Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumpmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I saw that last night. Very funny.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)still recruiting more voters for Trump. U go Bern. Dont forget to keep those $27 a rollin in !
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I'm not a voter for Trump.
AND
You're mocking the historical, record breaking proof that individual donations CAN fund a presidential campaign and citizens united is unnecessary. (Hillary meanwhile uses it while saying it's bad. Ok lol)
What good are you doing with your feedback?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)mac56
(17,564 posts)You're being a dick.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)One more for the ignore list.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)By voting for Hillary, you're automatically choosing to give Trump more votes.
Sanders is still polling better than Hillary against Trump.
I've read stuff about Sanders' fantasy today, but the biggest fantasy is that Hillary is the best general election candidate.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...New Hampshire (or before, probably August) and what have they found?
Nada. NADA! Nothing but positives so that's what Brock attacks: Sanders' great record on civil rights, on women's rights, on gay rights, on veterans' rights, on economic fairness, on war. Tear him down! That's all they can try to do.
It is absolutely laughable to say that Sanders "has never been vetted" with a candidate like Clinton as the opposition. She does 'research.' Ask Barack Hussein Obama.
As for Sanders having "lost," why are you here, wasting your precious time when you've already "won"?
Why spend your time getting nasty on Sanders and spitting on my California vote if it doesn't matter?
You know it does. You know that California matters. You know that California can give Sanders the nomination, after which he will demolish Trump. (And your candidate is polling so poorly she could actually lose to the biggest hot air balloon who ever ran for president.)
You have reason to worry, lewebley3! It. is. not. over.
leftcoastmountains
(2,968 posts)Keep it up, you guys are doing great for the other side.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)After all of these years I alerted on my first post yesterday. The post said that all Bernie supporters were Trump supporters anyway. They voted 4-3 to leave it with one Hillary supporter writing the longest comment I have ever seen from a juror telling Bernie supporters to get in line.
I had someone tell me today that we pretty much all suck it's winner take all and Hillary doesn't need to change anything to get our votes. I guess we are to all fall in line as the spoils of war, as slaves who now must do whatever Hillary says. She does not have to earn our vote!
Sorry but that is not true, not how Democracy is supposed to work!
TBF
(32,000 posts)at least with that particular poster.
Gary 50
(381 posts)Nope. Hillary is the one recruiting for the orange haired orangutan. Bernie beats him handily. Hillary, with her huuuuge negative popularity might squeak out a win but will probably end up losing. Then, of course, she will blame Bernie for her loss. She will take no responsibility for her God awful campaign. If she would just stop lying and renounce her lifelong neoliberal policies and release her slimy transcripts and apologize for her war mongering and support of fracking and disastrous trade policies and renounce her corporatism and at least pretend to want to change the utterly corrupt political system we now have where corporations and the one percent have all of the political power and the rest of us have only the illusion of any influence on the political system. But no, she wont do any of these things because she likes the status quo and wants only incremental window dressing change. Bernie is not the problem. Hillary is.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Sanders is not Dem: I wouldn't want to defend him: and
we have had a contest and he has lost.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)To imply that Sanders is a Communist because he is not a pro-corporate "New Democrat" is laughable but also a clear indication of how far to the right US society has moved over the past 40 years.
TBF
(32,000 posts)and isn't that interesting on a democratic site?
BTW, your little "contest" included widespread voter sabotage and suppression. Do you really think Bernie supporters are going to put up with that and then accept your little coronation? That's delusional.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hurt everyone and Hillary.
TBF
(32,000 posts)but it's good to know what the spin is going forward.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...and found that it is utterly useless, and hugely counter-productive, against a New Deal Democrat? Today there is no "communist menace" to use as a launching pad to shoot down common sense proposals like a $15/hr minimum wage or free public college tuition (which we once had, and lost to Reaganism). They can't go back to Nixon and resurrect McCarthyism and red-baiting. It won't work today, because the enemy is not "communism," it is CORPORATISM, and everybody knows that now. And they can't go all the way back to the 1930s and resurrect the rightwing bullshit "communist" slur against FDR, because...well, look what it got them then?
Dear, dear lewebley3, your arguments are so empty! "Sanders is not Dem." It's like you don't even have the energy to type out more words than that. Do you think the 40+% of the electorate who are now independents give a goddamn if New Deal Democrat Sanders is "not Dem" in your empty, airless, fact-less opinion?
You think that independents giving Sanders the edge in demolishing Trump--in every national poll since January--is because he is running for the Democratic nomination? I've got news for you. The transglobal corporations, the banksters and the war profiteers have hijacked the Democratic Party, which now has a bad smell to at least 40+% of the electorate--many of them disaffected Democrats for the very reason that their party has been hijacked by their enemies--and to many, many Democrats still within the party as well (including yours truly)--and, believe me, someone who has stood apart from the horror of our hijacked party, and has maintained a true-blue advocacy of New Deal policies, Bernie Sanders, is THE ANSWER. He is a real Democrat--and Clinton is not.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I'll say this once, and you'll ignore it. But at least it's said.
1) If the contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton results in Hillary Clinton's public image suffering even more, then there's something of substance there that should be examined carefully by her campaign and sensible supporters. It's a goddamn gift at this point, well before the general election, rather than a negative.
2) If Sanders's campaign is bringing in support from a lot of non-party-affiliated voters and some Republicans, who might otherwise consider someone like Trump as a just-barely-tolerable alternative to Hillary Clinton, what the hell are we doing shooing them away? We could be sacrificing the Democratic party's greatest opportunity in decades for a truly massive shift in power. And if they go back and vote for someone like Trump, they would have done so, probably in greater numbers, in the absence of the campaign of Bernie Sanders.
Don't fucking blame Sanders or his supporters for an actual exercise in democracy which reveals weaknesses among the party machinery's highly-undemocratic shoo-in choice for the nomination.
The only ones to blame for that are the assholes who meticulously organized what was, for them and Clinton, supposed to be an uncontested march to the nomination. They are the ones you should be directing your animosity toward.
Of course, that would require some independent thought and a lot more work than completely misdirected but, apparently, personally gratifying attacks against people against whom you have an absurdly foolish ongoing grudge against.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Khellendross
(28 posts)And several states still have yet to vote, including the most populous, California.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)"It ain't over till it's over." And it ain't over until DC votes!
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)what the general election vote looks like? You're only thinking about Democratic votes. No one, not even Jesus Christ could win with only Democratic votes. Just read in the latest polls that Trump has virtually tied Clinton now in 3 important swing states - Ohio is one of them. If not for closed primaries, where would Clinton stand now?
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)voters, over 40% of the voting public. Let's hope the Democrats lack of vision, petty corruption and weak candidate in Hillary will not derail them in the general like it did in 1980 and 2000 against what were considered weak, even clownish, Republican candidates.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Nothing you ever write is ever remotely on point. I've seen you repost the exact same thing 3 times during one thread. And I don't get around that much - I'd have to assume that 3 times is far from your record.
And you do get poor suckers who bother to argue with you. Is that the point? Just waste a lot of people's time and energy?
Now I'm curious to see if you respond to me with something like 'you Sanders supporters really should face reality...'
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)random crap. Personally, I don't mind losing if I've had a good time playing. It's not much fun winning all of the time, as it's really not winning if you're so much better that you never lose.
Of course, lots of people treat politics like a game, so I suppose you mean that I don't like seeing a candidate for office who I support not getting elected.
If I 'didn't like' that, at least anywhere near the extent to which you seem to relish the experience of taunting people who support different candidates than you, I'd have given up on the Democratic party and politics years ago.
So, no, you aren't on point. No one is 'always on point.' Everyone misconstrues something sometime. Even responding to me you had to insert a pointless remark - 'and you don't like losing.' It had nothing to do with the topic I raised, and it added nothing to the discussion, except, I assume, for you.
You see, being 'on point' doesn't depend only on your view of whether what you say is relevant or not. It's largely dependent upon whether others find relevance in what you say. You don't just decide 'whatever I say is relevant and the hell with whatever anyone else thinks.' Relevance doesn't work that way.
Keep shaking that magic 8 ball that generates your ready-made and utterly irrelevant insults. Just remember that pissing people off doesn't mean you've made your point. The only point you make is that what you have to say is pointless to listen to.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)world: just like Sanders as has nothing to do with reality.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Here's what I wrote:
"Now I'm curious to see if you respond to me with something like 'you Sanders supporters really should face reality...'"
And I'll be damned if you didn't do almost exactly that, with a few words sequenced differently.
Seriously, get some help, man.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)I was in majority but please let that vote not discourage your use of a little vocabulary discression.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I've just seen so much of that poster's garbage...
Not an excuse, though.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Thanks for this post. It boggles my mind how they insult Bernie Supporters (whom BTW are not all Dems) to no end and then start asking for their help to defeat Trump (even though the DNC Primaries are still going on). Almost all new voters have been going for Trump or Sanders, which speaks volumes about the type of people they can attract.
Let's see if the piss and pat strategy works in November should she steal the Nom.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)but that's just me.
Response to Cryptoad (Reply #2)
demwing This message was self-deleted by its author.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)Bernie's just telling the truth.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You only hurt yourself, and you certainly don't have any faith in people who can only afford small donations.
Guess the corporate donors like that, so you and the Donald have THAT going for you.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)the Q of where is the funding come from for political representation of the people living in poverty who do not have any money to donate, but u have projected it away from the Q.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You mean Bernie Sander's big plans for making public post-secondary schools tuition-free, as many of them were before the military budgets bloated themselves over aircraft that could not fly and nuclear weaponry?
You mean Bernie Sander's big plans to build a single-payer health care system that would have had advanced above and beyond the ACA that he was consulted on, but which did not even venture the public option under Obama, since Obama was still trying to negotiate with the Republicans?
You mean Bernie Sanders big plans to invest in repairing our crumbling infrastructure and upgrading it for a future built on clean transport and energy to sustain and improve the lives of Americans?
And, after all the posts from the Bernie Sanders supporters here on DU with working links to explain an economic plan, you still wonder where all the money is going to come from?
You want someone to put you up on their lap, tuck a napkin into your collar and explain the "pay-fors" that have been emphasize when he talks about eliminating tax breaks for the rich and corporations. This means that you don't look at discretionary spending, or you don't see how much is spent on military budgets. Do you bother to examine any big changes to the tax code on the revenue side? Sanders has addressed the need to look at spending, over on the other side of the ledger, and particularly at the big ticket items in the "discretionary" budget, the one that Congress votes on every year. Pay attention to this, the biggest ticket of them all. Because, by far, is the military's share of the budget that President Barack Obama just unveiled, it accounts for more than all the other government departments. Bernie Sanders has a strong track record of training his sights on that target, too. He not stood with only two other Democratic senators in opposing the 2014 defense bill, for example, calling it bloated "particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation." He also explained his vote, by noting that this budget had nearly doubled since 2001, not counting the billions in the separate budget on top of this to pay for the wars we are actually fighting.
(note to Cryptoad: The Bush wars of aggression, which Hillary voted to support, and Bernie Sanders did not, were OFF BUDGET)
President Dwight Eisenhower's famously declared that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Wall Street speculation should as well be taxed as the source of revenue to balance this, as well as 0.2% payroll tax for providing Universal Health Care (recall, that this eliminates the private insurance industry's ability to profit, and the ever-skyrocking premium and deductibles that all of us "lucky" enough to have a health insurance plan currently have to apply.) That actually saves families thousands of dollars for health care while the Wall Street speculation revenue provides public funding to extend education.
The fact is, any of this information (which should be redundant by now if you actually followed up any of the excellent explanation by other DU contributors) won't be enough, as you continue to cry and wretch and fidget with a ever-whining crescendo that won't stop until you have more and more posters put you on ignore.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I guess u dont understand the Q since u refuse to address it.... oh yea love the Bern health plan that taxes people living in poverty.......
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Good luck with your comprehension. The land of ignorance is populated by willfulness.
Questioning is good, but being responsible enough to follow the instructions of what Americans pay for the present health care system shows just how unwilling some people are who claim they are Democrats when all they are is willfully ignorant.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)ananda
(28,831 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...looking for his income tax returns?
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ...
George II
(67,782 posts)....and the Personal Financial Disclosure is required by federal election laws.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Get a life...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,952 posts)SUPRISE. do NOT count chickens when all you have is EGGS.
lasttrip
(1,013 posts)Peace.
LT
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Norrin Radd
(4,959 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Thank you for sharing. I don't watch much on TV that is not a cooking show or educational so I miss some of these good blips!
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Love it.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)You know how the M$M is. They will blow anything out of proportion. Even if it's not true.