Feinstein: "Trump is right"

[BainsBane]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332223-sanders-trump-is-right-on-australian-healthcare-system

Oh, wait. It wasn't Feinstein. That makes it okay then. Never mind.

[bettyellen]

1. HA HA

So true!

[leftstreet]

2. She never said Trump was right about anything

She asked her audience to give him a chance to improve and be a better person, or something like that

[BainsBane]

4. I understand that

My point was the double standard.

[leftstreet]

5. Has Sanders said Trump won't be impeached?

That would be the double standard

[BainsBane]

6. You'll have to provide me the quote on that one

He has lectured the Democrats about not "politicizing" the Russia issue because "there might not be collusion."

[leftstreet]

8. No, I was asking you for one

In order for there to be the double standard that you see, Sanders would need to suggest that we're stuck with Trump the full four years. Further, you'd need to prove he got no flack for saying it, whereas we know Feinstein did indeed get negative feedback

[Expecting Rain]

11. We've seen a lot of booing in politics recently.

It has generally made the people booing look bad.

[BainsBane]

12. I was asking you for a quote demonstrating Feinstein had said what you claim

I googled the exchange and found that she was responding to a question asking when the Republicans were going to turn on Trump. She said she thought it unlikely they would. That is what you are outraged about.

Now, I understand that voters today demand that politicians lie to them and that they revile those who don't. Trump didn't become president because voters cared about truth, integrity and honesty. They can blame Fienstein all they want, but it doesn't change the fact the GOP controls the House and the Senate, and as long as that's the case, impeachment is highly unlikely. That shouldn't have to be explained to anyone over the age of 15. Besides, people had every opportunity to stop Trump from gaining office in the first place, and some of those same people taking this opportunity to attack Feinstein refused to stand up against him in the 2016 election. Moreover, they have announced their determination to continue to undermine Democrats in 2018 and 2020, which means they are actively working to keep Trump in office.

And certainly there are no grounds for impeachment, which is a political act, without evidence of collusion with the Kremlin and/or obstruction of justice. So telling Democrats to stop "politicizing" it is the same as arguing against impeachment. And mind you there was already significant evidence of collusion when Sanders made that statement.

Your claim that the words need to be identical is disingenuous. People do use different words. Sanders insisted on complimenting Trump right after he tried to take away healthcare from 23 million people. Feinstein, to my understanding, suggested that Trump might be able to change and handle Harvey competently. I don't agree with that view myself, but I have to ask why the latter so much worse, except for the fact that it was Feinstein rather than Sanders?

The thread I pointed to above shows that the very same people calling for Feinstein's head defended Sanders. And the same thing was apparent in the thread about not politicizing the Russia issue. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029050160
t's not like double standards are exactly subtle. They are based on the central political principle of the last two years, that all people are not created equal.

You yourself revealed a commitment to double standards by insisting that Feinstein at 84 was too old to hold office, something you don't apply--for no logical reason--to the presidency.

This all comes down to political tribalism, nothing more.

[leftstreet]

16. She's on the investigating commissions

It's entirely possible their reactions to learning we're stuck with him for 4 years reflect that

[Hekate]

250. Kick and Rec, BB

[nini]

27. Considering the repubs are in charge and not doing anything

I don't think that claim is all that wrong.

With this congress I doubt he does.. we have to hope Mueller gets in good before they'll be forced to act.

[Demsrule86]

71. He did say that Trump was right at least once. And Feinstein may be making a factual

statement. The GOP won't impeach Trump. It very well may be so...in fact it is likely. I fail to see the problem with that. But those who don't like her who have gone after her for years will try to blow this up into something it is not. I have neither the time nor energy for left vs. moderate BS at this moment when the House is on fire.

[lapucelle]

79. Here's the context of DiFi's statements on Trump

"The duty of the American president is to bring people together, not cater to one segment of a political base; to solve problems, not campaign constantly," Feinstein said in a statement Wednesday. "While I'm under no illusion that it's likely to happen and will continue to oppose his policies, I want President Trump to change for the good of the country."

California's senior senator drew loud boos during a Tuesday town hall when she said she believed President Trump had the potential to be a "good president."

"The question is whether he can learn and change," Feinstein told the audience. "If so, I believe he can be a good president."

snip---------------------------------

"Look, this man is going to be president, most likely for the rest of this term," she said. “I think we have to have some patience — it’s eight months into the tenure of the presidency.”

She declined to directly discuss impeaching Trump, noting that the Senate could conceivably serve as the jury in an impeachment trial."

[smirkymonkey]

93. One small problem with that statement.

He will NEVER "learn and change". Diane should know better.

[lapucelle]

99. DiFi says as much

"While I'm under no illusion that it's likely to happen and will continue to oppose his policies, I want President Trump to change for the good of the country."

[Bradical79]

128. It's not a double standard -nt

[ehrnst]

163. So when a male Senator said "Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him"

who votes with Democrats, the reaction here and in the media was exactly the same, right?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/508007/

[beam me up scottie]

209. I guess it would be if a male senator actually said that.

Here's what you claim was said:

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him"

I read the entire article and the quote you posted isn't in there. It can't have been taken out of context or only a partial quote since it's not in the article at all.

Did you post the wrong article?

[R B Garr]

211. LOL, let me guess. If the words don't appear in the exact order demanded,

then all meaning is lost.

I got it completely.

Many others got it.

[George II]

257. I think I saw this posted a couple of times the last day or two (maybe variations on it):

[R B Garr]

258. Yes, that is exactly the dodge. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative

thing a sea lion has ever done to you, lol. Even posted that in this thread.

[sheshe2]

269. OMG!

She Lion~

[JustAnotherGen]

334. Cute!

[R B Garr]

341. Exactly. That's it exactly.

[Warren DeMontague]

336. Yes, it's impossible to change the meaning of a sentence by taking words out or changing their order

That's why "After Donald put the milk in the refrigerator, he took a dump in the toilet"

means the same thing as

"After Donald took a dump in the refrigerator, he put the milk in the toilet"

[R B Garr]

340. Great sidestep. But when you read the post responded to

the meaning was explained already, so that request was to deflect.

[beam me up scottie]

356. I know, right?

He keeps insisting that quote is in there but no one else can find it.

If the words don't appear in the exact order demanded, then all meaning is lost.

Translation:

Okay so he never said that, but there are other words in that article, Warren! Many words! If you keep moving them around you too can get then to mean what I want them to mean.

[R B Garr]

366. Just like Hamlet has many words!

From post 256, in your own words! Here you use Shakespeare / Hamlet to explain your use of words and really abstract idioms.


"And here is the definition of hoisted by your own petard:


From the play Hamlet (III.iv.207) by Shakespeare:

hoist by one's own petard

(idiomatic) To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard"

[R B Garr]

212. Nice edit!

[George II]

255. It's there.

[beam me up scottie]

256. No, it's not. I double checked and googled it.

Last edited Sat Sep 2, 2017, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's the quote again:

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him"

Can you show me where it says that in the article? Maybe my phone is malfunctioning although it is new. Good thing I have a warranty.

Thanks, George!


Edit:

Oh, dear. It appears my post has caused some confusion between quotes and idioms. Let's clear that up.

Here's the definition of quote:

Repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/quote

And here is the definition of hoisted by your own petard:

From the play Hamlet (III.iv.207) by Shakespeare:

hoist by one's own petard

(idiomatic) To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

If I wanted to quote Bernie I would have used quotation marks to indicate that's what he said, but since he never used that phrase didn't cite it as a quote.

What I did earlier was explain that by using Trump's own words against him Bernie was hoisting Trump on his own petard.

I do hope this clears up any confusion.

[R B Garr]

260. Where did Bernie say he hoisted someone on their own petard?

Your post #249 attributes this Hamlet play somehow to what Bernie said:

"It's called hoisting someone on their own petard, (that's from Hamlet btw) it means to use ones words against them."

[George II]

261. Oh no....really? Funny how that works, isn't it?

[R B Garr]

264. Yes, very strange. I've never thought about referencing Shakespeare

before, although it's a lovely dramatic flair.

[R B Garr]

279. Moar Shakespeare!

LOL, that's a lot of idiom right there! Seriously, though, dragging Hamlet and Shakespeare into this looks pretty abstract. So abstract that it's hard to believe you insist on exact words to make a linear connection to ehrnst's post.

Another Hamlet quote: To be or not to be
Sinatra quote: Do be do be do

[George II]

296. Not Shakespeare, but will this do?

"best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft a-gley"

[R B Garr]

332. lol

Anything is fair after Hamlet. Maybe Ghandi is next.

[Autumn]

259. No that quote isn't there. A lot of words are there, just not in the order of

this one that someone accused Bernie of saying;

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him.

Hey! Know what? We can make sentences of some of the other words Bernie said in that transcript .

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/508007/

Here's a few things Bernie never said but the words are in the article. Here are some I came up with. Then you can make some up using random words that Bernie just happened to use. I think that Mad Magazine has a name for that word game but I'm old and I forget.

Glass-Steagall is dangerous legislation.

Trump is paying a trillion dollars to all the families of this country

I voted for crumbling infrastructure.

Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him

All of those words in those sentences are in the transcript in that article you read, just not in that order. I bet thousands of sentences could be made using all the words in those 5 paragraphs and you can attribute them to him but we know better.

To say Bernie said something he didn't say is telling a lie about Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

267. Is that what's happening?

I thought it was weird that I couldn't find the quote, this explains everything.

What a fun game!

[Autumn]

271. For some reason I gather we are supposed to be mad at words and stuff because Bernie at one point

or another may have used the very same words that Feinstein used.
Not fair, she should cross out words as she uses them so no one else can use them

All kidding aside and it galls me to do it but I gotta give Trump kudos, he was right. Australia really does have a better healthcare system than we have in the U.S. As Bernie pointed out and was right to do so.

[beam me up scottie]

273. Yes he was and I hope Bernie and Kamala use his quote when the new Senate bill is introduced.

It will also come in handy during the 2020 election.

Using Trump's own words against him has become quite a cottage industry, look at all the old tweets that have been resurrected and posted everywhere. It's not just funny, it's also a very effective way to point out his and his supporters' hypocrisy.

I'm shocked so many people are unfamiliar with the tactic. Repeating Trump's own words doesn't indicate support for Trump, that's absurd.

[Autumn]

290. I know right? Everything seems to be loaded with absurdity.

[sheshe2]

287. Autumn!

So good to see you again. I have missed your posts...host.

[Autumn]

293. So good to see you again! You gave me such a case of the giggles over the

Hillary Rodman Clinton thing. However did you come up with that one?? I lauged my ass off on that you crazy host you
it was without a doubt the funniest thing I have ever seen.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029535876#post78

[countryjake]

300. The most awkward moment ever...

[moda253]

108. That isn't exactly what she said.

What she actually said if you look at the nuance of what she was saying is that he could be a good president if he could do all the things that he so clearly cannot do.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Oh my, what do they call this? Schaudenfraude? No, that aint it, I cant remember

[Bradical79]

129. It's called using Trump's words against him -nt

[beam me up scottie]

135. Also hoisted on his own petard.

I thought everyone knew that.

Liberal politicians and pundits are always throwing Trump's words back in his face, like those now infamous tweets criticizing Obama.

[murielm99]

7. Let's have five or six threads about

BS's comments on trump. It is only fair. They will need lots of recs and replies, too.

[lunamagica]

9. Works for me!

[BainsBane]

14. There is always this little gem

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029050160

[R B Garr]

22. Another great find! LOL, I remember that weird comment.

You have certainly nailed it here, Bains,

[Eliot Rosewater]

263. Somehow I bet the sentiment that the whole Russia thing is not really all that

important is shared by more here than we would think, given where we are.

No, sorry, treason and coups are actually a big thing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

130. What the FUCK?

On THIS board someone said Dems are politicizing the Russia issue?

Please tell me that is NOT what I am reading.

[NurseJackie]

10. Ha!! :-D

[mcar]

13. LOL!

[maveric]

15. We need to primary her out.

Who do we have to replace her in CA?

[BainsBane]

17. I don't think that word

"we" means what you think it does.

[maveric]

20. We as in CA. Dems.

[tymorial]

58. Lol

Well done.

[maveric]

83. Go Sox!

[grantcart]

19. lol. swoosh. look up and you can see the chem trail.

[ehrnst]

159. I guess when you are in a feeding frenzy, anything looks like food... (nt)

[betsuni]

18. K&R

[R B Garr]

21. LOL! Great reminder!

And you're right about the priorities, too.

[jalan48]

23. Not only this but she's received zero credit for all her town halls touting single payer.

What's a voter to think?

[R B Garr]

155. Should she be touting a book at townhalls??

I don't see her doing that either. It is confusing for voters.

[jalan48]

157. Yes, it's all about making money I guess.

[ehrnst]

162. LOL!!! (nt)

[ehrnst]

160. Burn the witch!!! Her very words prove she consorts with DT!!!

Goody Proctor says she worked once with the DLC!!!

[jalan48]

164. And an audible gasp could be heard from the audience.

[BainsBane]

32. Out of context

Funny how the out of context is never really out of context.

But stick to the talking point. Impeach Feinstein!

[ehrnst]

178. The fact that she is at the end of her career makes her a handy target

And a great opportunity for other Dem pols to get quoted in the press saying that they "totally disagree that Trump could be a good president,"

[ehrnst]

166. Well, DiFi isn't seeking the presidency or selling a book, so she's doesn't seek the spotlight

Last edited Sat Sep 2, 2017, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

So she's not got all the reasons for getting in front of cameras and interviews for things that Sanders does.

The fact that this outsized response to one statement that was misrepresented (without the "if" ) to the point where people are saying she's not fit to remain in office, which would get your post removed if you said that about Sanders, indicates that there's a double standard going on.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. So who here disagrees with Trump in that one sentence?

"Our great gentleman and my friend, from Australia ... you have better healthcare than we do,"

Bernie cleverly used it as a "gotcha". But you use it to make a "but but but but what about this" stab against him. In that you think he gets a pass for "agreeing" with Trump. When you know full well that that was not his intent.
Scraping the barrel to find anything to try and use Sanders as the butt of the joke. Its not working and please stop fighting the primaries.

[BainsBane]

34. Thanks for so perfectly demonstrating my point

All people are not created equal, the one principle that reigns.

[BainsBane]

46. Here

let Merriam webster explain it for you:

hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/Submit
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity; More

That is the point of the thread. Now, I understand full well that maintaining double standards is essential when pillorying some for what is justified in others, but it is the essence of what passes for politics these days.

[beam me up scottie]

249. Except there was no double standard.

Let me break it down for you:

1) Bernie used Trump's admission that Australia has a better health care system to point out his hypocrisy. It's called hoisting someone on their own petard, (that's from Hamlet btw) it means to use ones words against them. Bernie also used Trump's quote to promote universal health care in this country.

2) Even if your analogy was accurate it would only work if there was no outrage about Bernie supposedly agreeing with Trump, and there were multiple threads criticizing him for it even though he was using Trump's words against him.

But Bernie never actually praised Trump so your your analogy is false. His use of Trump's words against him perfectly exposed Donny's hypocrisy, good thing Bernie knows his Hamlet! I quite enjoyed the video and am glad he didn't let the opportunity pass.

But back to the main point - if no one ever criticized Bernie there would be a double standard but I think we can all agree that he gets criticized as much if not more than others.


Hope that helps.

[R B Garr]

251. Actually, you are showing a perfect double standard yourself.

You are insisting that only Bernie be taken in context and are providing obscure references from Shakespeare to try and make a disjointed point;

yet

in a further post downthread you need exact quotes for anything to make sense.

So on one hand, you use unrelated theatrics (literally from a Hamlet play) to try and flush out context, but are unable to see it from others.

So there is a double standard in full effect. Bains is totally correct in this analogy about the reactions to initial quoted comments that can be taken out of context, and she broke it down for you. Here's just a small quote from what she wrote:
"Your claim that the words need to be identical is disingenuous. People do use different words. Sanders insisted on complimenting Trump right after he tried to take away healthcare from 23 million people. Feinstein, to my understanding, suggested that Trump might be able to change and handle Harvey competently. I don't agree with that view myself, but I have to ask why the latter so much worse, except for the fact that it was Feinstein rather than Sanders?"

Hope that helps.

[sheshe2]

252. +1

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. ....huh?

[BainsBane]

41. Yeah, I don't expect you to understand

why some might object to entirely different standards being applied to some and not others. Oh, by the way, did you see the latest from the "progressive" championed to replace Nancy Pelosi? https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9539347

If only if the inferior people like me did as we were told, we could have a truly progressive party with leadership like that.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. what???

You are so reaching. All persons are created equal, but different statements from different politicians at different times talking about a different issue for different reasons............cannot both be put on the same judgmental scales.

Feinstein made a statement that implied Trump should be given even more of a chance to change with:

"“I think we have to have some patience, I do,” Ms. Feinstein, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and a senior member on Intelligence, told the crowd. “It’s eight months into the tenure of the presidency … We’ll have to see if he can forget himself and his feelings about himself enough to be able to have the empathy and direction that this country needs.....................I just hope he has the ability to learn and to change and if he does he can be a good president. And that's my hope."

Personally I don't have much of an issue with this. She is a politician. She must always appear to be open. But some more reactionary Dems didn't like it because.....well we all know its impossible. As Hillary said, "this is who he is", and so she seemed to be giving him more undeserved slack.



Sanders made a statement that took advantage of a rare true Trump statement as a means to trap him and his supporters for being hypocritical about health care. Completely different. Yes....unequal.

There is not much in common other than a discussion of Trump is involved in both. For one, Feinstein never said "Trump is right about...." she implied he may be redeemable if only given more of a chance. Two very different things. Second, one was done to attack Trump and trap him, the other was, at least seen as, an excusing of Trump. One was sarcasm to make a point, the other was not sarcastically said at all.

BTW, she walked back that statement the next day:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/politics/dianne-feinstein-donald-trump-president/index.html

A day after she was jeered at a town hall for suggesting President Donald Trump could become a "good president" if he would "change," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein issued a statement saying she is "under no illusion" he will.

[BainsBane]

65. What I'm pointing to is the wildly different reactions to both statements

Anytime Sanders says anything favorable toward Trump or condemnatory toward Democrats, he is defended vociferously. Comments that are similar or less objectionable from others result in those politicians being pilloried. There have been many other examples, this being one of them. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029050160

My comment is on the glaring double standards. People here are now demanding Feinstein be primaried. They are also insisting she is too old to hold office, all while insisting the party must back as President a man who would be 87 at the end of a second term.

I don't know how you decided Sanders tweet was sarcastic. I didn't see any emoticon or anything else to indicate sarcasm. His comments admonishing Democrats not to politicize the Russia inquiry certainly weren't sarcastic.

Frankly, I don't care one way or another about Feinstein or most any politician. I do care about the party being held hostage, to the point of refusing to vote for its candidate in a GE, by people who demonstrate gaping double standards and insist we should support men like Tim Ryan for leadership positions. Seems to me when people have been proven wrong about the dangers of a Trump administration in terms of its relationship to White Supremacy or nuclear war, and have been proven wrong in their choices of "fresh faces" like Ryan, they would do well to take a break from lecturing people about moral standards they make no effort to uphold themselves. That certainty that they and those they happen to favor should not be held to the same standards is why I have concluded that the underlying principle is that all people are not created equal. That is also born out in positions regarding equal rights, voting rights, and economic policies that might benefit the poor rather than the middle to upper-middle class.

[BainsBane]

68. what I remember

Is that the very same people who now demand Feinstein's head on a stick insisted on defending Sanders in that case and the dozen or so others where he made questionable statements. The links I provided in this thread demonstrate that quite clearly.

[BainsBane]

74. what do you mean?

Last edited Sat Sep 2, 2017, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

What do I make of it? I think it points to the absence of principle, to a politics about tribalism, with power to be held only by the right sort of people with the rest targeted. That the right sort of people come from a limited demographic only exacerbates inequality. I see it as about an entitlement rooted in class, race, and gender privilege. I could go on, but I may not be answering the question you had in mind.

On the most basic level, when I see hypocrisy, I feel the need to point it out. I understand people are deeply committed to upholding those double standards; they form the basis of their entire political consciousness which is rooted in what is best for them. Not that there is anything wrong with people demanding politicians addresses their interests. It's how the system is supposed to work. What bothers me is that they pretend their cause is universal, all while deliberately excluding the voices and even the votes of the majority, as the effort to replace primaries with caucuses and thereby disfranchise the non-propertied and non-white. The hypocrisy is not just incidental. I takes on a political zeal that justifies deeply reactionary efforts aimed at the poor and marginalized. That's what bothers me. I see it as profoundly unjust, profoundly classist and exclusionary.

[ehrnst]

203. Pointing out hippocrisy usually makes those who are being

hippocritical uncomfortable and defensive.

Calling it out with humor causes them to ignore the humor, and try to accuse one of being serious, and therefore "getting it wrong," and then when you explain exactly what you are satirizing, and why, then comes pearl clutching, and the outrage.

[LiberalLovinLug]

77. Sarcasm may be the wrong word but surely you know what I mean

That Sanders thoughts could never have been taken as "I've had a eureka moment and I've decided that Trump is now right about everything!"

That based on his history against Trump, saying Trump was right, was obviously going to be used against him in the next sentence.

How about the word "sardonic". Is that better?

.......


But there is still zero equivalency here with both the statements and the intent of both statements. So you are using a FALSE equivalency.

And your example in your post here, as others pointed out, Bernie DID get backlash for that. So again, you have no point. All you are doing is stoking division on DU with these types of manufactured collaged together outrages to make people angry at each other instead of the real enemy.

[R B Garr]

193. It is not a false equivalence. That has been explained fully, and you are really illustrating

Bains point quite well. This outrage over Bernie not being taken in full context should also be extended to other good DEMOCRATS. Where's the outrage at other DEMOCRATS being denied a full examination of their words in context. All it does is stoke division to hold one man above all others.

[LiberalLovinLug]

218. I see I am up against a brick wall

I absolutely did put both into context. My post entitled "what??" lays it out. If you refuse to read that or to accept it, then I can't do any more to help you.

And the gall of accusing others of 'stoking division' using Bernie as a catalyst. When that is what this OP, thinking they were quite clever, did. Reacting against that is not DOING it. cheers.

[R B Garr]

220. Just the fact that you dug up some absolutely inconsequential comment by Hillary

shows that you did not put them in any proper context. I guess you have your reasons. But it's divisive to keep misrepresenting good DEMOCRATS for the benefit of only one man.

[LiberalLovinLug]

229. Ah...so its the Hillary reference threw you.

I only used her to make a point to show why many Democrats had a problem with Feinstein's statement. (I myself wasn't bothered that much as I said). That even Hillary herself does not believe Trump can or will ever change and become a "good President". Can you imagine Hillary coming out and saying anything like that? I agree with her. Trump is irredeemable.

So Feinstein even hinting at the opposite was not taken well by many Democrats. To the point she felt she had to clarify her statement.


Not only has Bernie said nothing of the kind, that he thinks Trump can be a good President, but there was no double standard non-reaction to his non statement. There was nothing to be reacted to, and there was nothing to clarify. He was using Trump's words against him to make him look like a BAD President. That was quite obvious to most of us. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp for you.

[R B Garr]

233. No, it was the fact that you brought up Hillary at all that showed

your analogies are false, and a little desperate, too, since it's just another "whataboutism" regarding Hillary that were all so over the top -- but I don't recall some folks caring about how she was maligned.

You are still making Bain's point loud and clear. Context is only insisted upon if it benefits their favorite person. Others not so much, i.e., Hillary as just one example.

[LiberalLovinLug]

238. I....er.....I.....oh forget it, I give up

Have a nice day

[R B Garr]

240. What about Hillary!

You have a nice day, too.

[beam me up scottie]

247. Oh well, you tried.

I understood what you were saying as did others so your point was made. You're a very patient person, if you're not a teacher you missed your calling.

Nicely done!

[R B Garr]

248. Yes, it was obvious that they tried to drag Hillary in to make a false

analogy to deflect from Sanders, and weird that some can see that with no problem but need direct quotes to understand other comments.

[NastyRiffraff]

192. Bravo, Bains

I wish I could rec an individual post. This one would qualify. As to this:

I don't know how you decided Sanders tweet was sarcastic. I didn't see any emoticon or anything else to indicate sarcasm. His comments admonishing Democrats not to politicize the Russia inquiry certainly weren't sarcastic.

Honestly, I've never seen Bernie as having a sense of humor. He may show that privately, who knows, but it's hard to discern from his public comments.

[Ms. Toad]

156. You have far more patience than I do.

Thank you for trying.

[KTM]

177. Spot on

Bane wants to argue that you dont understand her point, but this post lays it out clearly.

This is apples and oranges, and you explained it well.

[R B Garr]

202. That sure was a lot of effort just to drag Hillary into this, LOL.

But since you did, Hillary's comments amounted to saying Trump is, in fact, the monster he presents himself as. "this is who he is" means all the insanity you see is what he is -- insane. Who could disagree with that. You are just throwing it out to distract, but that only proves Bain's point more about the double standards she illustrated.

That's quite a stretch to include Hillary in any way. This makes the rest of what you said just a byzantine way to confirm that Sanders' should be held to a different standard than other DEMOCRATS are held. Which is the point of this thread you keep missing. If one insists on context for one, then context should be given to another.

[Leith]

26. Does This Mean...

that the Australian system does not offer better health care to Australians and does not have lower prices?

[beam me up scottie]

31. That is an odd opinion to see, I didn't think anyone disagreed that Aussies have better health care

Healthcare study ranks Australia second best in developed world, while US comes in last

Australia's healthcare system has been ranked among the best in the developed world by a team of American researchers who have ranked their own country's system the worst.

In their study of 11 different national health care models, researchers at the New York-based Commonwealth Fund ranked Australia's mixed public-private system second best.

They concluded the United Kingdom's National Health Service was the best system overall, followed by Australia, then the Netherlands, with Norway and New Zealand sharing fourth place.

Comparing Australia and the other countries to their homeland, the authors said: "The US performs relatively poorly on population health outcomes, such as infant mortality and life expectancy at age 60."

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/australian-healthcare-ranked-second-best-in-developed-world/8716326

But the op is certainly entitled to her opinion, personally this is one time I agree with Trump, Australia has a better health care system.

Bernie was right and he's using Trump's statement against him. Well played, Senator Sanders!

[BainsBane]

42. Not the point

Which even you have to know.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Sure it is, you tried to make this about Bernie but your analogy failed..

Every time a Dem is criticized here we get to watch round after round of BUT WHAT ABOUT BERRRRRRRNNNNNNNIIIIIEEEEE?

It's hilarious. In fact I think we need to create a drinking game for it, like the one where we all drink if Susan Sarandon is brought up.

Maybe Bernie Bingo. Or Bernie Boogeyman.

Hmm, have to give that some thought.

[BainsBane]

49. No, I didn't make it about Bernie

I made it about hypocrisy. Bernie is merely the mechanism by which some demonstrate their double standards. I understand your confusion, however, since for you everything is about Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

51. No confusion, all roads lead back to Bernie.

It's quite a fascinating phenomena, actually. I love these threads.

[leftstreet]

57. You said Bernie

[beam me up scottie]

60. LMAO! Oh, it's on now!

[BainsBane]

70. I can tell

It's all you ever post in, all that seems to interest you.

[beam me up scottie]

94. How would you know what interests me?

Last edited Fri Sep 1, 2017, 04:02 AM - Edit history (1)

You know nothing about me, my life experiences, my hobbies, what causes I champion, what I do for a living, as far as I know I've never discussed my personal life with you. I also don't divulge too much about my life here so unless you know me outside of DU you really have no idea what interests me.

[bettyellen]

111. Context was what interests you HERE, at DU, is one topic. You're welcome.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Sorry, still doesn't explain the claim.

So no thanks are given.

when you have so little interest in the ideology he claims to represent

Please explain, what ideology and why doesn't it interest me? I'm curious.

[R B Garr]

124. Of course it explains the claim. It's what is posted here.

You're welcome.

[R B Garr]

80. It's a perfect analogy. You just can't handle the truth.

[stevenleser]

117. Yep, the analogy is spot on. Anyone should be able to see that. nt

[zipplewrath]

144. No, it's not

Bernie admitted that the broken clock was write twice a day.
Feinstein said we have to be patient and wait to see if Trump can figure out how to be a good president. No, we don't. That's wrong.

See, bad analogy. Bernie was right, Feinstein was wrong.

[stevenleser]

145. Yes, it is. They are both out of context. Your quote of Feinstein is out of context.

It's a perfect analogy.

[R B Garr]

346. Exactly, that is what keeps being misunderstood

or willfully ignored. Double standards for one man.

[MrsCoffee]

143. +1

[Lordquinton]

90. No vote from me on the drinking game

I don't want to die.

[beam me up scottie]

96. That's a wise choice.

[George II]

91. The point is that Feinstein is being castigated for "siding" with trump, and yet....

....Sanders isn't.

Wonder why that is?

[ehrnst]

161. She's an old broad. We saw what "they do" to elections.

Time to clean house and put the old white guys back in charge....

[KTM]

179. Because Sanders didn't.

He akido'd Rumps words back at him and his supporters, and nobody who isn't intentionally trying to distort the statement believed for a moment that he was giving support to or siding with Rump.

[George II]

181. Really? See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-healthcare-sanders/sanders-defends-trumps-praise-of-australian-healthcare-system-idUSKBN1820QC

"Sanders defends Trump's praise of Australian healthcare system"

[KTM]

184. Did you even read that article ?

Or are you intentionally distorting the truth ?

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders said on Saturday that President Donald Trump was right to call Australia’s universal healthcare system better than the U.S. system.

“President Trump is right. The Australian healthcare system provides healthcare to all of its people at a fraction of the cost than we do,” Sanders commented on Twitter.

The White House later said Trump was simply being nice to an ally and does not think the United States should adopt Australia’s healthcare approach.

I do not believe that you or anyone else here actually agree with the idea that that was a statement in support of Rump.

[George II]

186. Yes, I read the article. Now, did you read Diane Feinstein's complete statement?

[KTM]

194. I watched the video, and the video of her clarification on CNN.

Be honest now - there was nothing in Sander's words that in any way necessitated a clarification.

There is a legitimate criticism to be made over Feinstein's words. She did not "side" with Rump, and I have seen her criticism of his actions and don't take her to be in support of him. I think she subtly made some barbs that are going un-celebrated, but at the same time see how her statement could be read as a "we have to give him the chance to change" argument. In our current climate, I think that was a mistake.

Even in her clarification, I think she gives too much leeway. On the other hand, I think she is coming from a long time participating in a more dignified arena, and still couches her words that way. She even intimated such, when she talked of how if she were to write a letter to the WH asking non-controversial questions, as ranking member of the judiciary committee, it would go ignored and said "that's never existed before."

The old-school decorum in her statements, even as she recognizes that the playing field has been drastically changed, is understandably generating criticism. There are many who have long criticised Sen. Feinstein for middle-of-the-road, go-along-to-get-along decisions, and this is nothing new.

To make the argument that lack of criticism of Sanders statement vs. criticism of Feinstein's reflects sexism is completely disingenuous.

[George II]

199. You're correct, it didn't need clarification, just as Feinstein didn't "need" to clarify....

...her statements. But, she's Feinstein and he's Sanders.

[R B Garr]

216. Yes, well said! Either statement is not ideal, but this contest now that only

Sanders' should be taken in context is really just a prolonged exercise in self-defeating double standards. Saying "Trump is right" as a lead-in only means that is what will be repeated. Providing context is obviously optional as we've seen in the MSM.

[beam me up scottie]

214. Well done! That's why the analogy doesn't work

What Bernie did was hoist Trump on his own petard, it can be confusing if people don't understand how that tactic is used to show hypocrisy and don't bother to read past the headlines.

I'm glad you pointed out the problem with simply citing a headline and trying to use it to prove a parallel where there is none, you have more patience than I do.

[R B Garr]

217. Not bothering to read past headlines is the exact point of this entire thread.

Glad to see that confusion is cleared up now.

[beam me up scottie]

219. It's been likened to a sea lion cartoon.

I do not believe that you or anyone else here actually agree with the idea that that was a statement in support of Rump.

There's a popular cartoon showing a sea lion doing that, it's hilarious. This is just one frame:

[R B Garr]

222. The irony here...

You are right -- that is hilarious.

[beam me up scottie]

215. Probably because he didn't side with Trump, he hoisted him on his own petard.

From the play Hamlet (III.iv.207) by Shakespeare:

hoist by one's own petard

(idiomatic) To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

See when Trump admitted that the Australian health care system was better than ours Bernie took those words and used them against Trump to make an argument for universal health care in this country.

The last question reminds me of this beautiful animal:

[Warren DeMontague]

33. eh, dont bother.

we're talkin "Berrrrrrrnnnniiiieeee Sannnnnnnndddderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs!!!!!!!!!!!!!", here

[beam me up scottie]

35. Lol!

 

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. ...

BERNIE!!!

[beam me up scottie]

45. In before the bourgeoisie!

[beam me up scottie]

50. That's me, a badass socialist bourgeoisie!

Seriously, why do you care what kind of dresses I used to own? What a weird thing to attack someone over. Since when are women not allowed to buy and wear whatever they like? And what does my wardrobe history have to do with politics? Really this is beyond the pale.

[BainsBane]

54. Oh, dear.

In Marxist philosophy the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital, to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/utopia/methods1/bourgeoisie1/bourgeoisie.html

As important as you may be, you do not unto yourself constitute a social class.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Oh, dear, I'm just following your lead.

Surely you don't think I'm being serious?

[BainsBane]

59. Oh, I think you are very serious

in revealing precisely what you do and don't value.

[beam me up scottie]

61. What gave me away, the Russian cat memes?

I can switch to turtle pics, I haven't posted any of those for a while.

[BainsBane]

63. I would like to know one thing

How is it that you happened upon Sanders as the focus of your admiration when you have so little interest in the ideology he claims to represent?

[beam me up scottie]

64. I want to know why this baby turtle thinks he can eat that whole strawberry.

That berry is WAY too big for such a little turtle, don't you think? I mean, seriously, what is he thinking?

[beam me up scottie]

95. Then let's address that, shall we?

How is it that you happened when you have so little interest in the ideology he claims to represent Sanders as the focus of your admiration?

First I've been an avid supporter of Bernie since the 80s when he was mayor of Burlington and I was fortunate enough to help elect him to congress in 1990. There's much to admire about the independent senator from my home state.

And secondly, how would you know what I'm interested in? As far as I know I've never talked about my political ideology with you, and I certainly never discussed my personal life. I usually only confide in my friends and I don't do so here.

So what is it you think you know about my interests and why wouldn't they jive with Bernie's ideology?

[betsuni]

97. "how would you know what I'm interested in?"

Perhaps I can explain. You see, when one posts comments on the Internet, people can read them. Especially if one posts on the same forum for many years, it isn't difficult to get a good feel for a person's personality and interests. Does that help?

[beam me up scottie]

98. Not really.

Let's review the claim:

when you have so little interest in the ideology he claims to represent

Why would anyone think I'm not interested in Bernie's ideology?

Such an odd accusation for someone to make about a stranger, especially with nothing to back it up.

[betsuni]

104. You've been here since 2004, hardly a stranger.

We can read. And archives.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Nope, still doesn't make any sense.

when you have so little interest in the ideology he claims to represent

Explain the claim using what you've learned about me from 'the archives' going back to 2004. Oh and what ideology is it I'm not interested in?

[betsuni]

168. I think you're confused. I didn't say anything about ideology.

Maybe check the archives to see who said what? Just a thought.

[beam me up scottie]

210. Not at all, you said it can be explained and I asked you to do so.

You jumped into the conversation and brought up the 'archives' and said they could be used to prove the claim, so now it's up to you to explain what you meant.

Go check the 'archives' and let me know what you find.
(what are those anyway, are they kept in a big vault somewhere?)

I can wait.

[R B Garr]

227. Ah, archives. That further explains where past posts are stored.

So, it's already been explained. What you posted here people can read. Can you prove they are not in some vault somewhere??

[betsuni]

347. Incoming!

You said it can be explained and I asked you to do so.
You jumped into the conversation and brought up teh 'archives'
And said they could be used to prove the claim,
So now it is up to you to explain what you mean.
Go check the 'archives' and let me know what you find.
What are those anyway, are they kept in a big vault somewhere????!!!!!!
I can wait.

[JHan]

100. ...even I picked up on it and i only joined this site after the primaries

My default attitude half the time I read the nonsense is eyeroll.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Do tell.

[NurseJackie]

102. You are absolutely correct. It's not at all difficult.

[beam me up scottie]

110. Then explain it.

[Lordquinton]

113. I know

It's your interest in ballgowns

[beam me up scottie]

115. True, I'm known far and wide for wearing couture gowns.

Especially when I was a machinist, they were quite a hit on the floor. The grease and metal dust made them even more sparkly too. The shoulder length gloves made it tough to use tools so I saved those for special occasions.

[Lordquinton]

118. The tulle looked great

With all the extra holes from welding Sparks.

[beam me up scottie]

131. I wore designer welding hoods, too. Gucci, Vera Wang. Tres chic!

This one was my favorite:



A must have accessory for the fashion conscious metal worker. And don't forget the matching pumps and clutch!

[Warren DeMontague]

151. What an odd subthread.

Look how deeply interesting you, personally, are.

And here, I thought I was fascinating!

[beam me up scottie]

213. Isn't it? It's quite ... something.

Last edited Sat Sep 2, 2017, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I hear they even checked the archives going back to 2004. Can you tell me where those are kept, and do I need a card to access the records? It must be a very big room.

It reminds me of this cartoon:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

114. Then explain it. Whasamatter? Cat got your tongue?

[George II]

172. For some reason this beautiful animal comes to mind, NJ:

[betsuni]

174. Yes.

[R B Garr]

201. Yes! That's how I figured it out, too. Great minds think alike.

What was posted here is what can be read, so it's definitely comments from here! That should clear up all the confusion. Thanks, betsuni.

[QC]

120. I think it's sexist to try to shame women over what they wear.

When's the last time you saw someone do that to a man?

[beam me up scottie]

122. Right?

It's really sickening how women are constantly held to a double standard.

Remember how Michelle and Hillary were shamed for wearing clothes some people couldn't afford? As if they didn't deserve to wear them.

[QC]

134. Why are people so cruel?

[beam me up scottie]

136. I ask the same thing every day.

[BainsBane]

40. I know

It's horrible when people like me refuse to acknowledge the inherent superiority of the one and cling to "establishment" notions that all people are created equal.

[BainsBane]

44. Actually what we are talking about is not Bernie Sanders

but hypocrisy and double standards.

[R B Garr]

78. "Trump is right"

You left that part out.

[R B Garr]

105. If you use the leading words, "Trump is right", that is what people hear first

without waiting for context. That was the point. If you insist on knowing context for one, then you should use context for another.

[beam me up scottie]

270. Weird how that works.

It's seems like such a simple thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. If someone wants to explain what is so awful about Australia's single payer system

I'm all ears.

I mean, that's what we do here, right? Discuss real-world political issues?

[beam me up scottie]

274. I would like to hear it too.

I have heard some criticisms of Bernie's past two Medicare for All bills and I can understand why some people aren't in favor of single payer, there are drawbacks and it's not perfect by a long shot, but I have yet to see a discussion comparing Australia's system with it.

Maybe it's comparing apples to kangaroos but at least it would be educational.

[George II]

350. Tell you what - direct us to where someone said Australia's system is "so awful" and then....

....maybe someone can explain what that person who may have called it "so awful" really meant.

Deal?

[George II]

295. Two halves of two different sentences by two different people.

[Warren DeMontague]

297. Yeah, one relates to a specific policy that most of us support, the other is an overly optimistic

Assesment of the character of the clown in the oval office.

[George II]

298. Then why didn't you post the entire sentences in each case?

[Warren DeMontague]

299. Here is the Sanders quote in context:

Link to tweet

Anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex can see the context and figure it out for what it is - an endorsement of Single Payer Systems.


Here's what Feinstein said:

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-surprises-SF-crowd-by-expressing-hope-12160141.php

“The question is whether he can learn and change,” Feinstein told the crowd at the Commonwealth Club event. “If so, I believe he can be a good president.”

...Like I said, I think that's overly optimistic.

[George II]

302. So let me get this straight.....

Sanders' tweet:

"President Trump is right. The Australian health care system provides health care to all of its people at a fraction of the cost than we do."

That is his tweet in its entirety, his words, no one else's. You're saying that Sanders quoted himself out of context?

On the other hand, Feinstein said “The question is whether he can learn and change. If so, I believe he can be a good president.”

She said it was a question (i.e., not a predetermined FACT), used the word "whether" (i.e., not necessarily a fact), and "If so" (i.e., not necessarily a fact)

Sanders' quote is unequivocal, Feinstein's quote has three equivocations in it. One gets blasted, the other gets a pass. Why is that?

[KTM]

306. No, that is not his tweet in its entirety.

His tweet includes this video, which makes his statment VERY clear, and in no way unequivocal. You are either misinformed or being intentionally disengenuous:

Link to tweet

[George II]

309. Sorry to disagree, but his TWEET is:

"President Trump is right. The Australian health care system provides health care to all of its people at a fraction of the cost than we do."

[Warren DeMontague]

310. You understand what a Single Payer Health Care system is, don't you?

I mean, you've got a Canadian flag avatar, so I'd think so.

[George II]

315. Excuse me? What does my avatar have to do with healthcare systems? I see you have an apple....

....as your avatar. Where I come from Apple Rehab is a big healthcare business. Any connection?

[Warren DeMontague]

318. It's an Erisian religious symbol.

I would think we'd be better than mocking faith and deeply held religious beliefs here, but I guess not.




Also, what the fuck is "Apple Rehab"?

[George II]

322. I would think we'd be better than mocking and throwing one's (incorrect) perceived nationality.....

....in one's face. But I guess not.

Google Apple Rehab.

[Warren DeMontague]

324. I'm not throwing anything, I'm asking if you know what a Single Payer Health Care system is.

Canada is relevant because- like Australia- they have one.

[George II]

328. Oh well........................

I feel like I just pulled into the drive-thru at Burger King - "have it your way".

It's been fun, I think. Have a great evening, and God bless you.

[Warren DeMontague]

329. Namaste.

[beam me up scottie]

353. God bless us, every one !

?1350039622


Apple rehab?

I always knew you were a bad apple, Warren.

[R B Garr]

344. He just noted your avatar. Why accuse him of mocking

faith and religion, lol. Sea lion much? I can't even see the avatar on this mobile phone. It's an Apple, but now I'm curious to see it. Maybe I can program this to see avatars.

[LiberalLovinLug]

349. He is not Canadian

I've had a previous conversation with him about that because I am Canadian, and wondered why he seemed to be to the right of most Canadians. He admitted he wasn't but..., he lived there for a time?, or just liked the flag?, I forget now. It does seem a tad odd, because you would know that everyone reading you would assume you are, but hey, we are free countries.

[beam me up scottie]

364. Maybe it's just a pretty flag.

If I used another country's flag i would expect people to assume I was a citizen of that country. Seems odd to be offended by the assumption.

[KTM]

317. Untrue

His tweet is copied IN ITS ENTIRETY in my post. You left the video out, Bernie did not.

[lapucelle]

348. You forgot this part of the context.

"While I'm under no illusion that it's likely to happen and will continue to oppose his policies, I want President Trump to change for the good of the country."

After which she said, “The question is whether he can learn and change. If so, I believe he can be a good president.”

I guess some cerebral cortexes function better than others.

[beam me up scottie]

358. +1

Anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex can see the context and figure it out for what it is - an endorsement of Single Payer Systems.

[LiberalLovinLug]

72. No its about your false equivalency

If Bernie had said....."I think Trump could be a good President, we should all have a little more patience"

And...then....there was NO outcry as there was with Feinstein...THEN you could claim some kind of double standard.


Or Feinstein had used Trumps words against him to make a point about the willing ignorance and hypocrisy of Trump and the GOP....after which some Democrats criticized her for just saying Trump actually made a factual statement (why would they?)....THEN you could again claim some kind of double standard.

But they didn't, and your point is meaningless.

[George II]

294. +1,000,000

[BainsBane]

37. Does Feinstein's statement means that a GOP congress won't spontaneously impeach Trump?

That was also factually true, but that doesn't stop the outrage, does it?

But I get it. It was crucially important to compliment Trump the day after he tried to take away the heatlhcare of millions of Americans. Now, can we get back to impeaching Feinstein and the rest of the Democratic congress?

[ehrnst]

191. You may well ask if Feinstein means that Trump "will" be "a good president"

and "will forget himself" and "will change."

Because if you do that, you are spectacularly missing the similarities in how she is being equally misrepresented...

Especially if you simply stop at "Sanders says Trump is right," like Feinstein's statement was misleadingly truncated.

[ismnotwasm]

28. Bahahahahahaha!

[Scurrilous]

29. K&R

[FreepFryer]

30. YES!!! (n/t)

[Hieronymus]

52. Feinstein is not Liberal enough for me.

[beam me up scottie]

53. HERESY!

[BainsBane]

55. So you prefer someone who does not support single payer?

You certainly are within your rights to vote for someone else, IF you live in California and IF Feinstein runs for relection.

[ismnotwasm]

73. You should move up to Seattle dude.

You want liberal, we got liberal. We also got nutjobs and party spoilers but it's a chaff from wheat world son.

[Eko]

75. Ha Ha!!!!

This Feinstein thing is stupid.

[JHan]

81. I love this thread . You get a rec.

The denials of hypocrisy are golden.


GOLDEN.

[JCanete]

146. no refutation of those denials on the way though, I see. nt

[Bradshaw3]

82. Feinstein's statement was not what it was made out to be and neither was Bernie's

But they are not equivalent. In my short time on this forum it is obvious to me as one who supported Hillary in the primaries that there is a certain group of her supporters who are simply trying to start fights over anything they can find about Sanders. It is not only pointless and childish but takes away from the goal of winning back Congress for the Democrats, who Sanders caucuses with.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

85. Welcome to DU...

...you nailed it!

[DeeDeeNY]

101. Exactly right. This anti-Bernie obsession is getting out of hand.

It is not only as pointless and childish but also counter-productive.

[QC]

121. Some people believe that last year's message board drama is more important

than next year's election.

[beam me up scottie]

127. Priorities!

[R B Garr]

150. You sure like to bring that up a lot.

[JCanete]

125. Thank you sincerely for this post. nt

[R B Garr]

149. "in my short time on this forum"

How would you know they are "Hillary supporters". No one talks about Hillary anymore.

[betsuni]

152. Good question. How would anyone know that?

That's odd.

[R B Garr]

153. Very odd, indeed.

How would they know that? Hmm

[Orsino]

173. Yep. n/t

[LiberalLovinLug]

224. You are quite correct, and welcome to DU

And I hope more DUers speak up about this unhealthy occupation in here. It is petty. It is juvenile. And it is pointless.

[R B Garr]

234. Isn't a random attack such as this on "Hillary supporters" also petty, juvenile

and unhealthy and pointless??

Any idea on how this new poster knew to bring up Hillary or her supporters?? Hillary hasn't been a topic here in quite awhile...

[Quayblue]

84. K&R w/an eyeroll nt

Last edited Sat Sep 2, 2017, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[George II]

86. Many around here have been calling for Feinstein to resign. Hmmmm.

[Kolesar]

103. I got the jury call when a DUer was busting on her.

I voted OK. He didn't say vote against Diane in the general election.
I wonder what was the outcome.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. Do we hate the Australian health care system now? n/t

[Bradical79]

139. I'm glad more of the party isn't like the OP

Could you imagine if our Democratic leaders decided to spend time attacking a true and honest statement from someone on the left, and the Australian health care system, with everything going on this week? I'd just up and leave and so would a lot of others. We'd be well and truly fucked for good.

[beam me up scottie]

141. +1,000,000

Time to let it go and move on. Bernie is our there every day attacking Trump and the GOP as well as doing his job in the Senate, he is not the enemy.

[heaven05]

345. everyday?

no.

[beam me up scottie]

354. Yes, every day.

I follow him on social media and yes, he does indeed attack the GOP and Trump every day.

[heaven05]

359. no

not true...I follow him, just to be able to refute claims not borne out by fact, along with many others. Because you follow you think you're the only one here with a handle on truth... no.....period. No matter what you claim....no!

[beam me up scottie]

360. So prove it.

If you have a handle on "the truth" break it out. Show me where he missed a day on social media.




Seriously, even his detractors admit the guy never takes a break, between the Senate, town halls, rallies, interviews and social media - when he's not in the Senate he's usually on the road. His haters can claim many things about Sanders but being lazy isn't one of them.

It seems like such an odd thing to try to deny, I have to wonder what's behind such silliness.

Here's one of today's Facebook entries:

It is disgraceful that Trump would even consider throwing some 800,000 Dreamers out of the country they call home. Even his Republican colleagues are now telling the president that ending DACA would be the wrong decision. We must vigorously defend DACA and the young people in that program. We cannot be sweeping them up and throwing them out of the only country they've known.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156292331412908&id=9124187907

And here's the very TOP Tweet:

Link to tweet

Waiting for the inevitable but ZOMG WHAT ABOUT BERRRRNNNNIIIIEEEEE'S BOOK SALES???

Because someone might be silly enough to think that proves proves he's - I honestly don't know what that proves or why that bothers people so much. I guess it's a BAD thing to write books - but only if you're the junior senator from Vermont.

Bad Bernie, no books for you!

[R B Garr]

362. Does promoting his book count as fighting Trump and the GOP ??

The first picture you see of him on his Twitter page is a picture of him holding his book. Then there's a Kamala Harris tweet.

Although I don't follow him on Twitter, but I found it odd that you would claim book promotion as fighting the GOP.

[R B Garr]

367. I see you edited after I posted about promoting his book on his Twitter page.

So you really weren't "waiting for the inevitable". You edited your post after you read my post which mentioned his book promotion. LOL.

You still haven't explained if you count his book promotion towards fighting the GOP and Trump. I'm only asking because those were the first two items I saw on his Twitter, but I don't follow him on social media (except some links here and there).

[heaven05]

380. given

all those words, meaningless and without ANY merit, I would never waste a lot of time proving anything to you or to anyone who voted in GE for others than HRC....period. Just as guilty as ANY trumpista.... I'm through with any more responses to this type of thread and you.

[betsuni]

89. Next time this double standard is pointed out, good idea to preface with TRIGGER WARNING

Some people seem really upset.

[BainsBane]

92. Lol

They really are.

[JCanete]

123. not a double standard. Entirely apples and oranges. Silly that you would think otherwise. I

will say that it is disheartening when fellow DUers jump on a bandwagon like this, because reason coupled to facts are actually our best weapons, so when we strip away everything but an out-of-context sentence to make a point, that's doing us all a disservice.

If you want it spelled out how its apples and oranges, you can go to my other post in the thread.

[KTM]

180. Luckily, its a small wagon.

But boy can that band make some noise.

[KTM]

319. The band is all here...

[betsuni]

327. You miss the point.

[JCanete]

331. Oh yeah? I'm genuinely curious. What was the point? nt

[betsuni]

338. Oh, dear. You called me silly, a bandwagon-jumper, not using reason coupled with facts,

and need things spelled out for me. I'm genuinely curious. You thought anyone would seriously reply to that?

[JCanete]

351. You're the one claiming I missed the point. I'm dubious of that. Ultimately what both people said

ARE apples and oranges. So trying to make a point by misrepresenting what Sanders said fails to succeed at that point, since what Feinstein said is not really being taken out of context and is not really being misrepresented.

[Bradical79]

132. Well, it IS really stupid

What kind of idiot sees this and thinks double standard?

[beam me up scottie]

133. Right???

[Hassin Bin Sober]

140. You answered your own question.

People who are so blinded by butt hurt they want to shoe-horn a zinger against Twitler in to praise are not playing with a full deck. Or they are being intentionally obtuse in the extreme for the same reason.

It's a comedy act at this point.

[sheshe2]

275. Who exactly are you calling an idiot?

[betsuni]

277. Seemed to have really touched a nerve!

If BainsBane is an idiot, I want to be an idiot too.

[Autumn]

283. Too funny, I had to wipe down my moniter on that one.

[betsuni]

342. TMI.

[Autumn]

343. Some goals are laudable, others not so much. That is not to say one should give up their goals.

After all what is life without goals?

[beam me up scottie]

352. !

[Autumn]

282. Good question.

[sheshe2]

106. Thanks for the OP

KnR

[Eliot Rosewater]

116. Thank YOU and Bainsbane for unreserved, continual support of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Something I thought was supposed to be mandatory here.

You know what I am going to do from now on? From now on I am going to support any and all Democrats, 100%, no matter what.

Wait, I have done that for a while now. Oh well, I will continue.




BTW, later on when the fascist Nazi's are out of the White House, and a fascist Nazi is no longer the president, later on when they are out of the WH and for that matter completely out of POWER, get back to me and I will fill volumes of pages of criticism of the D party and many existing D's. Until then, though, I dont have any criticism.

[Bradical79]

137. Making false equivilancies isn't suporting Democrats

Not sure why some of you people are so giddy over this quote. He said something 100% correct throwing Trump's words back at him. It's completely unrelated and shows that some care more about refighting the primaries than actually supporting the Democratic agenda. This kind of pettyness is part of what contributes to Democratic losses. Attacking someone else on the left and escalating infighting because of the inability to intelligently counter criticism does more harm than good.

[Orsino]

176. +1 n/t

[leftstreet]

361. +1

nicely stated

[sheshe2]

138. Thank you Eliot.

We have our work cut out for us for 2018, after that 2020. We need to work and vote as if our lives depend on it and they do.

[Expecting Rain]

148. Yes indeed, it is heartwarming that there are actually some people who support DEMOCRATS

on a forum designed to support DEMOCRATS. I've been begging to wonder.

[JCanete]

119. Yes, and he was right. Nothing about what Sanders said gave him credit for it. It was clear that it

was a mistake on Trump's part. This is dumb. Really really dumb. Sanders was making a point that Trump was saying a system of health care was better than ours but refusing to actually work towards such a system, which made trump either full of total shit with no clue as to what he was saying, or totally disinterested in making health care better in America, or both. Sadly, I am not surprised you would miss that fact.

And, he also said Trump promised to do a couple good things when he was campaigning. Lets see him do those things and I will work with him if he does. Again, that makes perfect fucking sense. It was trying to show in stark relief the realities of the Trump Presidency next to the messaging. On the other hand, had Trump lifted a finger to do anything good, of course we should have enabled him to do so and it would not have hurt us to give him credit for it. That's what adults do.

Feinstein said at this late date that we need to have patience. That's fucking absurd. Its hardly her worst offense, and I'm inclined to let it slide, but its still fucking absurd. We don't need to wait and see what kind of a man he is. He has shown us. He needs to show us something different if we are going to reevaluate our assessment. Until then, there's no room for patience. We can pretty much expect that any decision he makes will be dictated by either his own pettiness, his own financial interests, or his affinity with his most racist core of supporters, and will never be informed by compassion or reason, or even cunning strategizing. So that begs the question, what was Feinstein's strategy here? She couldn't possibly believe the shit she was saying.

[beam me up scottie]

126. Well said! This is precisely why the analogy fails.

It also fails because Bernie was attacked for saying Trump was right about Australian health care, so there is no double standard.

My dog, if Bernie had said what Feinstein did the outage would have been ten times worse. Can you imagine?

[MrsCoffee]

142. Zing...

Well played.

[Expecting Rain]

147. Dianne Feinstein praises Trump for nixing TPP

Nope, it was Bernie again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/23/sanders-praises-trump-for-nixing-tpp-delighted-to-work-with-him-on-pro-worker-policies/?utm_term=.fa25b2a9e4cf

[ehrnst]

158. Feinstein: "Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him."

Oh wait. Wasn't Feinstein, was a male Senator....


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/508007/

[betsuni]

165. Thank you so much. I thought he had said that but didn't look it up.

What the hell. As usual. Double standard.

[beam me up scottie]

221. Can you show me where he said that? Someone said it was made up.

So I read the entire article and the quote isn't in there.

I don't mean that it was taken out of context or cut off, I mean it's not in there at all.

I tried googling the quote cited and couldn't find it either.

[ehrnst]

245. Here's another attempt at explaining it

"Trump be a good president" instead of:

“The question is whether he can learn and change, If so, I believe he can be a good president.”

And

"I look forward to working with him" and "he is honest" instead of:

"We look forward to working with him if he is honest about that." (if you read the link, you will indeed find that. Go ahead if you don't believe me.)


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/508007/

This is another quote:

"As someone who voted against every one of these trade policies, I look forward to working with him."

Is that clearer?

To summarize:

Sanders left open the possibilty that Trump could be honest, and he could look forward to working with him, in the way that Feinstein left open the possibility that Trump could be a good president.

[beam me up scottie]

246. I don't want a false analogy, I want to know where that quote came from

Here's what you posted:

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him."

Why would you post a quote that's not in the article?

Your analogy would only work if he actually said that but he didn't, so your entire premise is false.

[NurseJackie]

167. OMG!! OMFG!! "Trump is honest.." ??? Honest??!!!

Why would ANYONE say that? I wonder what the responses and reaction to THAT was... I mean... that's a disgusting thing to say, so OBVIOUSLY the condemnations must have been universal, swift and stern.

[betsuni]

169. Right?

[NurseJackie]

171. I'm still looking for the comparable outrage. Haven't found it yet. It must be there somewhere!

[melman]

170. OMG111

It's totally made up and he didn't say it. If you check the link you can see. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[beam me up scottie]

231. ZOMGWTFBBQ! BERNIE NEVER SAID THAT?

No wonder we all CAN'T BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED!

It didn't.

[hfojvt]

266. this thread really

makes me feel like I need to be beamed up.

[beam me up scottie]

268. If I could I would beam us up.

Alas, a fun gif is all I have:

[JCanete]

230. haha, and yet he didn't say it. Does anybody read the article that gets posted or do you just

believe anything your like-minded DUers post without doing any leg work yourself? You know you can do a simple search of the word honest in the article. It comes up in two places.

"The question that will be resolved pretty quickly is whether or not everything that he was saying to the working families of this country was hypocrisy, was dishonest, or whether he was sincere."

"We look forward to working with him if he is honest about that."

The condemnations certainly did come then, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were among them at the time, but as we see here, they were bullshit.

Please for the love of God, be better than this.

[beam me up scottie]

232. Apparently not.

Good thing someone read the article.

[Autumn]

285. Hate to disappoint you but I don't think anyone said Trump was honest. I read this link and the

other link about what Bernie supposedly said and found nothing in either article about Bernie claiming that Trump was honest. Try reading the article this OP linked . In fact the word honest isn't there. Which is dishonest in itself. There is another OP doing the same as this one and in that link Bernie questioned Trumps honesty which any person with half a brain would question Trump being honest. Trump and honest are two words that just don't pair well.
But back to this OP, Bernie didn't say Trump was honest he said Trump was right when Trump said that Australia has a better healthcare system than the U.S.
Bernie said

"The Australian health care system provides health care to all of its people at a fraction of the cost than we do."
I don't think anyone can deny that.

From what I gather everyone has their knickers in a twist over what Feinstein might or might not have said that was taken out of context. What I read about what she said it made sense when you read everything she said. Sadly a lot of people don't read before they post. But I didn't find where she called Trump honest either so I don't know where the honest thing came from. Do you?

Therefore Bernie!!!

[Orsino]

175. "Brutus is an honorable man."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/508007/

"Now, I believe we should expand Social Security … but that is what he said, and pay attention to see what he now does. The question that will be resolved pretty quickly is whether or not everything that he was saying to the working families of this country was hypocrisy, was dishonest, or whether he was sincere. And we will find that out soon enough...

"Mr. Trump says he wants to invest a trillion dollars in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. That is a good sum of money, that is exactly what we should be doing, and we can create millions of good-paying jobs if we do that. Mr. Trump, that’s what you said on the campaign trail, that’s what we look forward to seeing from you.

"[W]hat he did say is we should raise the minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. Not enough, but a start, and we will hold him to those words.

"Mr. Trump said that Wall Street is dangerous, doing bad things, he wants to re-establish Glass-Steagall legislation. I look forward to working with him.

"We look forward to working with him if he is honest about that.

"Mr. Trump said throughout his campaign—the cornerstone of his campaign was to change our disastrous trade policies. As someone who voted against every one of these trade policies, I look forward to working with him."

[ehrnst]

183. +1000 (nt)

[R B Garr]

242. Yup, a remarkable simpatico. From the article:

"And it’s possible that Sanders could be a uniquely credible political voice under a Trump presidency, given that his diagnosis of the problems facing America isn’t entirely different from the president-elect’s. Both Trump and Sanders campaigned on promises to fight corruption in Washington and criticized the influence of big money in politics"

[KTM]

182. Wow - that is 100% dishonest BS

The attempt to twist that Sander's statement into some kind of support for Rump is disgustingly dishonest.

You and anyone advancing that argument should be ashamed.

Here's what he said at the beginning of that long statement in which he called out Rump and dared him to follow through on his campaign promises:

The question that will be resolved pretty quickly is whether or not everything that he was saying to the working families of this country was hypocrisy, was dishonest, or whether he was sincere. And we will find that out soon enough.

He also said:

"Mr. Trump, that’s what you said on the campaign trail, that’s what we look forward to seeing from you...

Not enough, but a start, and we will hold him to those words...

He wants to re-establish Glass-Steagall legislation. I look forward to working with him...

Mr. Trump has said he wants six weeks of paid maternity leave. Every other major country on Earth, I think, has at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, but this is a start. We look forward to working with him if he is honest about that."

Your distortion of those statements, and the cheers of those replying, shows all of your true faces and intents.

[ehrnst]

185. Are you aware that this is commentary slamming this sort of misrepresentation of

what someone said that is being applied exclusively to Fienstein?

If you still need clarification, just do a search for "Feinstein: "Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him." on DU.

[KTM]

188. Quite.

Im well aware that Sen. Feinstein made a statement that some are misinterpreting - but you are not arguing "This misinterpretation is as wrong as that one." You are advancing an argument that implies Sander's agreed with Rump, and that those people who did not criticize him for his statement are being sexist in their criticism of Feinstein. The fact of the matter is, there was not one iota of Sander's wordsmithing that was worthy of criticism, whereas there is a legitimate perception amongst many that her implication that Rump could become a good precendent was a poor choice of words.

[ehrnst]

189. Wow - that is 100% dishonest BS

The attempt to twist my comparison of the treatment of Sanders and Feinstein into some kind of attack on Sanders supporters is disgustingly dishonest.

You and anyone advancing that argument should be ashamed.

[R B Garr]

237. You've nailed it; they just don't see it yet, but that's no surprise.

Sanders: Give Trump a chance to show he's being honest, especially since he copied my campaign and that is what I promised.

Feinstein: Trump would be okay -- if he wasn't Trump -- but he is, so we're screwed.

Brilliant, ehrnst! You have totally nailed it, especially with the turnabouts....

[KTM]

304. Wrong again.

In no way was Sanders statement saying "give Trump a chance," and that is clear to anyone who reads the statement.

Feinstein's statement neccessitated a clarification round, and both of her statements can be easily misinterpreted as being overly generous and soft on Trump to anyone who doesnt watch the video or understand that she is coming from a much more civilized historical environment.

[R B Garr]

307. No, that's exactly what Sanders was saying--

give him a chance to keep his promises.

Let's see what he does compared to what he said during the campaign, per Sanders.

Quit pretending this is about context, it's about who gets excoriated for inarticulate statements and who doesn't.

[Autumn]

190. Can you imagine the outrage if people were not only taking Feinsteins quote out of context but were

instead making up quotes in a silly attempt to make her look bad? A lie is fine as long as it fit's the narrative.

[KTM]

195. Can you imagine if Sen. Sanders had made the exact same statement as Sen. Feinstein ?

The same group defending her here with false equivalencies would be slapping each other's backs in a 400+ post Bernie Outrage sing-along.

[Autumn]

196. Oh yes, that's the truth.

It's insane. To post actual lies in a failed attempt to make their point is so sad, it says so much about those who do it.

[ehrnst]

200. See also:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1855881

[Autumn]

204. The problem for you is she actualy said those things, and people ignored her completed

thoughts and focused on a few words. For example "If so, I believe he can be a good president." They ignored what was important about that sentence "If so, and ran with the rest.
They didn't make up a lie and atribute it to her as you did in your OP here. The article you posted is in your OP, anyone can see it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029544851

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him."

You did more than what you are having a shit fit about. You took, not sentences, but words out of context from several paragraphs and made a sentenece that Bernie didn't say. You didn't take it out of context, you made it up. I think that worse than what people did to Feinstien.

[ehrnst]

205. So you're saying the title of the thread I posted for you went right over your head.

But I guess you ducked. Or blocked it out....

You basically described what the post I shared was doing.

But hey, we all need to let off steam sometimes.

[Autumn]

207. No, I get what you were trying to do, but you failed when you had to make up what you

wanted him to say. Feinstein actualy said those things, people just ignored the rest of the sentence. That was not what you did. Bernie didn't say what you artibuted to him in any sentence. The proof is in the article you posted. You dragged Bernie into it instead of being mad at the people who were upset at Feinstein because they didn't read the whole thing. .

But hey, any opertunity will do right?

[beam me up scottie]

235. ...

[beam me up scottie]

226. +1,000,000

[ehrnst]

197. Imagine if someone equated any evidence that Feinstein was being treated

differently than other politicians as an attack on Sanders and his supporters....

Talk about 100% dishonest BS... you know, if indeed one was talking hypotheticals, and martyrdom.

[beam me up scottie]

228. Where is the quote you cited? It's not in the linked article.

Are you saying you used a 'hypothetical' quote?

[beam me up scottie]

225. LMAO! Nailed it!

[ehrnst]

198. Imagine someone doing that....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1855881

[Autumn]

241. The problem you have is she said those things and people took them out of context but

you made up a sentence and attributed it to Bernie. In my part of the world we call that a lie. And you are hypocritical enough to be outraged about people taking Fiensteins words out of context. At least they aren't lying.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029544851

Bernie in no possible context said anything like your sentence in those 5 paragraphs in that article.

[ehrnst]

243. If you take the "if" out of their statements.

"Trump be a good president" instead of “The question is whether he can learn and change, If so, I believe he can be a good president.”

And

"I look forward to working with him" and "he is honest." instead of

"We look forward to working with him if he is honest about that."

Is that clearer?

Sanders left open the possibilty that Trump could be honest, and he could look forward to working with him, in the way that Feinstein left open the possibility that Trump could be a good president.

The gymnastics that you do avoid acknowledging that basic comparison, and accuse me of distorting or misrepresenting Sanders are awe inspiring.

[Autumn]

253. No he did not. He laid out Trumps lies and said he would hold him to what he promised.

You are outraged over people bring upset about part of what she actualy said and you made up a whole sentence of shit Bernie never said. Your OP was a hypicrtitical lie, you admit he never said it and you keep doubleing down on it down on your lie and your outrage. Qualify it all you want, spin it however you want. Bernie never said

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him."

I'm done with this, it's obvious why you posted what you did.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029544851

[R B Garr]

284. Sigh. They were not Trump's lies, if you read the article.

The article even lists those "promises" that were mirrors of what Sanders promised, which is why Bernie was saying Trump should be honest about delivering.

[Autumn]

288. The article posted by the OP contains nothing about what Bernie promised

Feinstein: "Trump is right" has nothing to do with delivering anything and the word honest isn't mentioned in the linked article. Trump said that Australia has a better healthcare system than the U.S.has. Bernie said "President Trump is right," "The Australian health care system provides health care to all of its people at a fraction of the cost than we do." How can anyone deny that?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332223-sanders-trump-is-right-on-australian-healthcare-system

You responded to me about my response to another poster about her OP. I chose not to discuss my response to her with you in this thread, that would be confusing and disrespectful to both OPs. You can discuss it in that thread where she attributed a quote to Bernie that just happens to not exist in her link either. Take care.

[R B Garr]

289. No, it's not about what Bernie promised Feinstein.

Maybe that was a mistype on your part...? You probably meant something else.

But this was exactly as written by all here, and summarized in length by the OP -- it's about one politician being given a pass for an inarticulate turn of phrase, while another is hounded to go away.

You keep insisting that poster is wrong but they're not. Trump was using Bernie's own platform promises, so how could you call them lies.

[KTM]

301. Nonsense.

What part of Bernie's statement was in any way inarticulate? Reading his entire statement leaves NO room for misinterpretation unless one willfully chooses to misconstrue his words. There is simply NO part of his entire quote that can in any way be misinterpreted unless one consciously chooses to do so in a transparent attempt to smear.

[R B Garr]

303. Right, because leading with "Trump is right"

would never be exploited by Trump or the GOP.

Quit pretending this is about context. This whole thread is about who gets excoriated and who doesn't for making unclear statements.

[KTM]

305. Again, nonsense. Intentional nonsense.

The fact that a snippet of either Senator's statement might be exploited by the GOP is not in question. The fact of the matter is that any literate person can see NO gray area in Sander's statement, whereas Feinstein's can be seen as needlessly soft on Trump.

More importantly, you try to argue that supporting apples and decrying oranges is sexist, when that argument clealy falls apart IN context. The only way you can MAKE that argument is to deliberately and intentionally take Sander's words out of context.

[R B Garr]

308. Quit pretending this is about context or content.

It's about who gets excoriated for inarticulate or unclear comments.

So what if Feinstein's comments were more complex. That's not what this thread is about. Your defensiveness about Sanders possibly being taken out of context or misunderstood only highlights the point of this thread even more.

[KTM]

323. That stuff you are swimming in is getting DEEP.

"It's about who gets excoriated for inarticulate or unclear comments."

Bernie's statement was only unclear TO the inarticulate. You are not. You are in there trying to make snow angels, and that aint snow.

[R B Garr]

330. No need to make this personal/petty.

It's not about a "statement". That's already been explained several times. Just the fact you are so hostile about someone possibly misrepresenting Bernie shows what this thread is about. It was about who gets attacked and who doesn't based on fairly similar comments. Certainly not everyone will read past, "Trump is right." Neither Sanders' nor Feinstein's comments were good ones.

[KTM]

335. Again, there is no "possibly misinterpreting"

You and the band are intentionally misinterpreting Bernie, as it is the only way you can try to stretch to the argument you are failing to make.

What you're left with is "not everyone will read." If they did of course, they would be clear on the topic, as there simply is no room for misinterpretation on one of those statements.

People are "hostile" because there is a desperate and wholly disingenuous attempt to create a false equivalency on display here, and the reason behind that need is clear.

[betsuni]

337. By "the band," you mean Democrats.

[KTM]

370. Nope.

I mean that small continegent of posters who bark like a tiny dog, who will lunge at anything that they think will give them a chance to tear down a Democratic ally because that is their primary goal here.

They have attacked this thread with all of their tiny might, but it is in vain.

Sometimes they have cogent arguments, but it is clear to all who are not willfully suborning the truth to their own interests that this particular argument was over before it started.

We shall know them by the tune they play.

[R B Garr]

339. Again, your hostility shows what this thread is about.

It's about the irrational insistence that one man be treated with such reverence not shown others. A double standard. Not everyone will read past "Trump is right." You even acknowledged, "if they did read"

And you are just flat out wrong with your analysis of other poster's motives. You're not in their head and have no business judging and making things hostile and personal.

[KTM]

369. Nonsense.

You are all in on a hand that cannot win. You realize this, and are flailing.

I ask no reverence, I demand honesty. You keep doubling down on this idea that the two statements can be compared, when you know by now they cannot. There is no double standard. One statement was irrefutably calling out Trump, the other was not.

You are hoping if you keep posting the same thing over and over, maybe one of the band will save you, but the tune is hopelessly out of key. Give it up.

We DO know your motives, and they are as clear as the statement Senator Sanders made.

[R B Garr]

371. LMAO! How utterly predictable. No need to make this personal/petty

And now I'm in a band!

Seriously, your hostility over someone simply drawing an analogy over something Sanders' said is truly making this entire thread. This is exactly what it is about. Thanks for making the point of this thread again, but it's actually a little scary to observe like this. Look at your post, yikes.

And of course the statements are valid comparisons. It's a comparison of double standards.

You are also posting the same thing over and over, but angrier as you go. No need to make this personal.

[KTM]

372. You only describe yourself.

Its transparent.

[beam me up scottie]

373. +1

[R B Garr]

374. Look at you making this personal again.

[KTM]

375. Arf arf arf arf arf !!!

Yap yap yap, arf arf arf !!

No ! Thats a No!

Tomorrow, when the big bad Sanders Thread drives by again, you can growl and gnash your teeth against the window until you tire, but its gone past now, you missed it, youre OK.

What a HUGE puppy you are... so big, sooooooo big.

[R B Garr]

376. Look at you making this personal again.

Bizarre.

[R B Garr]

377. This is your post #375

copied in case it's deleted. Truly bizarre.

Arf arf arf arf arf !!!

View profile


Yap yap yap, arf arf arf !!

No ! Thats a No!

Tomorrow, when the big bad Sanders Thread drives by again, you can growl and gnash your teeth against the window until you tire, but its gone past now, you missed it, your OK.

What a HUGE puppy you are... so big, sooooooo big.

[KTM]

378. In case its deleted ?

So, you copied my post into your own, and then did what ? LOL. Transparent.

[R B Garr]

379. Who wouldn't want to delete that post. It's bizarre.

So that's why I copied it.

[JCanete]

244. The OP title you refer to does do some decontextualization, granted. Not nearly as much as

what we are supposed to take now as hyperbolic examples of misrepresentation. (as if there was no outrage of the sort coming from DUers at the time over words he never said-as if any of us really believes the OP here doesn't really believe their own bullshit and is just trying to make a point about smear jobs.)

But absolutely, there IS a difference between saying If something, then he can, and saying, he can. "Can" is hardly a certainty in itself, so out of context, its not so different, BUT the initial "if" qualifications do serve as an additional remove from this being a possible outcome. However, as soon as she said we have to have patience, this put her earlier words into an entirely different context, suggesting that this actually is a reasonable possibility for which the verdict is still out, and one which we just need to give the man in office a little more time. In that light, the OP isn't really off at all. She IS saying Trump CAN be a good President, and MIGHT be, and that we are the ones who have to have reasonable expectations, and have to have a reasonable time-frame in which to expect him to start behaving Presidentially.

[beam me up scottie]

223. Wait, are you saying they MADE UP THAT QUOTE?

I'm glad someone read the article, I was just going to post an op to draw attention to it because it was outrageous.

[Autumn]

236. Yeah it's a made up sentence from an article about things that Bernie said about Trump

which didn't include the sentence

"Trump is honest and I look forward to working with him."

Just some of those words scattered throughout 5 paeagraphs of things that Trump lied about during his campaign and that he would have to do to get Bernie to work with him. Very dishonest.

[beam me up scottie]

239. So everyone is upset about a non-existent quote? Oh my!

This reminds me of that famous line:

"SOMEONE NEEDS TO CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!"

Which DUer said that?

[Autumn]

262. I remember that! Now it's ...DAMN YOU BERNIE! STOP BLOCKING MY SUN!

[beam me up scottie]

265. This thread is useless without pictures:

 

It should probably read:

BERNIE SAID WHAT???

[WinkyDink]

187. Haha. Do you think we are all BERNIE supporters here?!?!?!?

[heaven05]

206. hell,

CUBA has a better healtcare system than ameriKKKa. And to hell with any praise or agreement with the idiot potus....oh and forgive me, I forgot, Cuba is run by those brown people, so no matter how good they are at taking care of their people, still does not count.

[guillaumeb]

208. The battle never ends.

Civil war part 2?

[Lotusflower70]

276. Have to stop eating our own

The attacks on the strong women in the party are ridiculous. Feeding the divide does not help us. And I know people have varied feelings on Bernie. But Australia does have great health care.

[Lotusflower70]

280. I know

There are a lot of strong women in the Democratic party. Cannabis legalization is going to continue to move forward from state to state, as it should.

[Warren DeMontague]

281. Point is, DiFi has been out of touch with California for a while.

Witness her vote, unlike Boxer's, in favor of the IWR.


She's done some good work, but personally I'd like to see a Senator more in tune with the voters of that state as per the 21st century, which is where we're at. I'm not suggesting primarying her, but I wouldn't object strenuously if she decided to retire after this term.

As for state-to-state, yes, but we still need leadership at the Federal level as Senator Booker has demonstrated. And as Gavin Newsom has called for.

And remember, descheduling Federally can be done through a multiplicity of means, not just Congress or the FDA/DEA, but also unilaterally by the Executive.

[Expecting Rain]

286. Perhaps not all mature people are so sure that...

having a society where there are more and more people who spend their days stoned is in their best interests or in the best interests of our civilization.

You minimize the downsides of ubiquitous marijuana consumption, methinks.

[Warren DeMontague]

291. Welp, be that as it may- the voters of California have spoken, haven't they.

So perhaps the sky will fall and civilization will be doomed on Jan. 1, when recreational sales come online down there...

...and then again, maybe not.

If the experiences of those of us living in states with legalization already up and running are to be taken into any consideration, my hunch is that these prophecies of doom will not materialize.

[countryjake]

292. "We need grown-ups in charge in Washington...

...to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it's in fact a very real danger."

"Good people don't smoke marijuana."

"You can't have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana like it is no different than taking a drink… It is different… It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal."

Those are all statements made by a rather mature Jeff Sessions.

So do you agree with him?

[beam me up scottie]

365. Nicely done!

I remember when conservatives said the same thing about marriage equality, if it passes WE ARE ALL DOOMED! Pestilence, disease, two grooms on a wedding cake! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

They're always on the wrong side of history but they never learn.

Hiya countryjake!

[George II]

311. I guess I'm confused, what does cannabis legalization have to do with this discussion?

[Warren DeMontague]

312. Maybe distill what exactly we're discussing down to a sentence or two, and I'll get back to you?

[George II]

313. More than 300 responses to the OP, and you want me to "distill" what we're discussing....

...down to a sentence or two?

[Warren DeMontague]

314. Then I guess I'm not off topic, am I.

[George II]

316. I don't understand. Why not distill it for me.

[Warren DeMontague]

321. You put the lime in the coconut

and then, you drink it all up.

[George II]

325. Lime? Coconut? What are you talking about?

[R B Garr]

363. Pfffft. Per post 256, it's Hamlet idioms all the way.

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/

Copied from post 256, lol
here is the definition of hoisted by your own petard:


From the play Hamlet (III.iv.207) by Shakespeare:

hoist by one's own petard

(idiomatic) To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

[beam me up scottie]

355. That left a mark.

[R B Garr]

357. Really? That? What would Shakespeare think?

WWST

[Expecting Rain]

320. Right, this thread is about the hypocracy of criticizing Dianne Feinsten...

Last edited Sun Sep 3, 2017, 10:03 AM - Edit history (2)

while people who can't be mentioned without alerts going off did the same thing.

Bashing DEMOCEATS seems like a popular sport on DU.

Odd.

[George II]

368. When did this become a discussion about legalization of marijuana?