2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Clinton Campaign Is Screwed
They can't attack Bernie for what he stands for, because he stands for the 99%, and always has.
They can't attack his record, because it is as close to spotless as any DEMOCRAT could possibly have.
The can only make up shit, and use broad labels.
They know if they openly lie, which is sop for most campaigns, it will blow up in their face (again).
They are smart, they will surely find ways to attack him / us the 99%.
It is coming, believe me.
Either way, the Clinton Campaign is screwed.
Bernie represents me, and the rest of the working stiffs, and the uninsured by the way.
Hillary has one foot in the trough, and is trying to triangulate.
http://www.amazon.com/Pigs-Trough-Corporate-Corruption-Undermining/dp/1400051266
Sorry, but it is what it is.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And the anti-corporate backlash
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)and he has no plan to get anything done: He only came up
with a Health Care plan two hrs becore the debate.
He has been saying he has a health care plan he does not"
he also cannot break up the banks.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)care, raising the minimum wage, restoring Glass-Steagel, repealing Citizen's United, higher taxes on the higher incomes, taking the cap of social security taxation, getting together to address climate change, breaking up the "too big to fail" banks? etc.
Are you opposed to these programs Bernie espouses? You can sure bet the Republicans consider them socialist and want to destroy them.
What about you?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 21, 2016, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)
some who has never been vetted or wants to give out free stuff
without anyway to play for it.
Sanders is just like Trump with ideas they are unworkable, and he
doesn't have clue who is going to play for the programs. It is guaranteed
he doesn't have any votes for this scheme.
Dem's are not for High taxes, we are for a progressive fair tax system.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And is the GOPs worst nightmare.
More defeatism.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
cannabis_flower
(3,914 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)It follows a pattern of socialism very deeply.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Repeating Breitbart rumors does not equal vetting, sorry.
The honeymoon story began at Breitbart in late May, then moved on to other right-wing venues, finally getting play in George Will's August 7 column in the Washington Post. Most of his column was devoted to praise for ex-communist Robert Conquest, who had written about the prisons and other atrocities of the Stalin era and had just died at age 98.
In 1988, Burlington sistered with Yaroslavl, a city 160 miles north of Moscow. That was the same year Sanders married his second wife, Jane. In fact, the day after they married, they headed out to Yaroslavl. So, one could call it a honeymoon, and the pair have both done so, but jokingly or sarcastically. The reason for that is that they didn't go alone. There were 10 other people from Burlington who went with them. It was a trip dotted with diplomacy, official meetings and numerous interviews. Not most people's idea of a honeymoon getaway.
As usual your right wing fantasy is incorrect. But you will keep repeating it anyway.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18509/anderson-coopers-claim-about-bernie-sanders-soviet-union-honeymoon-was-redb
IllinoisBrenel
(51 posts)Diplomacy is her last option!
tecelote
(5,155 posts)Regime change in the Middle East is more important than healthcare for all.
Hillary feels a need to be more hawkish than the Repubs.
'Not my priorities.
Paka
(2,760 posts)...Bernie and Jane waived aside their honeymoon to fulfill his obligation as Mayor to the citizens who elected him. It could all depend upon what prism you are looking through. A true Public Servant!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Like talking to a tree. And not the sort of tree one finds in a Terry Pratchett novel.
cannabis_flower
(3,914 posts)We wanted to see if Sanders actually honeymooned on the turf of the United States’ former adversary during the final years of the Cold War.
Sister cities
The trip took place while Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vt., from 1981 to 1989. Toward the end of his mayoral tenure, the small city on Lake Champlain launched a sister-city program with Yaroslavl, located 160 miles northeast of Moscow.
The program, which is still operating today, has facilitated exchanges between the two cities involving "mayors, business people, firefighters, jazz musicians, youth orchestras, mural painters, high school students, medical students, nurses, librarians and the (Yaroslavl) ice-hockey team," according to its website.
Along with sister-city relationships with Bethlehem in the West Bank and Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, the Yaroslavl program was part of Sanders’ unorthodox attempt to take on international issues from a small city in New England. Sanders also actively pursued his agenda outside of the country, writing letters to world leaders and even traveling to Cuba to meet with the mayor of Havana.
"Burlington had a foreign policy," he wrote in his 1997 book Outsider in the House, "because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world."
The bond between Burlington and Yaroslavl solidified when Sanders and his wife, as members of a 12-person delegation from Burlington, paid their Soviet counterparts a visit in 1988.
The timing of the trip was unusual. Bernie and Jane were married May 28, 1988. The delegation left Burlington the next day.
"Trust me," Sanders writes in the book. "It was a very strange honeymoon."
When reached for comment, Sanders’ campaign said that the dates for the trip had already been set, and the couple "set their wedding date to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Bill De Blagio was there as well. Didn't seem to stop them from gaining office.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You continue to say things on this board that appear that are unsourced opinions. It's like you searched commentary and cut and pasted the last insult on that search.
It doesn't hold water and you have absolutely no connection of "patterns of socialism", which is even more of a bizarre claim.
Two questions for you to address, so that you can demonstrate that you understand the term, "socialism"
True or False:
Social security is a pattern of socialism.
The American taxpayer bailing out of $700 Billion dollars on behalf of Wall Street is a pattern of socialism.
merrily
(45,251 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)You must be pretty old to remember the good old Cold War. It is ancient history to over half of Americans.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Have to rely on people getting to know about him and his policies?
Response to lewebley3 (Reply #39)
Post removed
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
IllinoisBrenel
(51 posts)Break up the banks (to prevent another financial meltdown); single payer healhcare (because healthcare is a right); making millionaires and billionaires pay their fare share (because they have not for so long); end corporate welfare (corporations are too powerful) and other ideas (more than 70% of Americans want! Thing Big Not Small!
840high
(17,196 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He has been in Congress since 1992. He has been vetted by voters over and over.
It's Hillary who has faced voters only twice and that in New York state only.
Nonsense.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Need to get to know who is and what he is about?
How does that work?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)For each voter. Think!
floriduck
(2,262 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders rhetoric, to make their ads look like Bernie ads:
I predicted this was going happen along: I have never trust the
Sanders campaign.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)affiliated with Rove?
It makes sense for Rove to attack Hillary or Bernie, the strongest of the three Dem candidates. I think one would have to be grasping at straws to then intuit that this means that the un-attacked candidate is being helped by Rove.
And you are willing to besmirch Bernie's reputation with something that Karl Rove does? Remember -- KARL THE MACHIAVELLIAN ROVE???
Really?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)this extreme.
"Pareidolia" goes to the familiar circumstance of being able to see faces in clouds, etc., and I think that this applies to your current ability to see a conspiracy with Bernie involved. Human beings are "pattern recognizing" organisms, and you are seeing a pattern where none exists.
if you, or a lot of the Hillary-supporters buy into it, Karl Rove's work is almost half done.
Do you think anything can convince you that there is no conspiracy?
stonecutter357
(12,958 posts)
pengu
(462 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster continually lies about Sen Sanders. Never backs up the lies.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:14 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ah, nope.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not even sure what would constitute "over-the-top" these days.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't care to participate in yet another iteration of DU primary internecine warfare. It doesn't violate the TOS, so IMO the alert specious. LEAVE IT.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Rove is underestimating Sanders just like Clinton did. It will cost them both when Sanders is elected president.
I wouldn't hide this even though it's completely wrong. It is just garden variety stupid. It is easily refuted with words.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
It's like you guys are so myopic that you think Hillary making $300,000 bucks a pop for hour-long speeches to Wall Street must be a right-wing fact, or a left-wing fact, rather than just a fact. Do you think Republican or Independent voters in a general election would look kindly upon that behaviour from a politician who would be in charge of overseeing a Wall Street's regulation in the future?
It would be up to Democrats to defend those decisions from attacks by Donald Trump that it's emblematic of political corruption between politicians and special interests. You're setting his argument up on a tee for him. And I, for one, wouldn't defend it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Just maybe a superpac against Hillary. But there is no proof that Bernie had anything to do with that superpac if it exists.
What utter nonsense.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Hillary is a tested and skilled liar, but I'm sure she would be ashamed of this bullshit post.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)is like trying to grab a fart. It's offensive, yet you have no choice but to let it dissipate. I predict that after South Carolina, the odor will abate! 
Blus4u
(608 posts)Oh so well said, Plucketeer.
Peace
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)if they are posting from out of the country. Just curious.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)AND I quit engaging when I started to think there's a genuine mental shortcoming. After awhile, you can't help but to wonder. AND.... by and large, it's just us here on DU that sees these posts. No big deal to just shine them on! 
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)can’t understand 80% of the meaning, let alone the content.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
INdemo
(7,024 posts)and if you are using a Karl Rove's script well you Forgot to say "This message approved by Hillary"
Funded by the GOP Crossroads? WTF are you talking about?
Try again if you feel the need.
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)But Karl Rove funding Bernie?
Now that's high-sterical 
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)What was her source? Did she rinse the poo off it before presenting it on her show, or did she 'report' as it came out?
DJ13
(23,671 posts)He/She is pulling it out of somewhere, but I doubt the air that comes out at the same time is all that thin.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
PatrickforO
(15,316 posts)A GOP crossroads PAC?
So...where do you get that? Because I'm thinking that me and millions of other small donors are funding the guy because HE REPRESENTS US not the oligarchs.
Now, here you are coming along accusing him of receiving clandestine GOP PAC funding?
Prove it. And while you're at it, tell us why you aren't a troll...
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Bernis is taking money from Karl Rove's organization? Do you mean this? There's nothing here about Bernie taking money from Crossroads. There is something that might suggest a pattern of propping up Bernie to tear down Hillary, which in turn suggests that some Republican believe they will have an easier time beating Bernie. The reality is that wither Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton will defeat any of the clowns seeking the GOP nomination. If Karl Rove wants to play that game, he's welcome to play it, but it won't do the GOP presidential candidate any good.
Yes, Bernie is a socialist. Dishonest? Just ask him about it and see how dishonest he is. He'll tell you he's a democratic socialist. Usually, the press spells democratic with a capital D, but I think it is clear that Senator Sanders is more committed to the principles of parliamentary democracy than to any particular political party. That may play into what some at Camp Weathervane say, but I don't have a problem with it. I would hope that all Democrats are more committed to the principles of the parliamentary democracy than to a political party, and that distinguishes the Democrats in a positive way from the party that steals elections for an incompetent spoiled brat like Bush the Frat Boy, passes laws to make it more difficult for poor people to vote, etc.
If he restores the status quo ante for banking regulation to 1999 or even 1980, how is that unworkable? Americans enjoyed 50 years under that regulatory regime with no major financial crises. Within ten years of passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, we had a major meltdown street that crashed the world economy. What's unworkable is neoliberalism. If you like neoliberalism, vote for Hillary or for a Republican. If not, it seems the only viable candidate for you is Bernie Sanders.
He doesn't have a clue who to play (sic; do you mean "who is going to pay"?) for the programs.
They will be paid for by rolling back the tax cuts billionaires have received since the beginning of the era of voodoo economics (AKA neoliberalism, supply-side economics, trickle-down economics or Reaganomics), especially the tax cuts passed under Bush the Frat Boy that have never been repealed. Given the state of income inequality and the persistent loss of US manufacturing jobs, there is no evidence that voodoo economics works as advertised. Far from showcasing the power of the free market, the middle class has shrunk noticeably during this period, giving the lie to any propaganda about the rich being "job creators." We've been living under the regime of voodoo economics for 35 years and if it was going to produce anything worthwhile, it would have by now. Its demise is long overdue.
It is guaranteed he doesn't have any votes for this schemes (sic).
He's got mine.
Dem's (sic) are not for High taxes, we are for a progressive fair tax system.
Voodoo economics does not endorse the concept of a "progressive fair tax system." That's why don't have a progressive tax system after 35 years of voodoo economics. The underlying assumption of voodoo tax policy is that the rich are lightly taxed because they use the revenue to create jobs. Do you still believe that? During this period, Democrats have been ineffective at restoring a progressive take system. Even billionaires like Warren Buffet have a problem with the unfairness of the tax system as it currently stands. Moreover, Democrats have been ineffective at holding congressional or legislative majorities during this period when the party's establishment, personified by incompetent national chairmen like Terry McAuliffe and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have displayed a bias toward recruiting candidates who support neoliberal policies that have less popular appeal than more robust government policies like the New Deal and Great Society.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)crossroads Pac. I want the details.
FDR's plans were also unworkable until FDR worked them.
Republicans still claim, after all these years, and so many lives saved, that Medicare and Social Security are unworkable.
What is unworkable is the pessimism, the "can't do" attitude of the Clinton campaign. As the Friends of Bill and Hillary will find out in the end.
Please read my post on the Weimar Republic.
We either make democracy work for all the people or we will end up with a very different, very ugly form of government.
Those are, realistically, our choices.
That is, we will end up with an ugly form of government provided the environment doesn't end our existence before then.
We have one choice: work together and support each other.
It's the same in families. It's the same in nations.
I cannot support any candidate whose policies divide America. I think Hillary's do. You cannot take money from Wall Street and other wealthy people and then turn around and work for ordinary people. As we have seen over the past 40 years, that cannot be done.
NAFTA is an abomination for most Americans. And Mexico is in bad shape in part because of it too.
dflprincess
(29,107 posts)Where have I heard that phrase before?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you think that Social Security is "free stuff"? Do you think foodstamps are free stuff" Do you think that helping college students get a college education involves "free stuff"? The Republicons do and since you mentioned it, I am guessing you do also. Tell me otherwise.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)On Fri Jan 22, 2016, 06:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
You've exposed yourself. "Giving out free stuff" is right wing talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1044546
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing a member of being right wing and a republican.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 22, 2016, 06:25 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: As always, Clinton surrogates of DU whining " rw talking points" and accusing other the bart of their fantasy- conspiracy.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems like this isn't the only post in reply to that post where the RW line is being spouted.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It GD-P - designed to be a cesspool where Democrats can call each other names. If this were in a 'real' forum, I would vote to hide it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: #24 is more hide-worthy than this defense of Bernie.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the shoe fits...
stonecutter357
(12,958 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)If we do not have a vision for what we want our country to be, then will continue to slide into becoming a 3rd world nation with most people barely making a living.
I have lived in Democratic Socialist nations in Europe and even their taxes are not much higher than ours but they have free healthcare, 5-8 weeks paid vacation a year plus holidays, childcare, often free or almost free college, etc.
Yes we can have all this if everyone pays his/her/ its fair share of taxes.
You have drank the Kool Aid, my friend.
Bohunk68
(1,412 posts)Here's a clue for you: show links and put up or shut up. Simple as that, otherwise you are just nothing but a Bernie hater with a 0% chance of serving on a jury.
stonecutter357
(12,958 posts) 
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)It is simply untrue!
Thanks
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)of getting done, and he Sanders knows it.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Please don't lie like that. You know it's a lie, so please stop it. Thank you very much.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I have never seen him or her provide a link.
I would not risk a hide. JMO
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
shawn703
(2,712 posts)Donaldus Dukkis?
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Birds of a feather, you know.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)sasquuatch55
(724 posts)Lewebley3, you, dividing and trash talking the Democratic party candidate will only aid the Republicans in victory. I support Bernie, but if Hillary gets the nomination instead, I will be in full support of her.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)You probably will never learn the ACTUAL truth.
Read my tagline, the whole thing goes:
"Understanding is a three-edged sword. There's your side, her side, and the TRUTH!"
It comes from my favorite science fiction show, Babylon 5, Written by J. Michael Straczynski.
It holds a whole lot of truth in itself.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That replaced the one filed in 2009.
The progressive democratic caucus has been filing similar legislation for a very long time.
"No We Can't"
Perhaps the worst campaign meme in memory.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Then why does Forbes find so many socialist/socialist leaning countries such good places to do business?
http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/
#1 Denmark
#2 New Zealand
#3 Norway
#4 Ireland
#5 Sweden
#6 Finland
#7 Canada
#8 Singapore
#9 Netherlands
#10 United Kingdom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)A strong prosperous middle class is a prerequisite for a country to be business-friendly.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)They want an American system, which is a mix a economy.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It's the right wing that is working for purity; "pure unregulated capitalism" that is.
The mixed economy policies Bernie advocates are supported by 70+% of the people. So you see, you are actually a Bernie supporter without even knowing it. 
Is it physically painful to be that out of touch with reality?
reACTIONary
(6,903 posts)..... which we already have, why doesn't he call himself a liberal rather than a socialist ? Why doesn't he have a picture of FDR in his office rather than Debbs ?
It doesn't make sense.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)TubbersUK
(1,504 posts)You'd like it 
reACTIONary
(6,903 posts)....and you might like it. We do.
TubbersUK
(1,504 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)We have a "mixed economy" with a mix that is 99% for the 1% and 1% for everyone else.
reACTIONary
(6,903 posts)..... an expansion of the welfare state, what you want is not socialism, and it's a waste of political capital to insist that it is.
Even bernie's admired Sweeden is not "socialist", but instead is called an "extended welfare state" by its PM. A more useful example of a democratic socialist country may be Venezuela - and you can be sure that would be the example used against bernie should he make it to the GE.
The American prolitariate have it much, much better than you claim, and they know it, and they aren't going to give it up for some pie in the sky "socialist revolution".
kristopher
(29,798 posts)All you are doing this entire thread is creating definitions out of whole cloth and trying to smear the underlying ideas with your distortions. The thing about this campaign is THAT CRAP DOESN'T WORK.
YOUR LABELS WITHOUT IDEAS ARE MEANINGLESS, AND THE IDEAS THEMSELVES ARE IMMUNE TO YOUR MEANINGLESS LABELS.
As someone kind of said:
Bernie - Because... Fuck Your Shit!
reACTIONary
(6,903 posts).... "Bernie Because Fuck Your Shit" - going to win over the hearts and minds of the American people with that.
Suggested follow up: "Bernie: Making America Norwegian Again" That'll put him over the top!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Especially when directed at those who aren't part of the solution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027556362
reACTIONary
(6,903 posts)..... an inarticulate cry of desperation from those who don't really have it all together.
LS_Editor
(920 posts)Because trying is hard.
Pathetic.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)He proposed single-payer legislation two years ago.
And we'll see about breaking up the banks. Maybe he'll just use the legislation that's already in the books.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,536 posts)I believe that you are trying to project Hillary's dishonesty onto Bernie, it won't stick.
Hillary critisized Bernie for voting to deregulate Wall Street when in fact that portion was slipped in an Omnibus spending bill to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. The deregulation was drafted by one of her husbands minions who happens to be the current CFO of her campaign! You want to call Bernie dishonest, really? The level of deceit to attack Bernie for something that she, Bill and their minion did to serve Wall Street is deplorable. Bernie, on his worst day would never do anything remotely as dishonest and hurtful to the vast majority of Americans as to get in bed with the Wall Street crooks that Bill and Hillary sleep with!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)who is lying to them. There are two sides to the class war and you seem to side with HRC and the 1%.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Isn't a very good platform. But, if that is what you want to run on go for it.
Orrex
(66,522 posts)Anyone who doesn't "feel the Bern" is assumed to be afraid of him. This has been true since before he decided he was a Democrat and declared his candidacy.
The mantra is repeated on DU many times daily, frequently appearing on the front page.
It's a convenient way to pretend to be taking the high road while simultaneously calling your opponent a coward. Would Sanders endorse this passive-aggressive tactic so beloved by his supporters? I rather suspect that he is of stronger character than that.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think Clinton is the frontrunner with less than two weeks to go. I think Sanders support of Pauls Tea Party "Audit the Fed" bill is playing bigger than some think. The attempt to politicize monetary policy even more, the attempt to hurt our economy, is most felt by Clintons base. I believe the more recent support of Paul, combined with the attacks on PP and the HRC, have absolutely energized Clintons base of support at the perfect time. Sanders scorched earth campaign isn't looking as pretty as some are trying to make it out to be.
Clintons numbers are extremely solid in almost every single state in the union. Iowans are not going to appreciate the republican interference going on, and the talk of that is all going in one direction.
"They can't attack his record"
Multiple votes against a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people.
Supports Pauls Tea Party legislation to "Audit the Fed."
Numerous votes in support of the Gun Industry.
It simply goes on.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)So I guess the latest Clinton talking point is that she'll win votes by making her alliance with the Federal Reserve more explicit!
Talk about living in the bubble world of Goldman Sachs speaking gigs!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Is a bit more than a talking point for progressive democrats. It is full on Tea Party. That is simply a fact.
Ron Green
(9,866 posts)it's homeopathetic!
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)Is a bit more that a talking point for progressive democrats. It is being a warmonger. That is simply fact..
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And she's promoted war with Iran, just like McCain.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)stonecutter357
(12,958 posts) scottie55
(1,400 posts)Or as Bernie puts it "the establishment" helping her.
The gravy train is big and wide.
Many of these folks are good folks by the way.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Baitball Blogger
(51,584 posts)Is single payer an example of a baiting ploy that a candidate supports when they have a reasonable belief that it will never pass into law? And then, when it comes close to being realized, the candidate shows his or her true colors when they fight against it?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)still controls the EVM's. I realize that such equipment is not used in every voting spot, but maybe they're used in enough? Who knows, but I for one don't trust them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)New Hampshire uses paper ballots, although in some precints they are machine-scanned. They are all audited by hand in case of a recount.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I don't know why we can't examine the software program that counts our votes. This corporate "super-secret proprietary software" defense is pure bullshit. We need paper ballots counted in public view with both/all sides present.
I'll say this: if it is ever proven there was/is hanky-panky going on with the electronic voting machines, there'll be Hell to pay that would make "torches and pitchforks" look like child's play!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)in all of it that really bothers me. I can get a printed receipt from a gas pump, or an ATM, or even a postage stamp kiosk...but I can't get a printout of my vote? Is that by accident, or by design? I think I know now what "Help America Vote" was all about...if you should accidentally vote for a non-establishment candidate, they'll "help" help you out by correcting your vote to a more "acceptable" candidate.
Bohunk68
(1,412 posts)IOW, we can go back and hand count the actual ballot. The electronic readers are tested and retested and retested against the actual ballots cast. I have confidence in our elections. Very little confidence in those states that use the computers from Diebold, etc.
questionseverything
(11,507 posts)this is why it is so important for bernie's campaign to count us ahead of time
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's an attack only when candidate A does it, sincere and well-meant criticism when candidate B does it.
It's triangulation only when candidate A does it, well-meaning outreach when candidate B does it.
"Sorry, but it is what it is." Part II 
I'm confident the current plague of myopia will recede to normal levels after the primaries.
Nitram
(26,811 posts)...gratuitous attacks on her and her supporters. No need to flog a dead horse.
Fla Dem
(27,393 posts)count for something. A RW plant perhaps to smear HRC because the Repugs would like nothing better than to run against BS.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)There is no one alive that hates the GOP more than I.
I wish we could just refer to Republicans as simply Evil Republicans. It would fit almost 100% of the time for 100% of the things they do to impress the least intelligent Americans.
I just think Bernie has been fighting the good fight for his whole career, and the other candidate, well, she has had to impress a few plutocrats from time to time....
forest444
(5,902 posts)
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
TM99
(8,352 posts)On Thu Jan 21, 2016, 01:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
"Did someone say 'screw'?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1040837
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Disgusting on a "progressive" website. Everyday we sink to a new low around here.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 21, 2016, 01:34 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is a joke. Hardly hide worthy. I have seen the same leveled at Sanders, so I am not going to vote to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Juvenile, immature humor. Denigrating a former Democratic President.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It was a joke...
I hadz a lol.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: this is absolutely ridiculous on a Democratic site . . . hide and tombstone
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)AR AR AR AR AR AR AR!!!!!
forest444
(5,902 posts)As a man who knows how to laugh at himself, I'm sure President Clinton would agree.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)he never took himself too seriously.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)The more they Red Bait, the more SUPPORTERS he gets.
The more they Red Bait, the more people see them for what they are....unethical, lying, lowlife political hacks who will do anything to win an election. EVEN while being under FBI investigation and having MORE THAN TOP SECRET files on her private server.
Voters will reject her AGAIN. They don't find her honest (because she's not), they find her untrustworthy (because she is) and she's a Wall St. insider. NOT acceptable to the 99%.
99% > 1% and the 99% is going to win...tune into one of Bernie's rallies and you'll see where the REAL power is.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and it is already backfiring in a big way.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)quit, save a pile of money and time. Spend more time with their families, that kind of thing.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Do there is plenty to attack him on.
Clinton just sucks at campaigns.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your endless attacks on Sanders and his policy proposals have just devastating here.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)She sucks at a lot more than just campaigning....it just shows up as campaign missteps...
Orsino
(37,428 posts)For a relative unknown to defeat a household name is not the work of a few months. Sanders is doing magnificently, IMO, but having to do that was a given. He must continue that magnificence through some primary ballots, or he won't win the nomination.
If he does thay, and I think he can, it will have been on the strength of his better message.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)from day one. They have brief episodes of going all republican over Sander's policy proposals, but that shit most of them can't get behind so it fizzles out. The narrative where Sanders is a bad person seems to be one they can manage to sustain internally.
Faux pas
(16,012 posts)mudstump
(351 posts)when Hillary attacks me she is attacking you the people.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)In plain English.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)She is a manipulative liar, a self -absorbed and "entitled" queen of America.
Actually, she is an untrustworthy liar, a greedy actress, who is more concerned about her family's riches (well, hard to argue against that.) than the welfare of the country.
beaglelover
(4,405 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)All republicans hate her, and now a large portion of the democratic base despises her.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)There, I Said It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511043687
DrBulldog
(841 posts). . . they are now banning pro-Bernie posters from her Facebook page. Ha!
OhZone
(3,216 posts)Things haven't really changed much -
7/2/2015
1/21/2016
mike_c
(36,883 posts)I finally realized that the democratic establishment jammed increasingly right centrist candidates down the throats of progressive liberals year after year by invoking the threat that the current election-- no matter which election was the current one-- that this year's election was just too important to risk on the progressive candidate. Maybe in the next cycle. Time after time after time.
This time we have the opportunity to elect a real progressive. Maybe-- just maybe-- another president as visionary as FDR. The New Deal and its aftermath drove the expansion of American prosperity and a burgeoning middle class through the post war years and into the 1970s. That is the sort of alternative vision for American prosperity and economic, domestic policy that I have hoped would emerge from the democratic party for decades.
Senator Sanders is the candidate that I've been waiting for most of my adult life. I'm an unabashed socialist. I'm afraid that if establishment democrats prevail we will never have this opportunity again during my lifetime.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You do realize the idea as articulated in the TOS is to elect more DEMOCRATS and fewer REPUBLICANS to public office?
You couldn't find a soul you liked in 04? You couldn't make a choice in 08? You didn't bother to keep our POTUS on the job in 12?
Or do you just "not vote" and that way, you'll never have to worry about picking a loser?
dae
(3,396 posts)Servant. Hillary, NADA.
George II
(67,782 posts)CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)"The Clinton Campaign Is Screwed"
She's up in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, not to mention nationally. She's leading in endorsement and has more money.
How is she screwed?
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)She can not win the general election, so we are screwed if she is the nominee.
BlueMTexpat
(15,649 posts)a couple of months.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)he's very easy to attack.
Here's another hint: He's not representative of the 99%. He's barely got 30% of the Democratic ~55%.
Karma13612
(4,898 posts)Third wayers and blue dogs.
He doesn't need them.
He is getting independents and sane republicans.
He is a candidate for the people.
BainsBane
(57,250 posts)immunity for gun corporations "spotless," I suppose you have a point. If voting to allow armed guns into National Parks, Amtrack, and in cockpits is "spotless" in your book, that's your call. If you consider voting multiple times against Immigration reform and for the Minutemen spotless, so be it. Not all of us, however, agree with those policies. The "99%" includes more than the upper 20 percent, and it includes more than white men. It also includes the poor, working class, women and people of color--the majority of whom support Clinton. It even includes those of us in the subaltern who actually believe organizations that fight for our basic civil rights are not "establishment" or less important than one politician's career.
If voting for the crime bills he railed against is a spotless record, so be it. If voting to deregulate Wall Street while railing against it is spotless in your book, so be it. It is in my second-class opinion, as a second-class citizen, that the idea that his record is spotless requires a willful decision not to consider his votes and ever-evolving statements on a number of key issues. I myself don't regard that as "spotless," but I understand that many insist that Clinton rather than Bernie is responsible for the votes he himself cast, just like Clinton made Bernie call Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Council "establishment" and forced his campaign to harvest data from DNC servers.
Of all the adjectives I might use to describe Senator Sanders, spotless would not be among them. But then #ImSoEstablishment I think equal rights and organizations that have worked for 100 years to champion them more important than the career of a politician--any politician--even one deemed so superior to myself and much of the rest of the people he seeks to represent. But then I have an old fashioned view that our elected representatives are expected to work for the people rather than denounce them and the organizations that champion their basic rights, including those that work to protect my basic right to live rather than be killed in back-ally abortions.
But I fully understand that if one deems those causes and those segments of the population unimportant, Bernie's statements may not only be acceptable, they may attract new voters from the first-class demographic. You of course are within your rights to disregard concern for my life and my basic human rights, but you should really not use the term 99 percent when you are talking about a much more narrow segment of the population.
Bernie's attacks on Planned Parenthood has made clear he does not stand for me. His decision to leave the Hyde Amendment intact in his otherwise utopian medicare for all plan makes clear that he is comfortable with my remaining a second-class citizen (equal rights for me being "divisive" . That he attacks the only organization that provides reproductive healthcare to women throughout much of the US, tacitly encouraging some of his supporters efforts to join with the right in defunding Planned Parenthood, makes clear he does not stand for me.
I too am part of the 99 percent. True, I don't earn as much at the $80k+ a year that the average Sanders supporter does; I did not grow up middle-class and self-entitled. I do not long to return to the mid-20th century, when my family lived in crippling poverty, but I'm still an a voter, and I'm still part of the "99%", even if I started life at the 5 percent and through 40 years in the workforce manage to now be at the 50 percent mark, I still get a vote, even though it's quite clear that vote is deemed as inferior and second-class as my rights are.
Karma13612
(4,898 posts)Yea, sure.
Tell that to all the working stiffs and students and retirees voting for him. You could not be more wrong.
And I also should be voting for Hillary since I have a vagina, but I'm not.
BainsBane
(57,250 posts)I'm working on it. I have to admit, it's not easy getting my vagina ready to vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110733506
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)BainsBane
(57,250 posts)Polling demonstrates he is most popular among those making $80k+ a year.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251542288
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that is backed by the Big Money. Some of your accusations are total fabrications and the rest is total misrepresentations.
You choose to support the Wealthy so why don't you just come out and say it. Do you really think they, the Wealthy, will give a crap about the goals of PP? Or any social justice issues? They are responsible for the mess we are in today and you want to continue it. 50 million is an interesting number. That's the approx dollar amount H. Clinton has amassed in a short time mostly coming directly from Banks and Wall Street. 50 million is also the number of Americans living in poverty because of the greed of the Wealthy you support.
This is a class war and H. Clinton and the American Aristocracy are not on our side.
BainsBane
(57,250 posts)This is a link to Sanders voting record: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VqK1iyorLWI
Tell me what votes I fabricated.
Here is the link to FEC filings. Show me evidence for your assertion that Clinton's donations "come directly from Banks and Wall Street." http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do Then you should report your findings to the FEC since that would be a violation of campaign finance law.
I'm included on that list. Did you know I'm one of her biggest donors? I gave her $261 dollars in 2015, which puts me in the top 88% percentile of donors.
Yes, I understand the upper 20 percent is engaged in a "class war" with the upper 1 percent (minus, I presume, the hundreds or thousands of 1 percenters who are Sanders supporters, many of them celebrated right here on DU). Such internecine conflicts don't involve me. That the upper 20 percent pretends they are in the same position as the poor when they in fact have more than 99.5 percent of the world's population is a function of their self-entitlement. It would be one thing if they offered a critique of capitalism that acknowledged their own privilege and how they benefit from the system of global exploitation, but they do not. You insist I owe them my allegiance despite the fact they have rallied against every organization, cause, and individual, that fights for my basic rights, rights they consider inconsequential compared to the career of one man. That itself tells me the rights of the majority are not their priority. The absurd exaltation of one man above causes and civil rights organizations shows a worldview that is at its very essence inegalitarian. The fact that you yourself treat people like me and many others with such contempt likewise shows that your sloganeering is hollow rhetoric that belies a deep-seeded, hierarchical notion of human worth that is the antithesis of equality.
The primary struggle very clearly breaks down along class, race, and gender lines, only it is Clinton who benefits from more support from the poor, working class, women and people of color, while Sanders supporters average higher incomes. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
To listen to you, only the upper middle class is fit to decide what is right for those of us, and we--having fewer rights and less wealth--are siding with the wealthy. Obviously it makes no sense, but then sloganeering is designed to obfuscate.
Recent events have made clear who does and does not stand up for PP. I don't have to guess. I have evidence. Not only have some Sanders supporters aligned with the right in efforts to defund PP and with it the only reproductive healthcare available to women through large swaths of the US, but their leaders has given his tactic approval by denouncing the organization as "establishment" for the transgression of refusing to elevate his career above all else.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL, John Lewis, Sybrina Fulton, the mothers of Tamir Rice and Eric Garner, Gwen Carr, the Brady Campaign, countless other gun control groups, much of the congressional black caucus, and 99% of unions that have publicly endorsed: They are all on the other side of your class war. Isn't it time you faced up to the fact that are you are not fighting with or for the subaltern?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Republicons. The Clinton Campaign pulled some shenanigans to get PP for the first time ever, to turn their backs on supporting Democrats. PP essentially gave us the finger. Clinton must have promised something good to get that endorsement. This is the corruption of the Establishment that we are fighting. I guess when you have billions you can engage in dirty tricks and Swiftboating.
H. Clinton and her $50 millions is clearly in the Wealthy 1% whose greed gave us 50 million living in poverty. I guess that's what her supporters want. More profits for Goldman-Sachs and more poverty. Not very Democratic.
Karma13612
(4,898 posts)Be careful about that little assumption:
Union LEADERSHIP is not always representative of MEMBERSHIP.
A few unions have in fact endorsed Clinton and have gotten their asses handed to them by their membership who immediately rose up and stated their opposition.
My union among them.
SEIU leadership supports Hillary, but there was plenty of dissension from membership immediately following.
#Bernie16
BainsBane
(57,250 posts)Not a few. Every week there are endorsements from additional unions. And naturally the white bourgeoisie loves to tell unions how they are expected to serve them. Nothing new there.
Some of those unions have actually published their votes, but that of course is irrelevant--and not that they have any responsibility to do so to anyone but their own membership. And the rank and file union members turning out in Iowa and NH to canvass for Clinton, they are all corporate sell outs, just like Sybrina Fulton and the mothers of Tamir Rice and Eric Garner. Naturally anyone who doesn't prioritize Bernie's career above everything, especially organizations that provide healthcare to poor women or fight for marriage equality, is unfit to exercise their own democratic choices.
artyteacher
(598 posts)... the media is just using Sanded supporters to make you think it's a horse race so they can sell more clicks, more ads, more papers, and the like.