiver]

47. But , but I've been hearing here that he's the one who will vote his principles

regardless of what the majority thinks. He is after all an Independent.

[merrily]

53. Again, READ.

[MoonRiver]

73. I read, and I'm not impressed with his votes on these issues.

Maybe he can explain them away.

[merrily]

77. LMAO. The Head Start bill never even came to a vote in the Senate.

Guess what that means, given Republicans wanted it.

[TM99]

81. So you agree with the GOP then?

Sanders voted with the Democratic party almost all of these votes including Head Start.

[TRoN33]

18. Ucrdem nice politically bait. These bill of rights are still fresh in my mind and it's filled with..

Very right wing bullshit that otherwise would harm this country. Sanders have no time for bullshit, so either am I. Next time if you want to post something like this, be more truthful about these bill of rights.

[ucrdem]

23. Possibly but the Homeland Security and Defense Dept authorizations didn't?

Frankly I'd be less worried about a church hiring a church member to run its Head Start program than I would be about Homeland Security running around like the Gestapo which is what it did, and that's what's still fresh in my mind.

[merrily]

33. Desperation reeks. Once war is declared, not funding would be heinous. Ask Kerry. And Hillary.

Again, how did Hillary vote on Homeland Security in 2003? Ya think, in 2003, there may have been a reason for Homeland Security?

[ucrdem]

38. Voting to authorize funding it is tantamount to authorizing the war.

The AUMF was a figleaf but the authorization was real and Sanders voted for it.

[merrily]

69. Like HELL. Dude, the hole you've been digging is way deep enough. Stop digging.

[leftofcool]

61. You can find these bills in the Congressional Record.

Are you saying the Congressional Record is wrong?

[Depaysement]

32. WARNING: Republican Flamebait OP

Click on the head start link.

Former Rebuke congressman Mike Castle sponsored the bill. John Boehner was a co-sponsor.

As the father of a special needs child, I am glad Bernie voted against this POS. GFY.

This thread should be locked. It is a deliberate smear of a Democrat.

[ucrdem]

34. OP is perfectly accurate and speaking of accuracy

Sanders isn't a Democrat.

[TM99]

40. Not this tired shit again too.

Sanders is an Independent from Vermont running with approval from the DNC as a Democratic candidate in the primary election.

He has caucused with Democrats both in the House and the Senate. He is a founding member of the House Progressive Caucus. The only people still spouting the bullshit you are doing are those with nothing but smear attacks as this OP proves beyond a doubt.

[ucrdem]

42. Nevertheless it is not accurate to call him a Democrat, and it's within his power to change that.

He hasn't.

[TM99]

49. No one calls him a Democrat.

They say he is running as a Democratic candidate. He is still referred to as the Independent Senator from Vermont on news shows and in print media.

He will register as a Democrat in the states that require it.

And no, he can't just change that, and you love 'facts' so much so I will let you research the why on that.

[ucrdem]

54. The post I responded to calls him a Democrat.

[merrily]

173. He has changed it and the DNC agrees he's a Democrat.

[ucrdem]

183. No, they agree he's a "challenger." Big difference.

Unless you have a link to the contrary.

[merrily]

193. You understand that they mean challenging Hillary for the Dem Presidential nom, right?

Same as O'Malley, Webb and Chafee are doing.

Exactly what is it you think Bernie has to do to become a Democrat legally? Vermont has 100% open registration. You register as a voter, period, not as Democrat or Republican or Indie. For over 35 years Bernie ran as an Indie simply on his own say so and choice. Same as he is running for President as a Democrat on his say so.

As far as a link, the minute Bernie announced he was running as a Dem the DNC sent out an email fundraising based on that. The email may or may not be online, but plenty of DUers posted about it.

[ucrdem]

197. I understand that you're claiming something that isn't true.

The DNC has not declared Sanders a Democrat and has not to my knowledge bestowed that label on him. If you have evidence showing otherwise, by all means post away.

[merrily]

231. No, you're the one whose claims are not true.

You just either don't get it or refuse to admit it, or both. Again, that being the case, I don't know how to help you.

[Chickaletta]

363. Wrong. DNC already included Sanders as their quartet

of Dems that is declared.

Oh, you want proof? Here it is, buddy..

http://my.democrats.org/page/s/bernie-sanders

[Cha]

43. What's with the "republicon smear job" accusation when you're only posting his voting record?

[Depaysement]

158. That is NOT what the OP is doing

Sanders was voting against a Republican bill on head start, disabilities. Read the bill. Look at the sponsors.

This is disinformation, an attempt to smear Sanders.

If ucrdem and you support a yes vote on this bill you two are on John Boehner's side. Boehner was a co-sponsor and virtually all the co-sponsors were Repukes.

[Depaysement]

44. He's running for the Democratic Presidential nomination

The POS is garbage.

You really should retract it. It is intentionally misleading and you know it.

[leftofcool]

66. No it isn't! Those ARE his votes!

[Depaysement]

150. Read the bill

Look at the sponsors.

[leftofcool]

296. So? Sponsors don't matter when we need things.

I don't give a damn if tomorrow Rand Paul sponsored a bill for universal background checks. If the thing passes, who cares!

[Depaysement]

311. You don't get it

It's a Republican bill. Sanders opposed it, along with most House Democrats. Obviously, he wanted more for head start and special needs education, not less.

Frankly, if you don't get that, I don't know what to say.

[leftofcool]

63. Correct! He is not a Democrat.

[merrily]

163. LOL, who are you and ucrdem to contradict the DNC on that point?

[cwydro]

199. You got alerted on:

On Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

LOL, who are you and ucrdem to contradict the DNC on that point?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6875273

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling out a DU member

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:23 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I generally oppose bringing third party DUers into a conversation this way as "calling out" but that doesn't apply here ucrdem started the thread in which the discussion takes place.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Baloney!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a fan of this poster, but since all involved are participating in the thread I don't see it as a call-out.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: They should have alerted on themselves...Their comment was more offensive, in my opinion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The most unwarranted alert I've seen.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[merrily]

226. Thanks. 0 to 7 to leave it. Thanks, Juror 7: "The most unwarranted alert I've seen."

Thanks, also Juror 4 for being fair, even though you don't like me. You're correct. It was not a call out.


Seems the Alerter Squad has been working overtime since that poll where Bernie got tons more votes than Hillary.

[merrily]

76. Um, yes he is. The DNC immediately used his unofficial announcement to fund raise for itsself.

If the DNC recognized him as a Democrat, who the hell are you to say he isn't?

[SusanCalvin]

254. Yeah, the DNC may turn out to be sorry they did that!

Assuming that they really want Hillary, which I believe to be the case.

[merrily]

265. I believe that as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064

A poster here has pointed out that the DNC never issued a statement saying Hillary was its anointed or that it would just as soon do away with primaries. But, duh, who actually expects that? I don't think Democrats like Frank, Brown or Schumer are "mavericky," or out of the loop. What is a little scary to me is that I also don't think they are talking out of turn. Drip, drip, drip, bit by bit they are letting us know this is the deal and we are not pushing back enough, though there was pushback about a 2016 coronation. But, what of the House and Senate?

[SusanCalvin]

280. "They've simply been treating Hillary as though she were an incumbent."

Exactly. Except when they want to fund-raise off Bernie.

[merrily]

295. Which was about 42.5 seconds after he announced unofficially that he was running as a Democrat.

[leftofcool]

55. What about these voting bills is a smear? Are they true or not?

[TM99]

65. Read the fucking facts in the thread

and you will see why.

They are taken out of context. The OP fails to mention the truth behind the bills such as GOP poison pills, the fact that Sanders voted with the Democrats who also voted nay, etc.

It is a disingenuous smear piece, and actually a poorly written one at that given how easy it is to dispute the spin.

[leftofcool]

67. Bernie is NOT a Democrat!

[Omaha Steve]

159. He isn't third way either!

[merrily]

174. Take that up with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The DNC thinks Bernie is a Democrat.

[ucrdem]

184. The DNC calls Sanders lots of nice things,

but not a Democrat. Yes, they welcome him. No, that doesn't make him a Democrat. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

[merrily]

210. Yeah, right. The DNC is praising someone from another party to the skies and raising money off him

from Democrats because the DNC is a grifter. PLEASE, get real.

From a fundraising email from the DNC to Democrats.

And Bernie Sanders is a progressive champion. He's represented the people of Vermont for years in the Senate after 16 years in the House of Representatives. Throughout his career, he's been a fierce advocate for working families and has a strong record of supporting equal pay for women, working to raise the minimum wage, taking action on climate change, and fighting for an economy that works for the middle class. We couldn't be more excited to hear him to say he's in.

So can you take a second to show you're in for 2016 as well?

No matter what, Democrats share a set of principles that will ensure that President Obama's progress is defended and advanced. America will be a better place with a Democrat in the Oval Office, and this is a critical time in the race to support our party.

So welcome, Sen. Sanders, and thank you for saying you're in for 2016!

We'll keep you updated.

Thanks,

DNC 2016

If you don't read the above as acknowledging he is running as a Democrat and raising money from Democrats off his announcement that he is running as a Democrat, then I honestly don't know how to help you. The Party doesn't advertise for candidates from other parties, or thank them for running against Democrats.

CHreeist! What does it take for you to admit reality?

[ucrdem]

216. And never do they call Sanders a Democrat. Thanks for posting the evidence. nt

[merrily]

221. BECAUSE ANYONE WOULD REALIZE THAT FROM WHAT THEY DID SAY THAT THEY WERE WELCOMING A DEMOCRAT

to the race. Good god.

[ucrdem]

224. They never call Sanders a Democrat because he isn't. nt

[merrily]

229. Please stop repeating yourself endlessly. I've already admitted I don't know how to help you

if you don't realize the DNC why welcoming Bernie and praising him to the skies and using his run to fundraise from Democrats. I don't know what more you can expect beyond that humble confession.

[ucrdem]

234. Here's how: Show where the DNC identifies Sanders as a Democrat. nt

[merrily]

238. I did. You apparently can't get that. And that inability of yours is what I cannot help you with.

[ucrdem]

240. They very clearly do NOT identify Sanders as a Dem in that email. nt

[HooptieWagon]

186. So you think having a D next to a name and voting for corporate interests makes a candidate a Dem?

Wow, so gullible...or paid.

[ucrdem]

249. Having a D does, yes. It's really not that complicated. nt

[HooptieWagon]

260. So having a D and supporting corporate interests

Vs the interests of the 99% is enough for you? Wow! So gullible...

[leftofcool]

298. We care about more than that as Democrats.

You are either a Democrat or you are not, period. Sanders is not a Democrat. He is going to have one hell of a time even getting on the ballots in some states.

[HooptieWagon]

305. Then why are the Hillary shills so desparate?

An obvious hack job like the OP just reeks of desperation. Why are you all so worried?

[leftofcool]

308. We are not worried. I think her poll number can attest to that.

[Cha]

337. When they start using the insult "shills".. they are the ones who are "desperate".

[ucrdem]

344. Yes this all seems so familiar. In fact the Guardian hearts guess who?

Yep the maverick

aloha Cha!

[Cha]

368. Aloha, ucr~

[davidpdx]

345. That's really funny

There was a recent article about how Sanders was going to have a hard time getting on the ballot in NY. In response to the article, Brooklynite said in the thread posted about it that there was no one talking about keeping him off the ballot in NY. Assuming he knows what he's talking about, then you are just being stupid. If you don't believe me, go ask him yourself.

[Marr]

255. +1

[Kalidurga]

35. Bravo

People like you will make my job easier, much easier. If you think people don't know a poisoned mind when they see it, think again.

[leftofcool]

56. Did Bernie vote against these things or not?

I guess ya'll don't like it when his voting record comes out, eh?

[Kalidurga]

83. I see you.

[HooptieWagon]

190. It's a good thing they're outing themselves early.

It'll be handy knowing who the bs propaganda and smear operatives are.

[Kalidurga]

200. I have no problem with that.

I am sure some of this stuff will make it into a campaign ad and those ads are not going to match up with what Bernie is saying during his campaign nor will what they are implying match his record.

[leftofcool]

299. No answer I see.

[Marr]

256. Yep-- I thought I noticed a similarity myself. /nt

[Divernan]

59. Death of credibility by OP, or political suttee is how it struck me

[Kalidurga]

84. Hillary supporters are losing credibility everyday.

Good, they can keep doing that. In the mean time I will just keep talking to people about issues that matter to them and I won't have to trash anyone to do it.

[Cha]

36. Mahalo for doing the research, ucr. We should know the record of history on all candidates..

that's what the primary is all about.

[ucrdem]

39. Thanks Cha!

Mahalo!

[peacebird]

52. Read reply #1 Cha. This isn't an honest OP. It is true, but not honest. Bernie voted the way most Ds

Did on Head Start. It was a poison pill bill put forth by Rs.

[ucrdem]

62. It was a $35 billion Head Start funding bill. In the event, it passed.

Would you rather it hadn't?

[peacebird]

80. Shit stirring is fine and well, but as reply #1 clearly showed Bernie voted along with most Dems

Thee was a reason for that vote. Everything is not black & white, and the fact that you keep flogging this dead horse after reply#1 shows that you don't care about REASONS and rational, only about posting a vote that you hope makes Bernie look bad based on NOT KNOWING the reasons. It is the sin of ommission that makes you no longer a credible poster in my opinion. Now that you know the facts, you chooseto ignore them.
Off you go.

[marym625]

162. Did you even look at how other Democrats voted?

Or whether or not these were Republican bills? Or why working programs suddenly needed new bills? Or do any real research?

Or did you see the names of the bills and decide his votes were bad?

I'm not trying to do anything here but understand why this post. I am not trying to ridicule. I honestly want to know.

I know that Sen Sanders was an unexpected thorn in the campaign for Hillary Clinton. I understand posts from both sides using votes and positions to try to dissuade people from their candidate. Honest posts. I don't believe you meant to do anything but that.

However, this is doing nothing but causing an incorrect perception of the facts. Those that remember, or those that will do the research, will know the truth. But those that just read the talking points, that only want to attack without any basis in the reality, will spread the "he voted against head start and people with disabilities and jobs bill" etc without letting people know that the majority of Democrats voted the same way on most of these. That there were things put in these bills that were bad for the American people. That these were just more of the same Koch/birch society/corporate bills meant to take money from social programs and education and to get the federal government out of helping those in need.

[merrily]

176. Only the House and only by 1 vote. In didn't come to a vote in the Senate.

Perhaps a substitute bill that was not unconstitutional passed?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

105. He didn't do the research.

The people who debunked his pitiful smear attempt did, though, and showed that Democrats in general voted against these particular poison pill laden pieces of legislation.

If what he does is 'what the primary is all about', then it's 'all about' misleading poo flinging.

[HooptieWagon]

196. Nope. The bs smear job was provided to OP to distribute.

It's good they're outing themselves this early.

[ucrdem]

202. Oh? Please share your evidence. Surely you can back up such a baldly false claim?

TIA

[HooptieWagon]

211. You looked up 15 years of Bernies voting record?

Please. Let's see your research notes. You're just disseminating bs provided to you by the Hillary camp....and doing a rather poor job of it. Fortunately, any little remaining credibility you had is gone.

[ucrdem]

215. Links are posted and your claim is laughably false. But in an endearing way.

[HooptieWagon]

220. So, you are in favor of Republican legislation?

Those were bills sponsored by and voted for by Republicans. Bernie voted against them along with Democrats because of the poison pills contained within. If you are in favor of those bills, then you are in agreement with republicans....why are you here?

[ucrdem]

223. So, walking back your false claim that the OP was provided to me? Can't blame you.

It's quite an embarrassing whopper:

HooptieWagon (10,949 posts)
211. You looked up 15 years of Bernies voting record?

Please. Let's see your research notes. You're just disseminating bs provided to you by the Hillary camp....and doing a rather poor job of it. Fortunately, any little remaining credibility you had is gone.
Reply to this post

[sheshe2]

338. Were you just called a Hillary employee, ucrdem?

Sounds like it to me.

Let's see your research notes. You're just disseminating bs provided to you by the Hillary camp....and doing a rather poor job of it.

luv ya, ucrdem.

[ucrdem]

343. Yes it's news to me but I can always use another job!

Who says this economy isn't roaring?

[merrily]

41. READER BEWARE OF THE INFO IN THE OP.

Checking a few more bills in the OP, it seems Bernie voted with a lot of House Democrats.

And, of course, the OP doesn't mention what happened to the bills in the Senate, or how Hillary voted.

Checking the first three, I saw that one bill never even got to a vote in the Senate. Another passed the Senate, but it was a bill that the Senate substituted.

While, instead of apologizing and/or self deleting the OP, the thread parent has instead to make a deal of Bernie's voting to fund the war, he voted against the war, while Hillary BOTH advocated for it and voted for it.

Once war is declared, voting against funding the troops would be heinous, as Kerry learned. And my spidey sense tells me Hillary also voted to fund.

SMEAR ATTEMPTS ARE AN EPIC FAIL.

[ucrdem]

45. War hadn't been declared. The AUMF and funding votes were on the same day. nt

[merrily]

64. OMG. He voted against the war. It was declared. He voted for funding because voting NAY would have

been heinous. That's three times or it is four? And again, HOW DID HILLARY VOTE on this things you're pretending to be chagrined by? Is that four times, or is it five?

If you don't realize this thread has revealed more about you and whoever gave you those links than it does about Bernie, maybe you should tae a few minutes to read the thread and meditate before you post again. If you were clever, you'd self delete the OP and let this embarrassment to you sink.

[ucrdem]

85. The AUMF and funding votes were on October 10, 2002. Bush declared war on March 19, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

[merrily]

108. We all know when the war started, which is what your link tells us. Also, your very own Reply 45

flatly states the two votes were on the same day. So, at this point, you're flatly contradicting your very own statements and that is very bad for your credibility. Besides, the timing of the two votes is irrelevant anyway..


Seriously, do yourself a favor. Stop flailing in a desperate attempt to redeem this thread.

[ucrdem]

119. AUMF and DoD funding votes were both on Oct 10, 2002. Bush declared war five months later.

Read all about it:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

[merrily]

122. What part of "irrelevant" did you not get?

BTW, you know Hillary voted for funding, as did Obama, after he got to the Senate. He said he supported the troops, not the war. Clearly, the same was true of Bernie, who, unlike Obama or Hillary, had actually voted against the war.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

[merrily]

129. PS, I'm guessing your subject line should read 2002 not 2012.

[ucrdem]

133. fixed it, thanks. nt

[merrily]

139. BTW, the President doesn't declare war. Congress does, then the President acts as CIC.

The AUMF for which Hillary voted and Bernie did not, gave Bush discretion---way too much obviously. But, once he was giving that discretion the funding HAD to be there or the troops would have suffered. Remember, they did not even have armored vehicles. Cheney said something like, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like. The troops were using tinfoil, ffs.

Please do not imagine, or expect us Bush would not have sent the troops to Iraq under the authority of the AUMF, no matter what, and then held up Congress for funding, knowing they'd have to provide it.

[ucrdem]

146. The fact is that Sanders voted up the money five months in advance of the bombs.

Call it Bush's announcement that military operations had begun:

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

[TM99]

152. So you are anti-war and anti-military?

How can you support a candidate that voted for the war AND the funding?

[ucrdem]

155. He knew where the money was going because it was the same day as AUMF. nt

[TM99]

157. You did not answer the question.

You also did not explain why Hillary Clinton voted for both either.

Care to take a stab?

[Mnpaul]

180. I'm guessing he knew where the money was going

to fund the Defense Department and not the Iraq war. Can you point out the Iraq spending in that bill?

I'm guessing not.

[merrily]

154. Your claims about the relation between war votes and funding votes are a total non starter.

You're wrong. I'm sorry you either don't get that or don't admit you get that, but you're wrong. And repeating the same thing ten times doesn't make it one scintilla less wrong. To the contrary.

Especially given you somehow find it in your heart to forgive Hillary for advocating and voting FOR that trumped war, while pretending Sanders did not vote the correct way. It's really shameful and self-defeating, dude. You are not doing yourelf or your cred any favors with a single thing you've posted on this thread. Not a one.

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[ucrdem]

156. Sorry, that's the way it went down. nt

[merrily]

160. Yep. 100% righteously on Bernie's part, but not on Hillary's. Please see my edit.

Any time someone goads me into reposting that by trying to smear Bernie about the Iraq War when he voted against it, yet say nothing about HIllary's role, they don't do themselves or Hillary any favors.

[Broward]

86. Thank you. This poster has clearly been exposed.

Nothing written by this poster should ever be taken seriously.

[merrily]

104. Not a problem.

[Scuba]

58. You've really had your ass handed to you on this thread. That must hurt.

[Autumn]

214. I'm bookmarking this thread.

[Katashi_itto]

334. Her supporters are showing the famous Hillary Clinton Family Values

[Autumn]

335. Yeah but it's the Bernie supporters who are the problem

I've been told that time and again

[Katashi_itto]

336. Yes, those Bernie Supporters are Awful.

They have zero ethics. Make Republicans look upstanding.

[Warpy]

60. Makes me wonder what the Republican poison pills were

in those bills. They controlled Congress, with only the newly Independent Jeffords allowing Democrats to hold Senate committee chairmanships but without the votes to overwhelm the Republicans plus the Blue Dogs.

Bills that were voted on in their House version were usually voted down, the Senate then debating them and then tweaking the contents, getting rid of really objectionable stuff like means testing Medicare.

Context is everything, you know, and votes in Congress aren't always as they first appear and the devil is often in the details of what Republicans slip in at the last minute.

[yallerdawg]

70. Isn't it amazing!

Supporters of Senator Sanders (I-VT) can certainly dish it out.

They fail to recognize irony.

Welcome to the big leagues.

[corkhead]

71. Thanks, I am now 100% behind Hillary because she has never voted in a way that could be taken out of

context years later.

[ucrdem]

74. Let's continue shall we? H.R.1036 -- Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108oF1Tv6::

[ucrdem]

79. Purpose: To protect manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition

from lawsuits:

H.R.1036 -- Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Introduced in House - IH)

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108oF1Tv6::

[leftofcool]

95. This is the one that really gets to me.

[ucrdem]

187. Yes, I noticed that it's languishing on the vine. Can't say I'm surprised.

Hard to defend that particular brand of wrong.

[DonCoquixote]

82. Ya know

the people who attack sanders because he dared speak against Hillary a little bit are Hillary's worst enemies. Bernie is giving her wiggle room to avoid the mark penns that want her to be a GOP in a different wrapper, which is the same exact strategy that made her lose last time, and will make her lose again. As much as you call us Rat____ers, you are the ones hurting your own candidate by putting her where she has to run to the same people that will do well if she wins or loses.

[hobbit709]

87. Pile of caca de toro post.

[KingCharlemagne]

90. Too bad your Hillary logo doesn't have the blood of 1,000,000+ Iraqi

civilians dripping from it.

Explain that away or STFU.

Hillary: Either modern history's biggest dupe or something far, far worse.

[rurallib]

91. excellent job by the responders to refute these ridiculous claims

Thank you for your work in researching the reasons and putting these votes in context.
This is why folks come to DU. Ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims die quickly here.

[ucrdem]

93. Nobody's refuting HR 1036 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. Which is a problem. nt

[rurallib]

94. you throw enough shit on the wall some sticks?

Is that what you are saying?

[hobbit709]

101. You pretty much nailed it.

[leftofcool]

102. All of it sticks because it is true.

Name one of those bills that is not true.

[ucrdem]

103. I'm saying there are some votes Sanders' supporters don't seem to want to talk about.

I don't blame them.

[rurallib]

118. Having listened to Sanders for years on the Hartmann show

and heard various interviews with others Sanders has never ducked a question. There is always logic behind his votes and the bottom line motivating factor is what is best for the people.

In the past couple decades Republicans have made a point of putting something their opposition wants in with some really bad legislation, thus forcing Democrats and independents to choose whether it is better to vote for the bad to get the good.

Sanders has been asked that over and over. He always gives a thorough answer for the reasoning behind his vote. Over the years he has voted in ways that I do not agree with, but he has always had sound reasoning for his votes. I can safely say there is no one in congress I agree with 100% of the time.

But as a body of work, Sanders has been consistent with the good of the forgotten 99% as his guide. I can't think of another rep or senator I can say that about.

Like every other voting member of congress he has been forced many times to swallow a poison pill in order to get some good for all.

[merrily]

170. And Hillary supporters want to talk about all her votes? Really?

And aren't they the same ones who've been scolding us for years about being one issue voters--even though we aren't--and about expecting a President who agreed with us on every issue--even though we didn't? The moving goalposts and double standards on this board are ridiculous.

[leftofcool]

99. Unsubstantiated? The go in the Congressional Record.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

98. Smear attempt debunked per usual.

You might actually do some research yourself as to the 'why's behind given votes before getting all hot and bothered that you've 'found a smoking gun' that Bernie is secretly a RWer.

[ucrdem]

106. Where is HR 1036 "debunked per usual"?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108oF1Tv6::

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

111. What, a bill that's not even in your OP?

So you admit your entire OP was merely flinging poo, and move the goalposts over to something you didn't even mention in it?

[ucrdem]

113. It's in there, with a link to Sanders' vote. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3157/8217/27110/protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act#.VYau1ra1qSp

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

116. I sit corrected. Only 90% of your OP has been debunked in comments so far. nt

[hobbit709]

138. Unless it's been debunked 125% it doesn't count to the poster

[truebluegreen]

271. Actually, not even then.

[ms liberty]

107. Anyone who was on DU in those days knows...

That virtually every bill during that time period was loaded with poison pills. And we also know that the GOP had near total control of Congress, the WH, and SCOTUS; had control of the messaging in the media, and a propaganda arm that was relentless in demonizing anyone who would disagree with them on anything. So please proceed, ucrdem.

[ucrdem]

110. Okay thank you. Now how about HR 1036?

That's the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and I don't think there's an easy explanation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108oF1Tv6::

[TM99]

114. You got owned on this thread.

Start another with this bill and we will discuss it there.

But stop moving the goalposts just because you got your proverbial ass kicked.

[ucrdem]

115. Fine, refuse to discuss the rest of the OP. I don't blame you. nt

[hobbit709]

117. The rest of the OP was refuted in detail.

But stay in your fantasy world if you wish.

[ucrdem]

120. Link?

TIA

[hobbit709]

123. Try reading the replies in your flamebait thread.

[ucrdem]

131. Didn't think so.

[TM99]

124. I stand corrected.

You did include it in the OP.

I am not going to debunk ALL of your links. I have debunked quite enough to show what kind of game player you are.

[ucrdem]

128. That's the one that gives immunity to arms manufacturers.

It also starts with a hat tip to the gun lobby:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution, by the Congress, or by the legislatures of the several states. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108oF1Tv6::

[TM99]

132. I don't have a problem with it.

And neither did the 1/3 of the House Democrats at the time who voted with Sanders.

Are you a single issue voter? I am not.

[ucrdem]

136. It sort of blows Sanders' liberal left cred to smithereens doesn't it?

Protecting the 2nd amendment is not generally considered a leftist position.

[TM99]

144. So all liberals want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment?

Are you sure about that buddy?

Did Obama do it? I mean he could do some 11th dimensional chess and tackle it considering how many mass gun murders have occurred while he has been president.

Will Clinton?

So no liberal or leftists support the 2nd Amendment? Pssst...you might want to led those here that do so know.

Sanders has been very reasoned and moderate on the 'gun issue'. His history on the issue has been posted numerous times. Run along and do the research to educate yourself on it.

[merrily]

179. Not at all. He's ranked THE #1 most liberal Senator in the US Senate, even with those votes.

However, CATO points out that he is not the spendingest Senator, only 11th.

BTW, his gun votes haven't wreaked a tiny fraction of the damage the Iraq war has over the past 13 plus years and counting.

Moreover, the states are free to pass their own gun laws. However, they are not free to override votes authorizing trumped up wars.

[ucrdem]

192. You keep forgetting to support your claims. nt

[Blus4u]

149. THIS OP & RESULTING DISCUSSION

IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE,

THE PROPONENTS OF THESE TWO FACTIONS NEED TO GROW UP & REALIZE THEY NEED TO SUPPORT THE PARTY CANDIDATE.

BUILD YOURS UP, DAMMIT -

BUT QUIT TEARING DOWN THE OTHER!!!!

Peace

[TM99]

153. Are you seriously lecturing

Sanders supporters for fighting back against such a bullshit smear job?

You scream at us and then say 'peace'.

Dude, what the fuck?

[Rex]

320. Total desperation and now the convenient lie is, "gee everyone here likes to fight, because I say so."

I haven't seen this kind of pathetic desperation in a long time.

[Bobbie Jo]

169. This.

But I do understand the inclination to post this kind of thing, because it's exactly what the Sanders supporters (or anti-Hillary DU'ers) do to HRC day in and day out. Every. Single. Day.

I just find it ironic how they're lining up here to cry foul, when this is exactly what many of them will turn around and do without batting an eye.

Do these people not own a damn mirror?

Agree with the spirit of your post. I don't agree with the tactic at work, but I do understand the push-back.

[Marr]

264. How many times do you think you deserve a response-- really?

You've been proven dishonest here over and over. Why would anyone even bother reading something you posted, much less make a yet another reasoned response explaining exactly how it's another lie?

[sheshe2]

348. Lol.

How many times do you think you deserve a response-- really?

Well 345 people sure did. Some, repeatedly.

And no, ucrdem has not been proven dishonest here. The rest of you have.

[djean111]

127. Gee, four identical OPs, same author, in GD.

It's raining easily debunked/explained smears.
Since there was zippo chance that this crap would not be investigated and debunked, and zippo chance that it would sway any Bernie supporters to the Hillary camp, I wonder what the intent is? To leave easily linked to breadcrumbs for non-DUers?

And remember, we have all clutched that "Don't be a fucking purist!!!" stuff to our bosoms. Good job, that!

I would think that if Hillary was to bring up these very things in a debate, Bernie would easily explain why he voted against them. And her War in Iraq vote would, of course, be mentioned. But a good thing is that this is a fine heads up about what kind of swift-boating is in store.

And if Bernie was to drop out, I would be supporting O'Malley. For president, not for HRC's VP.

[ucrdem]

130. links?

TIA

[djean111]

134. Oh, I meant that this would show up in a search and easily linked to. Why four of these?

Seems like overkill. All in GD. am I just missing something?

[ucrdem]

137. Sorry but what four are you talking about?

[djean111]

142. If I click on latest threads, this thread shows up multiple times, with varying numbers of

replies. Right now - six times. Weird.

Minor point, though.

[ucrdem]

147. Hmm. That's not something I planned or intended.

But I'll check it out.

[titaniumsalute]

141. I can't believe I wasted my life reading this thread

[Oilwellian]

167. Oh, I thought it was quite educational

It proves Hillary supporters are every bit as dishonest as their candidate.

[HooptieWagon]

204. It's a common theme.

[fredamae]

151. 2003 HR 2210...How did Sen Clinton Vote?

Show me a lawmaker that satisfies 100% of the people 100% of the time. What Else was in the bill that turned the Dem caucus away? A "Poison Pill"?
Now, as far as I can tell...he actually did his job: he voted with/for his constituency in VT. And you criticize that?

How did Dems with whom he caucuses with vote? We know how this "I" guy voted, but what about the message the others who agreed with him and also voted "NO" sent?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll444.xml

Perhaps you overlooked the previous vote "YEA"?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll443.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll442.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll441.xml

Why not Ask Sanders Why he voted "NO". I'm guessing there was something in those versions of the bill that was unacceptable to the people.

[morningfog]

161. It's a things if beauty watching the Hillary Camp try and try and try.

But fail each time when attacking Bernie's record. Great to see the effort. Show true concern.

[marym625]

165. You are correct. Bernie Sanders record is even better than most already know.

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Thank you for bringing to light how much Bernie Sanders has fought for the American people, for how long and hard he has been fighting.

Thank you for showing how Senator Bernie Sanders fought against Bush and the Republicans.

Thank you for showing how Senator Bernie Sanders fought against corporatocracy.

Thank you for showing how Senator Bernie Sanders fought against Koch/John Birchers

Thank you for showing how Senator Bernie Sanders fought for the American people

(For clarification - Congressman Sanders back then)

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

250. and Thank you for posting that!

[marym625]

251. You are welcome

[MuseRider]

166. Thank you Senator Sanders, then Congressman Sanders

for voting the way anyone truly on the left would have voted.

I thank you for being steadfast in your beliefs and for READING all the crap in the bills before you voted.

Intelligent people always read all about things before they post them or vote on them. Those who don't end up with their finger in the air, voting with the "popular" people even if they are not "on your side". They end up looking very untrustworthy when it turns out that had they actually spent the time to read something before voting, to actually participate wholly in the act of being a representative, they would have or should have voted differently.

[marym625]

177. +1000

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. I genuinely like the OP and understand his motivation...

I genuinely like the OP and understand his motivation... However I do wonder where this tit for tat leads us but I don't have to wonder is if that is what the denizens of this board want. It's exactly what they want.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. You beat me to it...

You said it better than I did, but we're definitely on the same page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6875433

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. People love to fight on this board. It is what it is./NT

[Bobbie Jo]

185. True that. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

188. Just noting it. No sense trying to interrupt them.nt

[demmiblue]

181. This thread has been very illuminating.

The lengths a few Hillary supporters will go to...

[leftofcool]

300. Yep, to put out the truth about some guy with magic fairy dust.

[davidpdx]

347. More like lies covered with manure and flies

But it's what we've come to expect from the Hillary Clinton supporters.

[Katashi_itto]

191. Ahhh...What lengths certain

Hillary supporters will go to.

[Thinkingabout]

194. K & R, good post, truths are sometimes hard to handle.

I did not know voting records is a smear but to some maybe. Candidates has records which follow forever, whether they are good or bad, whether you agree with the issue or dislike the issue.

[ucrdem]

245. Thank you!

Boy do the knives come out when somebody hauls out the ol' Congressional Record

[SusanCalvin]

258. "I did not know voting records is a smear but to some maybe."

Without context, yes, absolutely just a bare reference to voting records can be a smear, or at least deceptive, to put it charitably.

For just one example, last I heard, bill titles may not reflect the actual contents of a bill, and with Republican bills this is often the case.

Fortunately, subsequent posters provided context.

[Thinkingabout]

279. There is a limit on how much can be given, ergo the links was given.

[SusanCalvin]

286. Yeah, and as far as I can make out

from the replies that give context, most if not all of the votes linked were for darn good, progressive, democratic reasons.

Which I'm pretty sure the poster of the OP already knew, but I'm not a mind reader, nor do I know how much research a given person has done.

[Thinkingabout]

290. Then be happy with Bernie's votes, what is with the smear post?

[SusanCalvin]

306. Are you saying *I* posted a smear?

I made an observation that the links in the OP lacked context and that many replies filled in the context.

[Thinkingabout]

309. No, you did bring in smear but it is in this thread.

[SusanCalvin]

312. Whatever. nt

[geek tragedy]

195. He voted against Republican legislation.

Note the sponsors of those bill.

Bernie smear fail.

[HooptieWagon]

267. OP obviously supports Republican legislation.

Why are they here?

[Thinkingabout]

284. Bernie obviously supports Republican legislation also.

[HooptieWagon]

301. OP posted he voted against it, along with Dem caucus.

They were Republican sponsored bills, with included poison pills. Hillary supporters attempting to use them to smear Sanders quite obviously supports Republican legislation.

[Gregorian]

198. That's it, I'm changing my vote to Hillary!

not

[ChisolmTrailDem]

203. Nice try. FAIL! nt

[BainsBane]

205. You know, that doesn't mean he's opposed to head start

There could have been other shit put in there. He could have supported a more vigorous, alternative bill.

But for sure, Sanders is no dove, though he voted the right way on the Iraq War Resolution. Give credit where credit is due.

[ucrdem]

209. Yes, I think we've covered Head Start. How about giving immunity to arms dealers

and manufacturers? I get the Head Start vote. I skimmed the bill before I posted the OP, and it seemed commendable, but perhaps I missed the poison pill. Nevertheless there are serious problems with some of his other votes and that's just one year.

[BainsBane]

237. That is a clearly unacceptable vote

You are absolutely correct.

[leftofcool]

302. They won't answer that one.

Their excuse is "well, he was voting the way his constituents in Vermont wanted him to." That is horseshit!

[HooptieWagon]

213. With social media operatives this dishonest....

...it's stands to reason the candidate they're working for is even more dishonest.

[Bonobo]

219. Indeed. Are Hillary supporters hurting their candidate? nt

[ucrdem]

222. Enjoy your golden opportunity to bore us all day.

[Marr]

247. +1

[PowerToThePeople]

225. This OP and OP's resposes are totally pizza worthy imo. n/t

[ucrdem]

232. My reposes are fine but thanks for the suggestion. nt

[MoonRiver]

235. You're pizza worthy for saying that.

[BainsBane]

239. You can't be serious?

What in the TOS tells you people are only allowed to trash Democrats?
People post screed after screed about the President and Hillary Clinton, yet you say this is pizza worthy? How does that compute?

[PowerToThePeople]

241. Tos "do not be republican"

Op is trying to trash Sanders for voting against Republican bills which the majority of the whole party voted against.

[BainsBane]

243. You go ahead and take that up with Skinner

and while you're at it tell him he's a Republican for supporting a Democratic candidate while many here refuse to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. I can't wait to hear what he says.

[sheshe2]

349. I will second that! nt

[Marr]

246. Could not agree more.

This one has been earning his second pizza for a long time.

[sheshe2]

350. Hillary supporters deserve pizza here?

Maybe you should talk to Skinner.

[PowerToThePeople]

352. No, people stumping for Repuke bills deserve pizza. nt

[sheshe2]

353. Not what happened...

Yet hold that close if it is what you believe.

[PowerToThePeople]

354. That is exactly what happened. n/t

[Marr]

358. Oh, yeah it is-- your buddy changed his title and entire post after

he was called on his shit. Well, after just plain trolling for awhile wasn't panning out, that is.

[TM99]

361. I want to know how the OP

changed their entire post and yet there is no edit log of the changes.

The OP as it stands is NOT the OP that I responded to last night.

[Marr]

366. Yeah, really-- what the hell?

I thought posts always showed edit histories. Is someone here getting special privileges?

[PowerToThePeople]

370. I asked in ATA about missing edits yesterday.

You can still find them if you follow the "who recd this" link, but it does not show in OP like normal.

[HooptieWagon]

266. At least OP has outed themself as a dishonest corporatist shill.

There's no question about credibility any more.

[L0oniX]

272. ^^^this^^^

[L0oniX]

268. 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

stupid alert on your post. They are desperate.

[PowerToThePeople]

275. Thanks.

Baiting is what some would call it. I took the bait. Glad they were poorly skilled at reeling in the line.

[HooptieWagon]

277. I would have voted Leave It.

Not only is it an obvious bs smear job, but OP has outed themself in the process. All credibility gone, and this thread remains as evidence.
The last time I saw such an epic fail was an anti-Snowden operative posting a street map of Moscow claiming it was a map of Europe showing Snowdens alleged flight (which he was not aboard). Many laughs at that fail, and another poster flushing any remaining credibility down the toilet.

[Marr]

278. Desperate about sums it up. /nt

[grasswire]

283. alert results

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:47 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: An opinion. Argue the opinion, don't run to Mama Jury and tattle.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is disruptive, rude, over-the-top.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter ...call the Wambulance
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Too many freepers on DU trying to control the conversation and further divide the party. The Pizza suggestion should be directed at the poster, not the OP.

[PowerToThePeople]

289. #7

Proof that trolls get on jurries.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

236. 2003, wasn't that the year Bush got his war on, thanks to Hillary Clinton, in part?

Your OP has been proven as a smear over and over in this thread, yet you persist in spreading the falsehood.

This reminds me of campaign tactics in 2008. I don't think I have to mention whose. And I don't think I have to mention how well that worked out for said campaign. Do carry on.

[Logical]

242. LOL, Hillary supporters are getting really nervous. nt

[Adrahil]

244. Im a Hillary Supporter, but WTF?

I mean, you expect him to not fund Homeland Security or the DoD?

Hmmm.... Terrible thread. 2/10.

[leftofcool]

307. Actually it is the small arms bill that is the problem.

[Betty Karlson]

253. You had to dig up stuff over a decade old?

That inspires some confidence in the man you try to attack.

[marym625]

257. and the stuff dug up actually proves Sanders to be a fighter for the people and against the GOP.

[Betty Karlson]

259. There is that too.

He never panders. He never jumps on a bandwagon just because everybody else does. He is very consistent, even when that imperils his reputation in the eyes of image-makers.

[HooptieWagon]

262. Yes. OP is an epic fail.

[Agschmid]

261. OP Fail.

Our candidates are fine, this "issue" just isn't an issue at all.

[whatchamacallit]

263. ...

[nc4bo]

269. Jury results from an earlier alert, for those interested.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sun Jun 21, 2015, 05:40 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

In 2003, Rep. Sanders voted AGAINST Head Start, AGAINST a jobs bill,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026874798

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is totally a hit piece, and nothing else, purpose distorting Bernie's votes. Yes, I know people are explaining below how this poster is full of shit, but he continues to defend it below even though he knows it's crap. It is not innocent, but purposeful distortion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:02 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm also a Bernie supporter but the best way to combat bullshit is to counter with truth. People need to know more about Bernie, let us do just that!

Easy to do with Bernie Sanders, his record speaks for itself and that's what some are afraid of.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Posting vote history is not a hit piece
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a hit piece on Sanders, it's distorted and beneath DU, however; having said all that, it's not a DU violation, just a post displaying how classless the poster really is. Let it stand and let everyone see the poster for who/what he/she is.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: not alert-worthy
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ucrdem]

273. Thanks for posting that.

Incidentally I updated the OP to omit the votes against Head Start, jobs, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

[Marr]

285. That was cowardly.

You defended those points repeatedly, even after they were debunked.

You've only removed them now because of how those lies, and the subsequent responses, make you look-- not because you have any regard for honest debate. If you cared about honest debate, you wouldn't have posted those things to begin with-- much less continued pushing them after they were thoughtfully explained.

It's actually funny that you've tried to frame your self-serving edits as some sort of virtuous act. I doubt anyone will buy that piece of a bullshit either, but, well, nice try.

[Rex]

319. I love watching these dishonest OPs push away people they pretend to be trying to get on their side.

It almost makes me think they are Bernie supporters that know how DU works, almost too well.

[HooptieWagon]

281. #4 got it right.

Leaving the thread up as an example of the dishonesty of the Hillary supporters is very Useful, and good for laughs.

[leftofcool]

303. Are you saying Sanders voting record is dishonest?

[HooptieWagon]

310. Examples cited in OP, where Sanders voted with majority of Dems...

...against Republican legislation that included poison pills, is being dishonestly portrayed by OP. Speaks rather poorly of their candidate if they have to lie. What's next? A repeat of racist dog whistles? Or are you Hillary supporters going to smear Sanders religion? I'm fore-seeing a repeat of Clintons 2008 self-inflicted flame out.

[L0oniX]

274. Epic and tragic fail.

[KingCharlemagne]

291. How I long for an UNREC button - nt

[madville]

292. He represents his state well

He is from a relatively "pro-gun" state, I would expect him to represent the will of his constituency.

[leftofcool]

304. Really? That bill affected the entire country.

What is it about that you don't get?

[madville]

325. Groups were trying to sue gun manufacturers out of business

It was a published strategy of the anti-gun groups at the time to bombard gun manufacturers with lawsuits in order to bankrupt them.

Who do you think all levels of government buy their firearms from? Gun manufacturers. It was a good vote in the best interest of national security and defense.

The manufacturers can still be sued for defective design and craftsmanship issues leading to injury, I agree with the law that they should be immune from liability based on the actions of a third party they have no control over.

[Depaysement]

314. Here's partial list of House Dems who voted to fund DOD like Sanders in the same Oct 10, 2002 vote

Maxine Waters
Lynne Woolsey
Brad Sherman
Eleanor Holmes Norton
John Lewis
Xavier Becerra
John Conyers
Sandy Levin
THE ENTIRE NEW YORK CITY DELEGATION
Elijah Cummings
Chaka Fatah
Tammy Baldwin
Jim McDermott
Sheila Jackson Lee

You can find this here: https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8511#.VYbrlXD3aK0

[hobbit709]

315. In 2003, Rep. Sanders voted AGAINST Head Start, AGAINST a jobs bill-- THE ORIGINAL POST

before you edited it.

[Depaysement]

316. Read the bill and look at the sponsors nt

[Rex]

318. Ah, I love watching a few 'dedicated' people push more and more folks into the Bernie camp!

It is simply yummy! to watch you get owned and push more people to vote for Bernie with your completely dishonest OP!

I LOVE it!

[cherokeeprogressive]

322. Best example of Crash and Bern I've seen yet.

[freshwest]

327. You left out the first AUMF authorization in 2001. Only Barbara Lee voted against in 2001:

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Sanders voted with every other member FOR it and everything sprang from that vote. You cited the second version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee

S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23

Text of the Law giving Bush authority:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text

Citations in Law:

* The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal.

* The AUMF has also been cited by the Department of Justice as authority for engaging in electronic surveillance in ACLU v. NSA without obtaining a warrant of the special Court as required by the constitution.

Use by the DOD

The AUMF has also been cited by a wide variety of US officials as justification for continuing US military actions all over the world. Often the phrases "Al-Qaeda and associated forces" or "affiliated forces" have been used by these officials. However, that phrase does not appear in the AUMF.[3]

September 11 attacks portal

* War Powers Clause, United States Constitution Art. 1, Sect. 8, Clause 11, which vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

* The USA PATRIOT Act (2001) and Title II of the Patriot Act, entitled, Enhanced Surveillance Procedures.
* Operation Enduring Freedom
* Targeted killing
* The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
* National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
* Hedges v. Obama, a lawsuit brought by journalists and activists against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 in which Congress "affirms" presidential authority for indefinite detention under the AUMF and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#House_of_Representatives

That law was still in place, so while the propaganda value was fine, it was obvious the administration HAD to support the law. Obama didn't write it and tried to change it. But Congress refused for political reasons.

Urcdem, just nitpicking with you, okay? Some of this may be gone soon.

BS voted with the majority on the Iraq War and still supports funding war operations and the ruinous financially ruinous F-35. He's conventional in many other matters, such as guns. He voted against the Brady Bill, but it didn't need his vote, anyway.

That is how some of these things shake out, it's sausage making. No one is pure. Will those who insist on that finally have to agree that his predecessors were not evil people, or attack him?

BTW, Congress did not respond when Obama asked them to repeal the AUMF so future presidents could not abuse it. Obama's request was ignored.

Since then, he has requested a limited use of the AUMF in regard to defeating ISIL in this statement addressed to Congress:

Letter from the President -- Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

My Administration's draft AUMF would not authorize long‑term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection

Note Bernie is on board with defeating ISIL and otes accordingly. He agrees with Obama on not using American ground forces. And he supports Israel:

Sanders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS

Sanders is also getting points for opposing the Iraq War, which Hillary Clinton supported, and he supports the Iran deal. But I’ve seen no one apart from Juan Cole, in this excellent summary of Sanders’s Middle East views, point out his yeoman defense of Israel during its assault on Gaza last summer. In July Sanders formed part of the “unanimous consent” to a resolution to support Israel in its attack, a resolution Salon’s David Palumbo-Liu said at the time “does more than confirm U.S. Senate support for Israel. It pushes that statement beyond any rational or ethical or moral framework imaginable.”

In a famous encounter at a town hall meeting in Vermont near the end of the onslaught– video below–, Sanders got so angry at pro-Palestinian constituents who were obviously deeply upset by an assault that had killed 500 Palestinian children that he told them to “shut up.”

What the encounter demonstrated is that Sanders’s own leftwing base has no illusions about Israel, they see the country as a marauding human rights abuser. But while he faulted Israeli “overreaction” in Gaza, and has issued criticisms of Israeli conduct over the years and has bucked the Israel lobby over its opposition to Palestinian statehood initiatives at the U.N., Sanders cleaves to a very conventional mainstream view of the conflict, in which Hamas is to blame, the Palestinians leadership is not a partner, and Arab countries are bad actors (as he has said in 2009)...

( Sanders: ) Excuse me ISIS is a group receiving money from aorund the world that wants to convert parts of Iraq and Syria into a 7th century calipate. You know what women’s rights are in that area? They are below– [tumult] Nobody wants to listen, they can leave… So you have a situation right now where we are figuring out in that region how you deal with people who have tens of thousands of very armed and aggressive people who may be making significant gains in that area. The point you make, I agree, I share your concerns about Israeli overreaction… I believe in a two-state solution. I would hope that the U.S. in a very very difficult situation, where the leadership on both sides is not particularly good, can finally work out a situation where Israel has a right to exist in security, and at the same time the Palestinians have a state of their own...

Now, people might want to own up to their support of defending Israel instead of attacking those who openly come out in favor. More at the link with more links:

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/sanders-leftwing-economic

Nothing is ever as simple as some would like it to be. He is not a warmonger, HRC is not one, neither is Obaman. If he wins the presidency and does what the job requires, he will be tossed under the bus. Just sayin'

[ucrdem]

342. Holy wow, this onion has many layers!

Thanks for the info Fresh! And simple it isn't, you're right on the money, but eventually we're going to have to discuss all this civilly whether we want to or not because it's going to come up in the debates, so forewarned is forearmed as the saying goes, at least I think that's how it goes!

[freshwest]

346. I keep remembering a line: 'The world is not a nice place. And these are not nice people.' Speaking

of a genocidal organization long before ISIL came on the scene. This part of the past, present and future of the world. It's why the presidents' hair turns white in office.

No matter what they thought they'd get to do while in office, this is what was given them to deal with 'on their watch' as world leaders. The humor of Clinton was that she already had an advantage for that, saying:

'You won't see my hair turn white in office. I've been coloring my hair for years.' Bernie's hair is already white now.

The scars to the souls of presidents are seldom seen and people are fickle and have no respect. They are given the power of life and death in the job and it can be crushing. We're not engaging in discussing a messiah here, but someone who has their finger on the red button. And has to determine why.

Most could never walk a mile in those shoes, and even Obama described the White House as a prison. Those who second guess and denigrade, iknow almost nothing.

One of the things said about being POTUS, is the occupant of that office knows so much of how the world works, that it is almost a spiritual quest for the knowledge many will never attain. The more you know, the less you wish you knew.

[matt819]

328. Jeez

Clinton and Sanders have been politicians and in the public eye for decades. There's going to be stuff they've supported or opposed that we disagree with. They may have changed their views, or not. Neither is perfect, but they are both impressive, and for all the right reasons. They are smart, they have vision, they are decent people.

Be grateful that our choices are not the drivers and passengers of the republican clown car.

[Elwood P Dowd]

330. Sums up my feelings as well. Neither are perfect, but will gladly support the primary winner

over the repuke clown car of racists, fools, liars, corporatists, and war mongers.

[William769]

332. Spot on ucrdem!

People keep screaming nobody is paying attention to Senator Sanders. Well guess what people are now paying attention and now y'all are upset because he is getting the attention he so deserves.

Well Y'all, Welcome to the grown-ups table.

[ucrdem]

340. Thanks William!

[sheshe2]

351. I think it took me an hour to get thru the thread.

I kept stopping and commenting.

Good job ucrdem!

[merrily]

355. Bottom line: Sanders has an F rating from the NRA and this is nowhere near advocating for a

trumped up war. The states can enact their own gun laws. They can't overrule a war vote.

Besides, we've been scolded for years for being single issue voters and expecting a President to be exactly like us, even though neither was true. Double standards much? And why are so focused on the era of Repupblican bills anyway?

[Marr]

367. Why doesn't this post show it's edit history?

I was under the impression that posts showed a history of the changes posters make to them. This one was completely changed, including the title, and I see no edit history.

[ucrdem]

369. The Hillary borg breached the space-time continuum and folded GD into a mojogon.