HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Dems, stop lying to yours...

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:21 AM

 

Dems, stop lying to yourselves about Hillary: Sure, she “gets s*** done” — atrocious s***, that is

The next line of attacks is designed to put Sanders supporters back on their heels: Clinton is a realist, warts and all, because she is a woman: “YOU DON’T LIKE THAT SHE PLAYS THE GAME? THAT SHE HAS TIES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT? FOR ONE THING, THAT’S HOW SHIT FUCKING GETS DONE. FOR THE OTHER THING, THE BIGGEST THING, A WOMAN DOESN’T GET THE FUCKING OPTION *NOT* TO PLAY THE GAME.”

To recap, Clinton voted to invade Iraq, backed job-killing trade agreements, suggested that black women on welfare were “deadbeats” who were “sitting around the house doing nothing,” called for “more police” and “more prisons” and “more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” and bases not only her campaign finances but her entire social universe on and amid the superrich who she resides among in Westchester and the Hamptons — because she is a realist who can get things done.

Or because she had to do it this way because she is a woman. Or both.

No matter Sanders’ legion of women supporters, including many outspoken socialists. This argument renders those women invisible in an effort to inoculate pro-Clinton women’s arguments from criticism. The fact that a Sanders supporter might also be a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, and in many cases initially lobbied for her to run for president, is also an automatic nonstarter, as Rebecca Traister made clear: “spare me the wistful paeans to Elizabeth Warren…citing a fondness for her as a get-out-of-sexism card is a dodge.”

Ad hominem attacks against Sanders supporters are on the rise after Iowa, and they are increasingly unkind. Clinton partisans are likely motivated by uncomfortable data points: 86-percent of women under 30 caucusing in Iowa said they support Sanders.

And so the sexism argument doesn’t wash. But since opposing Clinton necessarily entails some unsavory or unfortunate motivation, there are other arguments to pursue. Like that young people, God bless them, are innocent of how the world works.

“Bernie’s attractiveness as a candidate relies on the premise of purity — a political value as ancient as politics itself,” wrote The New Yorker’s Alexandra Schwartz, dismissing her youthful cohort for their naivete before knocking them for not even being very cool young people to begin with. “When his campaign tweets that it’s ‘high time we stopped bailing out Wall Street and started repairing Main Street,’ you have to wonder why his youngest supporters, so attuned to staleness in all things cultural, are letting him get away with political rhetoric that would have seemed old even in 2012.”

<snip>
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/dems_stop_lying_to_yourselves_about_hillary_sure_she_get_s_done_atrocious_s_that_is/

90 replies, 5616 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dems, stop lying to yourselves about Hillary: Sure, she “gets s*** done” — atrocious s***, that is (Original post)
cali Feb 2016 OP
bravenak Feb 2016 #1
cali Feb 2016 #2
Arazi Feb 2016 #5
bravenak Feb 2016 #6
daleanime Feb 2016 #27
bravenak Feb 2016 #28
thesquanderer Feb 2016 #55
bravenak Feb 2016 #58
thesquanderer Feb 2016 #63
bravenak Feb 2016 #64
hootinholler Feb 2016 #44
bravenak Feb 2016 #50
hootinholler Feb 2016 #51
JudyM Feb 2016 #85
Baitball Blogger Feb 2016 #3
bravenak Feb 2016 #4
Arazi Feb 2016 #7
bravenak Feb 2016 #10
Arazi Feb 2016 #13
bravenak Feb 2016 #14
Arazi Feb 2016 #15
bravenak Feb 2016 #17
Arazi Feb 2016 #19
bravenak Feb 2016 #21
Arazi Feb 2016 #23
bravenak Feb 2016 #24
Arazi Feb 2016 #25
bravenak Feb 2016 #26
Arazi Feb 2016 #29
bravenak Feb 2016 #32
Arazi Feb 2016 #37
bravenak Feb 2016 #38
Omaha Steve Feb 2016 #31
bravenak Feb 2016 #33
Omaha Steve Feb 2016 #36
bravenak Feb 2016 #40
Omaha Steve Feb 2016 #42
bravenak Feb 2016 #52
oasis Feb 2016 #77
sammythecat Feb 2016 #72
bravenak Feb 2016 #78
Akicita Feb 2016 #57
bravenak Feb 2016 #59
Akicita Feb 2016 #60
bravenak Feb 2016 #61
cali Feb 2016 #8
bravenak Feb 2016 #9
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #11
bravenak Feb 2016 #12
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #18
bravenak Feb 2016 #22
thesquanderer Feb 2016 #49
JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #39
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #43
hootinholler Feb 2016 #47
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #67
JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #65
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #68
JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #73
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #74
JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #76
Go Vols Feb 2016 #79
JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #89
thesquanderer Feb 2016 #66
thesquanderer Feb 2016 #48
jeff47 Feb 2016 #82
bravenak Feb 2016 #83
jeff47 Feb 2016 #84
bravenak Feb 2016 #86
jeff47 Feb 2016 #88
Vote2016 Feb 2016 #16
Cassiopeia Feb 2016 #81
senz Feb 2016 #20
jalan48 Feb 2016 #30
NurseJackie Feb 2016 #34
Fast Walker 52 Feb 2016 #41
TBF Feb 2016 #53
Bohemianwriter Feb 2016 #54
polly7 Feb 2016 #75
jwirr Feb 2016 #35
Moostache Feb 2016 #45
Geronimoe Feb 2016 #46
Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #56
mikehiggins Feb 2016 #62
SoapBox Feb 2016 #69
MisterP Feb 2016 #70
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #71
Utopian Leftist Feb 2016 #80
Babel_17 Feb 2016 #87
RBInMaine Feb 2016 #90

Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:23 AM

1. Oh please!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:26 AM

2. Like you read that long piece.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:29 AM

5. Yeah, she did it in the minute you had it up before she commented



The hypocrisy is amusing though....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:30 AM

6. No need.

 

When people bring up mass incarceration and forget who voted yes, I know not to bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:00 PM

27. Sorry to have waste your time....

Have a lovely day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:01 PM

28. You too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:21 PM

55. That Clinton crime bill also included an assault weapons ban and the Violence Against Women act.

So if he had voted against it, the Hillary supporters would be saying that Bernie voted against an assault weapons ban and against the Violence Against Women act. Heads I win, tails you lose...

Meanwhile, moving from the 90s to the current campaign, Bernie was ahead of Hillary in speaking against private prisons and refusing to take money from that industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to bravenak (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:58 PM

63. Yes, that Clinton bill was a mess.

But does anyone seriously doubt Sanders' positions on criminal justice?

Here is what he actually said in 1994 when debating the bill in question, from
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/8/1410122/-Senator-Sanders-remarks-on-1994-Crime-Bill

Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?

Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence. And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.


And in terms of the current campaign, the following is from https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

It is morally repugnant that we have privatized prisons all over America. Corporations should not be allowed to make a profit by building more jails and keeping more Americans behind bars. We have got to end the private for-profit prison racket in America. Earlier this year, Sen. Sanders introduced legislation that will end the private prison industry.

The measure of success for law enforcement should not be how many people get locked up. We need to invest in drug courts as well as medical and mental health interventions for people with substance abuse problems, so that people struggling with addiction do not end up in prison, they end up in treatment.

For people who have committed crimes that have landed them in jail, there needs to be a path back from prison. The federal system of parole needs to be reinstated. We need real education and real skills training for the incarcerated.

We must end the over-incarceration of nonviolent young Americans who do not pose a serious threat to our society. It is an international embarrassment that we have more people locked up in jail than any other country on earth – more than even the Communist totalitarian state of China. That has got to end.

We must address the lingering unjust stereotypes that lead to the labeling of black youths as “thugs” and “super predators.” We know the truth that, like every community in this country, the vast majority of people of color are trying to work hard, play by the rules and raise their children. It’s time to stop demonizing minority communities.


Really, unlike Hillary, he was saying the same thing then as he is now. The problem again is that, at a certain point, a congressman can't just pick and choose the pieces of legislation he likes, it's all or none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:07 PM

64. I doubt his interest in my issues.

 

They are not on the top of his agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:47 PM

44. How

Cogent.

Welcome back, GD: P needs more performance art.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:05 PM

50. Like that post?

 

I found it disgusting to call Someone that... I still say it should be deleted. Nothing to be proud of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:10 PM

51. Calling someone cogent is disgusting?

You confuse me.

I applaud you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:35 PM

85. Lol! "You confuse me. I applaud you"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:28 AM

3. True. The end product does matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:29 AM

4. BTW? Bernie was a YES vote on that omnibus crime bill.

 

That was the bill that cemented mass incarceration into law. The states folowed the Feds in a devastating fashion, causing a butterfly effect which leads us to where we are today. Hillary promoted the bill and has apologized for her role, as has Bill. They expressed much regret and discussed it with african americans who were upset about it. I wonder if there was any regret for being a yes vote on that bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:32 AM

7. HRC was a yes for cluster bombs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511140849

She's drenched in blood from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Honduras and beyond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:38 AM

10. Cluster bombs suck. So does mass incarceration.

 

It locks up millions of black men, some related to me. I think they should matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:42 AM

13. Hillary's top bundlers include mass incarceration/private prison corps

so she's not only drenched in blood, she's also in bed with those who are profiting from keeping those young men in prison.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/23/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton


Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future....

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit....

[F]ully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Akin Gump lobbyist and Clinton bundler Brian Popper disclosed that he previously helped CCA defeat efforts to compel private prisons to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.


Oh and she thinks young black boys need to be brought to heel...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:43 AM

14. Bernie had a vote. It was YES.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:45 AM

15. Cluster bombs shredding the kiddies - YES!

And in bed with the private prison industry...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:46 AM

17. Has nothing to do with his Yes Vote.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:48 AM

19. Your selective outrage of which brown and black people matter

appears to be very inconsistent.

You only sometimes care - just like Hillary. Just to score cheap points. Don't really care when it matters

You don't care that she's in bed with the private prison industry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:51 AM

21. I like to stay on my topics.

 

I care that he voted yes on that bill. It opened the system up to privatization. Interestingly enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:52 AM

23. Multi tasking is hard

Addressing the hypocrisy and blood drenching your candidate is tough

I can see why you'd avoid it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:54 AM

24. Addressing your candidates vote seems harder.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:57 AM

25. Oh you already know that story

cali and others have recited it many times

I'm sorry you aren't interested in "hearing" it. Inconvenient truths and all that

I notice you refusing to address Hillary's YES! vote for shredded brown and black children all over the planet and her embrace of mass incarceration corporations.

Yes indeed, noticed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:59 AM

26. I know that a certain Senator votes YES on funding those millitary supplies every time.

 

Anyone opposed to those bombs should certainly vote no on funding them? Stand on PRINCIPLE! No money, no MIC. One must stop paying for bullets in order to stop them being used, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:15 PM

29. Lame and weak. Once the war is on nobody will de-fund them

you really think anyone should send those men and women into battle un-supplied? You do know Sanders isn't a pacifist right?

But of course you know all of this - these are tired and stale talking points that have been de-bunked numerous times just like the crime bill bullshit you think you can trot out again.

(Or maybe you DO think your black brothers and sisters SHOULD go into battle UN-armed?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:17 PM

32. Pacifists do not exist in our govt legis bodies.

 

Some like the Senator are willing to use drones.

My point was not debunked. He voted YES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:28 PM

37. Hillary will use drones and more

she wants even more involvement in Syria and Libya. Her proposal for a no fly zone in Syria will bring us to the brink of WWIII with Russia alone.

She's drenched in blood from Iraq to Honduras. Her cluster bombs are shredding black and brown children around the world. Her cozy relationship with Big Prison is wrecking lives here.

I see you are also studiously avoiding this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511140849

Your tired, stale arguments have been thoroughly debunked over and over on these threads for months - everybody knows it. It's kinda sad you keep trotting them out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:30 PM

38. Ok.

 

Nice opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:17 PM

31. "Every bomb is a school we didn't build" Jesse Jackson


Who voted for bombs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:19 PM

33. The congress.

 

Who votes to fund that war? Congress. How do we pay for bombs? Money from congress.
And he voted YES on that crime bill. I want him to discuss his vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:27 PM

36. The wouldn't fund a war that didn't exist


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:31 PM

40. Indeed. GWB was terrible.

 

Unless votes matter? Like his vote for that onmibus crime bill?
She has apologized and discuss the IWR. Will he address his vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:38 PM

42. Hillary Clinton is not entitled to black votes


http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/hillary-clinton-is-not-entitled-to-black-votes.html

Snip: Black voters want what all voters want — access to education, health care and decent jobs. At the same time, the Black Lives Matter movement has revealed that certain issues, such as guaranteeing basic physical safety and reforming the criminal justice system, are higher priorities for black voters than for other groups.

Sanders is a gruff, didactic 74-year-old white man who has lived in Vermont, a state that is only 1 percent black, for over 45 years. He’s never going to win on style. But the more people become familiar with him and his policy positions, the more popular he has and will become. Witness Sanders’ recent passionate endorsement from rapper Killer Mike in front of a raucous multiracial crowd in Atlanta, which immediately went viral. On the issues that matter most to black voters, Sanders has a much stronger record than Clinton.

Sanders, who has publicly opposed the death penalty throughout his congressional tenure, said a month ago, “It is time for the United States of America to join almost every other Western industrialized country on Earth in saying no to the death penalty.”

By contrast, Hillary Clinton said of the death penalty, which is disproportionately applied to black people, “I do not favor abolishing it ... because I do think there are certain egregious cases that still deserve the consideration of the death penalty, but I’d like to see those be very limited and rare, as opposed to what we’ve seen in most states.” In other words, we know that thousands of black men who may or may not have committed any crime have been and will be executed, but we should try to do it less often.

OOPS!

I done wasting time with you. I ain't going to change your mind.

OS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:11 PM

52. Neither is Bernie.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:05 PM

77. So true. (eom)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:47 PM

72. She's wasting your time.

Doesn't matter at all what you come up with, this is just a game with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammythecat (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:09 PM

78. Interesting that you know my mind. I have no clue who you are.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

57. Should their AA victims matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

59. What does that mean?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:34 PM

60. It means I want poor and POC neighborhoods to be safe.

If prison reform can be done without making neighborhoods less safe then I am all for it. If it means just letting the bad guys out who will return to terrorize POC and poor neighborhoods then I am against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:35 PM

61. Ok.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:35 AM

8. And you know why. It is duplicitous to pretend you don't

 

Not at all surprising. Hilly said that black kids should be brought to heel. But of course you don't express finding that troubling.

Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:37 AM

9. He voted yes. On that bill. Clean hands and all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:39 AM

11. Waas a "Yes" vote on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, too ...

 

that was the bill that opened the wall street casino, and nearly brought down the global economy (and still is poised to). I wonder if there was any regret for being a "Yes" vote on that bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:41 AM

12. I seem to remember that.

 

I would think he would not vote yes on a bill that helped Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:48 AM

18. One would think, given his present position. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:52 AM

22. Indeed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:02 PM

49. Please see post #48 (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:31 PM

39. That was lumped into an omnibus spending bill at the last minute after last minute modifications.

Was he supposed to vote "against" all the good parts of the spending bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:47 PM

43. I guess it depends on whether he was more for the the spending bill than he was

 

opposed to the mass incarceration Crime Bill.

I have an honest question, though ... So if the Crime Bill was rolled into the Spending Bill, saying that Bill Clinton signed the Crime Bill isn't exactly true, then. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:58 PM

47. Well, that would hold if

He hadn't lobbied for it, or used it to campaign for re-election.

Otherwise, it seems to me, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:09 PM

67. What are you responding to? eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:08 PM

65. I was referring to the CfMA. I don't know enough about the crime bill to comment.

But it is worth mentioning that the president has the line item veto available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:13 PM

68. Really ... Not since 1998 ...

 

On February 12, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the 1996 Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional, and the Clinton administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 ruling issued on June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court, in the case of Clinton v. City of New York upheld the District Court's decision, overturning the 1996 Line Item Veto Act as a violation of the "Presentment Clause," (Article I, Section 7), of the U.S. Constitution.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/The-Line-item-Veto.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #68)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:03 PM

73. Ah, you're right! My mistake.

Still though, the fact that Clinton was an outspoken advocate for the CFMA means he is quite a bit more culpable than someone who was forced to vote for it as part of the budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:27 PM

74. I do not hold Bill Clinton blameless for, either, the CFMA nor the Crime Bill ...

 

he signed both.

However, I do not blame HRC for what her husband did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:38 PM

76. Understood. That's a fine position. I am unsure of how to approach the issue.

On the one hand, it seems a particularly vicious form of sexism to view HRC through her husband's actions. On the other hand, she has chosen the positive aspects of his presidency as a reason to support her in this bid.

It seems unfair to not bring up the negative aspects while one can campaign on the positive. But again, it's sexist to view her through his presidency at all.

So I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:14 PM

79. vid at link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:56 PM

89. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:08 PM

66. It was not the crime bill that was rolled into the omnibus spending bill, it was the CFMA.

As for Sanders' take on the crime bill, please see posts #55 and #63, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:59 PM

48. How Sanders came to support Bill Clinton's Commodity Futures Modernization Act

According to the (NOT particularly pro-Sanders) article at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_5617f634e4b0dbb8000e5a58

The version Sanders voted for passed the House 377 to 4 in October of 2000. It did not include the really bad provisions. Those were later added by Phil Gramm in coordination with the Clinton administration. The revised version was made part of a "must pass" bill (the kind of bill that must be passed to avoid shutting down the government).

the version Sanders initially voted for was more benign than the final, Gramm-authored version
...
In October 2000, the bill passed the House by a vote of 377 to 4 (51 members didn't vote), and then sat on the shelf for weeks.

But in December, Gramm -- after coordinating with top Clinton administration officials -- added much harder-edged deregulatory language to the bill, then attached the entire package to a must-pass 11,000-page bill funding the entire federal government. After Gramm's workshopping, the legislation included new language saying the federal government "shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, a covered swap agreement offered, entered into, or provided by a bank." That ended all government oversight of derivatives purchased or traded by banks. He also created the so-called "Enron Loophole," which barred federal oversight of energy trading on electronic platforms.

This was an era in which voting against funding the federal government was considered a major governance faux pas. The bill sailed through both chambers of Congress
...
Sanders has since hammered the CFMA, its architects and specific provisions in Senate hearings and on the Senate floor. He helped push through legislation to close the Enron loophole in 2008.


So ironically, Hillary is going after Bernie for a vote on something that Bill Clinton negotiated and, as President, signed into law. "Bernie, you have a lot of nerve calling me out for Wall Street ties after you helped wreck the economy by voting for my husband's bill!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:10 PM

82. Why should Sanders have voted against the Violence Against Women Act?

'Cause that is what you are advocating here, since VAWA was in the same bill.

Why should Sanders have voted against the Assault Weapons Ban? Why are you advocating more assault weapons on our streets, since the AWB was in the same bill.

Hillary promoted the bill and has apologized for her role, as has Bill

You know, it's really too bad Hillary Clinton never held a legislative position where she could have introduced legislation to turn that apology into something real.

Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:30 PM

83. Good. Then if he gets a pass, so do they, yay!

 

You get a pass, you get a pass, you get a pass!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:33 PM

84. The difference is Sanders opposed the tougher sentences.

He voted for the bill because of the other parts of the bill. And he said so at the time.

Both Clintons advocated for the tougher sentences at the time. They later claimed it was a mistake, but have made no effort towards fixing that mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #84)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:46 PM

86. So?

 

Voting yes is voting yes no matter what your mouth says. My mom used to tell me it hurt her worse than me when she beat me. Words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:50 PM

88. So now you're back to advocating Sanders vote against the Violence Against Women Act.

When you make a mistake that hurts someone, what do you do?

Do you only say you are sorry? Or do you try to fix anything you can fix? I'd like to think most people would do what they can to fix what they can.

Why don't the Clintons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:45 AM

16. EXACTLY! No one wants a candidate "who gets THINGS done." W and Cheney got THINGS done. Reagan got

 

THINGS done.

We want progressive goals accomplished, not "THINGS done."

When Bill Clinton gutted the safety net for the most vulnerable Americans on welfare, he got THINGS done.

When Bill Clinton set back the fight for an equal right to marriage by signing DOMA, he got THINGS done.

When Bill Clinton took away judicial discretion by requiring stiff sentences for minor drug possession, he got THINGS done.

When Bill Clinton crippled labor by passing NAFTA, he got THINGS done.

When Bill Clinton boosted his support with Southern whites by shaming Sista Souljah and Joycelyn Elders, he got THINGS done.

When Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street, he got THINGS done.



No one doubts that Hillary Clinton will get THINGS done; we just doubt that they will be progressive things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:07 PM

81. Excellent post.

You should make this an op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:49 AM

20. The uglier the Clintons get, the prouder I am to be a Bernie supporter.

 

Thanks for a great OP, cali!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:16 PM

30. Hillary is all about Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:22 PM

34. Absurd.

Whatever this is supposed to accomplish... it's not working. Bernie will not be the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:37 PM

41. how do you know?

 

that's kind of a creepy prediction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:12 PM

53. Really? Got those coins ready?

And good luck in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:19 PM

54. You have inside information?

 

http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.no/2013/04/the-day-69-children-died-by-drone-attack.html`

If these images disturbs you, why are you voting for someone who's been taking money from the same arms industry what has profited from these wars?





Kind regards

A veteran of Bosnia 1993

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bohemianwriter (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:31 PM

75. +1000. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:23 PM

35. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:53 PM

45. This quote is one of the defining problems in America:

“Bernie’s attractiveness as a candidate relies on the premise of purity — a political value as ancient as politics itself,” wrote The New Yorker’s Alexandra Schwartz, dismissing her youthful cohort for their naivete before knocking them for not even being very cool young people to begin with. “When his campaign tweets that it’s ‘high time we stopped bailing out Wall Street and started repairing Main Street,’ you have to wonder why his youngest supporters, so attuned to staleness in all things cultural, are letting him get away with political rhetoric that would have seemed old even in 2012.”


Bernie's attractiveness as a candidate is NOT something that is defined by a writer's opinion of what is or is not anachronistic. The problem with Hillary Clinton is not her gender, it is her associations and stated beliefs that do NOT align with the needs of the vast majority of Americans.

She is tainted by the associations that she and Bill willingly chased after his presidency. She is tainted by her voting record as a carpet-bagging Senator from New York. She is further tainted by the ugliness of her 2008 campaign and now what is becoming a carbon-copy nasty 2016 version.

The reasons to dislike her are legion and sadly they detract from the reasons to like her to produce a net negative candidacy.

Attacking Bernie Sanders supporters does not make Hillary any less of a general election liability. It only ensures that she is now still what she was in 2008 during the primaries - 100% willing to harm the party and sacrifice the middle class if it means she gets the big tiara in the end.

I support Bernie Sanders because of Hillary Clinton and her back-stabbing, sell the rest of us down the river cohort....NOT because of anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 12:57 PM

46. WHile Hillary was on the board of Directors of Walmart

 

she never stood up for women employees, making poverty wages with no benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:22 PM

56. As seen on DU. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:38 PM

62. Whoops! Don't forget all those black kids

like the twelve year old shot dead in the street. All of them are "predators" dontcha know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:19 PM

69. K & R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:21 PM

70. A WOMAN DOESN’T GET THE FUCKING OPTION *NOT* TO PLAY THE GAME

and yet women are only allowed to play the politics game precisely because of generations of women who refused to ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:29 PM

71. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:12 PM

80. The decision is very simple.

I don't choose to live in a country where the leftist party is so compromised that it can't honestly be called 'leftist' anymore. Bernie's success will depend on whether or not the American people are honest enough to recognize him as a true champion of their own declared liberalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:48 PM

87. Between the Middle East and peoples views of Wall Street, ...

now's the time to be selective with one's resume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:06 PM

90. Thanks for the delusional nonsense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread