2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders was the only White guy who showed up
Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 04:08 PM - Edit history (2)
"When the Congressional Black Caucus asked me to present my discovery of the illegal purge of Black voters in Florida, only one white guy showed: Bernie Sanders. Hillary: MIA. I'm tired of hearing that Sanders doesn't reach out to Black folk. He's been on the front lines since Selma. I don't endorse candidates but I also don't tolerate bullshit over facts." - Greg Palast
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)And its also paralyzed our health care, making it totally dysfunctional. they are hiding that, its a huge liability.
Its the real reason we're stuck doing the same failed things over and over in health care, even when we know from almost a dozen states and Obamacare that they cant work.
And they lie and lie and lie, anything to prevent any kind of intelligent conversation.
Also, they are using the same bad backroom deals to commoditize higher education, (which you can read about in the Indian press) so poor people around the world are excluded from higher education, just as increased automation is making advanced degrees more and more necessary.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....story about her when she was 17 (more than FIFTY years ago now) is getting tiring.
Despite this and the rash of attacks here on DU since Sanders lost last night, Hillary Clinton will still be our Democratic nominee and will be elected President.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)We may not always like the choices we're faced with. But you can't say there's no difference.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)She just hides it better. IMO.
pscot
(21,024 posts)but from a practical standpoint, it does make a difference who's president. There's always a choice.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)We've heard it before.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Trump wins or they would be listening to Dem voters. Have you asked them if they 'want Donald Trump'?
Voters will vote in their own interests. When a party loses elections, that is the fault of the PARTY. This old notion that the voters are at fault when the Party refuses to listen to them, see the last two Mid Terms eg, is not resonating with voters.
If Hillary does get the nomination and will all the backing she has from Wall St and the Third Way leadership of our party, but she won't win the GE. Bernie beats her in every poll in the GE.
So ask DWS if she wants Trump to win? Don't ask the voters they have stated what they want.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)That poster is referring to an interview of Clinton from around the time in question. During that interview, Clinton said she was proud to have been a Goldwater girl all those years ago.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)a Goldwater girl all those years ago. Like there's no remorse at all.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)not all have it.
You know something, jeff47? I admire you and am glad you're here.
Thanks and back at ya.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)candidate, the candidate that the Corp-Media loves and financially supports, the candidate that gets 10's of millions from billionaires and corporations. But I guess as long as she is tough, her supporters are happy. Sadly she has always been tough on the 99%.
Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)"I'm very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)not conservative in many respects---I'm very proud that I was a Goldwater Girl---and then
my political beliefs changed over time."
At the time of this interview in 1996, she is proud of her conservatism, proud to be a conservative and not a reactionary, and very proud to have been a Goldwater Girl.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....me emails (via DemocracyforAmerica) begging me for money almost daily since the day after the Sanders' campaign breach of Clinton's data back in December.
I wonder where he got my email address? I certainly didn't give it to him.
If we're excited about endorsements of ex-cabinet members, Clinton has 23, Sanders 1.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)how non progessive their policies were.
I will gladly send money to any real Progressive Democrat like Reich as will most Democrats, as he is one of the most respected Dems among the base.
As for who is supporting Hillary, I'm sure Rubin, Summers and Greenspan eg, will be enthusiastic supporters.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Long time ago, get over it. Statute of limitations is up. It cost her 2008, but can't be held against her today.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)There was plenty of reasons not to vote for it at the time.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)themselves. You want to be a Third Wayer, I have no problem with that. But when Third Wayers are too ashamed to admit who they are, and usurp Liberal and Progressive, I have a big problem with that.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)under the WTO, and its really scary, basically its an attack on everything Americans think of as progressive and liberal, its the exact opposite.
Jane Kelsey's "Serving Whose Interests" which you can find on Google Scholar, is a really good history of it. I strongly recommend reading it. It was written in 2008, so it carries you up to just before the Obama Administration. (Which is basically like Bush, but worse, in terms of trade ideology, they are really dishonest.) For one thing, they want to push wages for skilled jobs way down-not up, pitting the well educated but job desperate upwardly mobile young professionals-in less developed countries who are clamoring for less corruption, against the the struggling middle class in the rich countries to push down wages - by creating a level playing field- for corporations where foreign corporations cannot be discriminated against, Americans will be in competition for the same jobs, here, soon. Since they will be subcontractors and on special temporary visas, its not considered to be immigration, and they dont have to pay any specific wages or answer any questions as to whether they are taking jobs from anybody, its clear that they are and the treaty just basically, all of that gets thrown out the window.. All government procurement eventually goes international. To compete American companies will have to totally automate. Or subcontract all the actual work to these foreign staffing firms. Google "disciplines on domestic regulation"
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)H-1Bers are not more qualified. They're just modern indentured servants readily exploitable. They'll do anything to avoid getting shipped back home.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)SATIRE-SATIRE-SATIRE
There are no necessity tests, no economic means tests, no wage parity requirements, H1B visa program has all sorts of necessity tests and attempts to at least pay lip service to prevailing wages. So this is nothing like that.
Its not immigration, its subcontracting, i.e. temping.
The whole idea is increasing profits.. a lot. And spreading the wealth currently going to protected groups of workers more globally. Its been in the aings since 1994, and the negotiations have repeatedly collapsed over this issue. (although they try to keep that out of the media because they know what a "sensitive issue" it is with Americans. But they cant hide it forever, the negotiations for GATS are in limbo so starting in 2006, another set of services negotiations began, also based in Geneva, but it was not WTO. they were initially called "friends of services" now its called "Really Good Friends of Sercices" and at least 51 countries are involved. they will make the world safe for corporations.
Thats not the only one, at least three or four other similar deals are in the pipeline..One looks like it might suddenly become even bigger than TSA. that may have been the plan all along. Think of it like a war of diversions, feints, and midnight moves.. sudden votes..
Democracy is hard to frustrate, but it has to be done because otherwise, things like public health care and education will become the norm because of the vanishing jobs. Like these secret deals they cant hide that forever either, not even to the gullible Americans, well, maybe to Americans - but some of them travel!
Also, it appears the US and India, are cooperating to get this moving forward in a big way. You have to understand its like a little drama, its like acting, think of them as actors. Performing a skit for children so they have to exaggerate everything. Obama and Hillary are stars. Obama is likely the best in the world at what he does.
Why do this? Profts of course. Also, lots and lots of jobs are going away for good soon, so they want to make as much money while they can.
Its a way of adapting to the trend towards competitive international bidding on contracts. Say if am a firm and all governmet spending is now filtered through a e-tendering system, suddenly I must become very competitive on pricing. I have to win in a competitive international bidding system, all my competitors do it, otherwise they wont get the work. So I have to do it too. Or fire my executives and close. Instead of doing that theywil shift to subcontractors - they wont ever see the, it will be like a sausage factory. They will be insulated for claims on worker sfety, etc. Especially in energy. Thats a big part of it, because of the LNG export deregulation, its expected there will be a lot of work. It will be more like the Middle East than it is today.
Countries sign these deals to create a level playing field for all corporations, even ones from Africa, Asia, South America. The agreements end discrimination by country. Domestic regulations must become no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.
This is kind of old but its well written and by an author who is one of the best around on this kind of subject
its a good introduction to the concepts - its specific to the accounting profession but the accounting profession has been repeatedly held up by WTO as a model to emulate when developingthese so called "disciplines on domestic regulation" in other professions - key phrase there - "disciplines on domestic regulation".
http://www.johnflood.com/summerschool/Arnold_WTO_AOS_2005.PDF?origin=publication_detail
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)the Brady Bill?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I understand that some people can be a one issue voter when it comes to gun and I can respect that.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)That she was contrite on in terms of a war conflict people could take Clinton at her word but she pushed regime change in Libya and we see how well that worked. She's a hawk and that's not good for our country.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)All votes carry equal weight, so, based on her votes, she's the 3rd (or whatever) most liberal Senator in Congress. Unfortunately, Bernie is not challenging this idiotic argument.
All votes are NOT equal, and this is what Bernie should do, because Americans need to be reminded about the consequences of this 1 vote. Rather than merely mentioning that Hillary voted for the war, he could filibuster for 5 minutes:
First, Hillary was told by Bush 41 that it would be idiotic to remove Saddam because he's the only thing holding the ME together.
Second, she naively trusted BushCo.
Third, X thousand Americans have been killed
Fourth, X hundred thousand Americans have been maimed physically and psychologically, lives and homes destroyed
Fifth, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed and displaced
Sixth, just as Bush 41 cautioned, removing Saddam destabilized the ME
Seventh, we've now spent $X trillion on the war
Eighth, we're now in a perpetual war
Ninth, trillions and trillions of dollars will continue to flow to the ME as a result, money we should be spending here
Tenth, it created ISIS
No, I do not accept that this was "just 1 vote." When you unravel it as I have done, you can understand it as a series of neocon votes. No one who made this vote should be rated as "liberal."
This is why I insist Bernie is giving Hillary a pass. He can destroy her on both of her idiotic wars and the (news to me) dog whistle language and policies from the past.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)But I'd think Bernies understated delivery would make it more digestible.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)erlewyne
(1,115 posts)It looks like the donkey is going to slide down the rainbow.
Maybe that is what I'll paint for my yard sign!!!
GO BERNIE SANDERS !!!
SUPER !!!!
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I just want to add that to the mix. His record is great but I am not
sure enough voters even know much about him. So I would not
presume he is being rejected because of his record.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)We have to keep working hard, we'll see how far we can get.
I just don't want people to think everyone knows him and
decided to reject him..they don't all know him.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)contrast...they ask, can he win ? It will be hard after yesterday, so lots
depends on Super Tuesday in order to say..yes, he is highly competitive.
He is in need of a boost, a healthy one, then they'll listen even closer.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)at her heels. I remain hopeful.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm still hopeful. Just pointing out that some minds are closed.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is true to an extent. To what extent, I don't know.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Hillary used demonizing language to describe young blacks to pass a law that filled the jails while the Clinton's directly benefited from the prison lobby. But Bernie is the one with the absent record. I never thought I'd see the day.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)vile movie..well...ack.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)from being heard! Not until very recently when he actually is giving Hillary a run for her money has he gotten ANY real coverage.
I made this comment at another thread. You really NEED to read Matt Taibbi's article in The Rolling Stone. It explains all of it very well even thought the focus is on Donald Trump! His article explains it better than anyone I've read so far in this election. If you're willing to even read it you might UNDERSTAND so much more. So it's up to you. It's very interesting and I bet it will SURPRISE you.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Whether we like it or not, we live in a society where name recognition overrides just about any other facets of consideration. And what red-blooded American doesn't wanna sign on to the "winner"?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)It didn't in '08 but it does this time.
Ahhhhhhh .....*identity politics*.
So much easier than thinking.
FEELS good too!!!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)And only a small part of it.
Unpleasant. Let me stay here in fantasyland.
It's M U C H easier.
And more *pleasant*.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Thats hard to understand in a vulture capital society .
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)JI7
(89,249 posts)along with the CBC
There was another African American event at the same time which she attended.
senz
(11,945 posts)because it doesn't have a sarcasm smiley.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Her supporters are as deluded and repulsive as the republicans.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Regardless of which party they attend
senz
(11,945 posts)They have almost destroyed the critical thinking capacities of many if not most Americans.
It seems to have been done primarily through TV. Those who rely more on internet-based media and print appear to have largely escaped it.
TV is convenient and passive; it's easier for stressed, distracted, tired individuals. It's pure consumption.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)(from the video)
Voter Caging (election fraud) - Racial voter restriction tricks, wiping out black voters. A hit was ordered by Jeb Bush in Florida.
In 2004, with this new game called caging, the chance that your ballot was thrown in the trash (called spoilage) was 900% more probable if you were black.
Interstate Cross-Check (fake felon purge) - Will knock out 1,000,000 voters. Hillary knows that she needs those votes that would normally be thrown in the trash can.
Charlie Crist (FL Repub Govenor) said one of the reasons he was pushed out of the republican party is because he refused to hunt down and remove black voters.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If Palast doesn't 'endorse bullshit' maybe he should stop slinging it!
jhart3333
(332 posts)You could interpret that as saying he was at Selma if you want. I see it as a reference in time when the civil rights movement was getting a full head of steam. So no. Your attempt at smearing Palast has failed. Nice try though.
MADem
(135,425 posts)PRESENCE. A deliberate association. A deliberate--and, as it turns out--FALSE--association.
It seems to me that someone saw a fake picture with a circle on it, and shot off his mouth without realizing he was "catapulting the propaganda" to quote a Goat-book-reading fool.
It ain't a "smear" if it's accurate. And, fwiw, that "smear" word loses its impact when you try to suggest that a guy making a fake-false-phony association is being smeared for being called out on it. It's not a "nice try"--it's right on point.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Are you saying that those don't count because he's only been on the "front lines since Selma?"
Clearly, Selma was not a reference in time. The civil rights movement already had a full head of steam before then.
Maybe Palest should just stop mischaracterizing the movement and Bernie's role in it.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I agree with the push back on the use of the term "front lines " that work is being done by the likes of BLM and other grassroots movements.
I just didn't agree as to who you made it seem like Greg made it seem like Bernie was at Selma and I don't think that's the case. IMHO he meant Bernie was down since Selma.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Palast is a writer. He understands the concept of deliberate ambiguity and he used it here--thing is, it's blowing back on him. He used "Selma" as in "Sanders was there and has been working SINCE he was there." That IS the impression this writer, this builder of images with words, was crafting.
There was no need to bring up "Selma" at all -- it's not like Selma-to-Montgomery was the only event in the Civil Rights movement, hit movies notwithstanding. If he'd said "...since the March on Washington" he would have been somewhat more en pointe, since Sanders did attend that speech.
But more to the point, to criticize Clinton for not attending an event that took place on the HOUSE side, when she was one of the SENATE co-sponsors of this entire leadership event that brought 150 leaders to the Hill and had other events to attend herself, is just, well, bullshit (to use HIS word). What he did with his words was--to use a popular word used on this board lately--SMEAR one of the people whose very sponsorship of the event brought those people--including Palast--together.
What he said was SLEAZY and it diminishes him, no one else. I should like to point out that SANDERS was NOT a co-sponsor of this event, he just showed up at a few of the conferences and warmed a chair. Nice that he showed up, but he wasn't involved in putting this thing together--Clinton was. And--more to the point--who are the members of the CBC backing, in overwhelming numbers? People get what they give. Clinton has GIVEN and so she does get. What goes around comes around, and her friends are coming round and lifting her up for a reason.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Try to be civil with each other. We have bigger issue to deal with.
Thanks!
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Bernie Showed UP and worked on it. Hillary......MIA
MADem
(135,425 posts)You DO realize (cough) -- maybe you don't -- that she CO-SPONSORED that event? And that she wasn't there to hear "Greg Palast" (a white guy) because she had another engagement?
He certainly thinks he's special, that he could criticize his hostess--one of the people who crafted the event where he spoke--because she didn't sit quietly with hands folded listening to him instead of doing what she needed to do. SHE, as a co-sponsor, gave him that platform, both in the venue and on CSPAN.
This is just a huge Fail Of "LackaKnowledge" proportions. You should research before you post things that have demonstrative holes in them. This one's a beaut--and it's recycled, too.
Ya wanna know where HRC was while Palast was speaking (and being filmed in case anyone wanted to see him, courtesy of CSPAN)? She was addressing a BLACK LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE.
Here, pictures: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/senator-hillary-clinton-speaks-during-an-event-on-capitol-news-photo/51072097
This is a low blow, and one that has blown through here before, been debunked, and sent on its way. Shame on you.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If Hillary wasn't there, she was dissing black people.
The same thing came up a couple of weeks ago when Bernie attended a forum on African-American issues in Minnesota and people blasted Hillary for not being there, even though she was in South Carolina at an African-American event. Only people who have a very limited view of black people and communities would make such stupid criticisms.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And all this kerfluffle is very telling...if ya know what I mean...
Response to MADem (Reply #28)
Ferd Berfel This message was self-deleted by its author.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)What works in Vermont should stay in Vermont.
MADem
(135,425 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Or more likely in a COUPLE of hours.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Palast said Bernie has been in it SINCE Selma. TO a wordsmith like Palast there is a difference. TO someone playing games it dosen't
Selma was 1965. Bernie has been in it since 1963 at least
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Or ...
MADem
(135,425 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You know it's a brave new world when you have to rely on politicians for the truth.
senz
(11,945 posts)It's on the tape a little past 1:30.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)As far as I can tell, the last time Bernie was on the "front lines" was during the 2 years he was a student at the University of Chicago. That was over 50 years ago. Then he seemed to walk away from the civil rights movement and moved to Vermont. Vermont is not where someone goes to be on the "front lines" of the civil rights movement. But it is a great place to buy a cheap house, which is what he did.
MADem
(135,425 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)So looking at all the civil rights legislation during Bernie's time in the Senate. Which piece didnt he support?
MADem
(135,425 posts)"stolen valor." Thing is, BERNIE SANDERS is the first person to say he was never there--so why are his supporters trying to make him look bad by attempting, falsely, to place him there?
People got their heads knocked at Selma. Blood was shed. People were beaten to within an inch of their lives, and jailed. People died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches
The second march took place March 9. Troopers, police, and marchers confronted each other at the county end of the bridge, but when the troopers stepped aside to let them pass, King led the marchers back to the church.[9] He was obeying a federal injunction while seeking protection from federal court for the march. That night, a white group beat and murdered civil rights activist James Reeb, a Unitarian Universalist minister from Boston, who had come to Selma to march with the second group.[10] Many other clergy and sympathizers from across the country also gathered for the second march.
The violence of the "Bloody Sunday" and of Reeb's death led to a national outcry and some acts of civil disobedience, targeting both the Alabama state and federal governments. The protesters demanded protection for the Selma marchers and a new federal voting rights law to enable African Americans to register and vote without harassment. President Lyndon Johnson, whose administration had been working on a voting rights law, held a historic, nationally televised joint session of Congress on March 15 to ask for the bill's introduction and passage.
With Governor Wallace refusing to protect the marchers, President Johnson committed to do so. The third march started March 21. Protected by 2,000 soldiers of the U.S. Army, 1,900 members of the Alabama National Guard under Federal command, and many FBI agents and Federal Marshals, the marchers averaged 10 miles (16 km) a day along U.S. Route 80, known in Alabama as the "Jefferson Davis Highway". The marchers arrived in Montgomery on March 24 and at the Alabama State Capitol on March 25.[11] With thousands having joined the campaign, 25,000 people entered the capital city that day in support of voting rights.
The route is memorialized as the "Selma To Montgomery Voting Rights Trail," and is designated as a U.S. National Historic Trail.
These people were "at" Selma:
?w=630
http://blackamericaweb.com/2015/03/06/little-known-black-history-fact-bloody-sunday/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/selma-50-years-john-lewis-bridge-anniversary/
DU got dragged through the mud at SNOPES once already--you would think that posters would care a bit for the reputation of the site and not repeat falsehoods over and over again.
http://www.snopes.com/sanders-mlk-selma-march/
Hey--you wanna talk about "Bernie's legislation?" Start a thread about it. Don't come to me and try to tell me that the truth is "disrespectful." Shame on you.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I asked you a question and you bring up his supporters?
You didn't even touch my point but instead bring up sometime totally different.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And it wasn't opponents who cheerled the thesis, even though it's completely erroneous.
The 'point' starts at the top--at post zero. And it's all down hill from there.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)"Support" is nice, but that's not the same as being on the "front lines." What did he do for black people since he's been in the Senate that qualifies as "being on the front lines?"
This constant effort to blow up Bernie's college foray in the civil rights movement 50 years ago (before he chucked it and moved to Vermont, where the civil rights movement was just muffled background noise from places far away in time and space) into a reputation as some kind of major freedom fight for black people is not only disingenuous, it is also an insult to all of those people, white and black, who really DID fight on the front lines. And it's surely one of the reasons that Bernie got his ass handed to him in South Carolina - black voters saw right through that and responded accordingly.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)""Support" is nice, but that's not the same as being on the "front lines." What did he do for black people since he's been in the Senate that qualifies as "being on the front lines?""
First I'd like to know what your definition of "front lines" in relation to work in the Senate. Are there any non blacks that fit your description?
" before he chucked it and moved to Vermont, where the civil rbefore he chucked it and moved to Vermont, where the civil rights movement was just muffled background noise from places far away in time and space)"
You really should read the book Civil Rights in the Whitest State: Vermont's Perceptions of Civil Rights, 1945-1968
As I think you might be surprised.
senz
(11,945 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I'd be embarrassed to present that as evidence of fighting for anything. That's a nice but expected record for a progressive Senator. It is NOT the record of a fighter on the front lines of civil rights.
The continued insistence of some of Bernie's white supporters to tell black people that he is something he's not is probably one of the reasons that he losing the black vote by the margins he is. We see right through the bs and we know better.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)And for the record. Those aren't Bernie words but Greg's
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But you used that comment by Greg to bash Bernie's record.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)We are talking about matters of option not math.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)"Then he seemed to walk away from the civil rights movement and moved to Vermont. Vermont is not where someone goes to be on the "front lines" of the civil rights movement. But it is a great place to buy a cheap house, which is what he did."
And that's where in my eyes you went south. He did not walk away and his voting record proves that.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)but why NOT? people might say mean things to you online if you unapologetically don't!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, Ferd Berfel.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)How can one compare what the spouse of a President with 2 more months in office to a sitting congressman?
If she had done anything specific she would have been accused then (and now, in fact) of meddling in an election.
WHAT do you and Mr. Palast think she could have accomplished by "showing up"?
Duval
(4,280 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Right? Because AA's support her and supported her husband and her fng party. In fact, where in the hell was the rest of the Democratic party? I am going to post this on Facebook to counter all the BS posts about what Bernie has done since the sixties.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Leadership Conference ON THE HILL while Palast was giving his little talk. It was a series of events, and she was ONE OF THE HOSTESSES--she co-sponsored the event. She helped put it all together.
Talk about CRAPPING on the person who made the event where you spoke possible! What crust!!!
This is just the stupidest recycling of nonsense I've ever seen.
And then there's this (note DU mention):
http://www.snopes.com/sanders-mlk-selma-march/
senz
(11,945 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Before our media began turning right (1980's) we had good investigative reporting(like 60 minutes and their expose's). Can you imagine anyone in our MSM being allowed to say these truths? Of course not. Thank you Ferd Berfel. This should be an eye opener for many.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Don't just "cover up" for Hillary. Prove your allegation.
The Democratic Caucus of Congress has also asked Palast to appear Thursday morning before the hearings to explain the latest from his investigations of vote fixes and the Bush-bin Laden family connection. Palast will also be a panelist on a joint Minority Outreach Forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Senator Hillary Clinton. "I'm happy to speak to Republicans, too," said journalist Palast, "but I haven't received a request to drop by Dick Cheney's bunker."
senz
(11,945 posts)I actually appreciate your doing this research; it puts you a bit ahead of other Hill supporters.
However, the big showy event that Hillary graced with her presence was on July 14th.
The meeting that Palast attended was on July 15th.
Two different days.
Furthermore, we do not, at present, have a date for the CBC meeting on the purge of Black voters in Florida in which Bernie was the only white person present.
I'm not saying, and would not say, that Hillary needs an excuse for not being attendance at that meeting. What I am saying that the "excuse" put forward in this thread -- Hill's attendance at a July 14 event -- does not work because the two events were not on the same day.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)She was at the Second Annual African American Leadership Summit
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hoyer-featured-speaker-on-voting-rights-at-african-american-summit-71294192.html
senz
(11,945 posts)in which Bernie was the only white person in attendance.
However, I sincerely doubt that Hillary would attend that meeting because it was not a big fancy public event but rather a small working meeting for people who seriously care about these things, people who are not concerned with personal credit, resume, being seen in the "right" places with the "right" people.
But if we want to resolve this, we need the date of the CBC meeting that Bernie attended.
Palast to testify at US Civil Rights Commission Thursday July 15th
The Democratic Caucus of Congress has also asked Palast to appear Thursday morning before the hearings to explain the latest from his investigations of vote fixes and the Bush-bin Laden family connection. Palast will also be a panelist on a joint Minority Outreach Forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Senator Hillary Clinton. "I'm happy to speak to Republicans, too," said journalist Palast, "but I haven't received a request to drop by Dick Cheney's bunker."
senz
(11,945 posts)If Hillary couldn't be in two places at the same time, then neither could they.
Why do you want to make it look like she would have attended it? Palast said she was never at CBC meetings.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Palest says she was MIA. Which she was because she was attending the Second Annual African American Leadership Summit the same day.
JI7
(89,249 posts)Along with the cbc
senz
(11,945 posts)Read upthread.
senz
(11,945 posts)CBC members could not be in two meetings at the same time.
Hillary attended a "show" event, a big public presentation of the kind that looks good on a resume.
She may have had a reason not to be a second white person at the CBC emergency meeting that Bernie attended, BUT THIS WASN'T IT.
Once again, Hill supporters are presenting falsehoods in support of their candidate.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)What do you not understand?
MADem
(135,425 posts)members of both Houses. Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle were the Senate "hosts" for the event.
As part and parcel of the MANY events that were happening during the day, ON THE HILL, to include Palast's talk (it wasn't an "emergency meeting" -- where did you even get that nonsense? It was recorded by CSPAN, you can look it up in their archives) , Clinton was scheduled and did speak at a BLACK LEADERSHIP SUMMIT that was attended by some of the guests as well as the members of Congress.
I guess you've never gone to a conference where more than one thing was going on at a time, and you occasionally had to CHOOSE which event you'd attend?
When you're the featured speaker - as HRC was - it's not an option.
The one "presenting falsehoods" is not the person you are criticizing. Cough.
senz
(11,945 posts)at the meeting -- described by Palast on the video as an emergency meeting -- attended only by AAs and Bernie. Three different meetings/events: the big fancy event w/Hillary's presence, Palast's speech, and a small working meeting w/AAs and Bernie.
Two were on the same day. We don't know about the third.
Watch the video, MADem, it's not that long.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie has fought for the civil rights of oppressed minorities HIS ENTIRE LIFE.
This OP could have been presented much more effectively, but the information within it is factual and documented.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511324268
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Since the mid-1960s, Sanders has done little besides saying the right thing and voting for other people's legislation to support POC. No one can point to much that he's done in the last 50 years to fight for civil rights for blacks.
Bernie's supporters keep repeating this "Bernie's been fighting for civil rights" myth ad nauseum, with no evidence to back it up, and when black DUers have asked for details about what he's done, they're alerted and hidden. I guess it's easier to shut down the question than to answer it.
and yes, we've seen that "list" which is mostly statements and votes, but nothing that comes even close to fighting for anything.
It's interesting that we're constantly being told about how fiercely Bernie has supposedly fought for blacks but when the people who would know best whether he actually had - you know, black people - say that he hasn't, we're told that we're uniformed or in the tank for Hillary. If Bernie had been such a crusader for black people, trust me, we would now it and wouldn't need to be lectured about it by a bunch of people who probably can count on one hand the number of black people they know well.
senz
(11,945 posts)and Bernie has never sought celebrity for himself. So he never made himself an obvious Black hero. But his heart and soul have been with oppressed minorities his entire life. He's done most of his work in the halls of congress pushing for and arguing for bills that advance civil rights and vociferously fighting against oppressive legislation. It has been the focus of his life. Numerous videos of his impassioned speeches to his fellow legislators have been posted here on DU. I could collect them for you if you want, but don't have time right now. Let me know and I'll do it later. He also traveled to Latin America to organize workers against NAFTA.
I outlined his life's work here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511324268
When you consider that he has lived most of his adult life in Vermont where civil rights are not the immediate concern of his rural constituents, it is amazing how much of his career has been spent fighting for civil rights.
No other candidate can match him on this.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Bernie Sanders has usually voted right, and that's great, but that's his job. And that's not fighting. If he wants to claim the mantle of being a fighter, he should have done more than vote other people's legislation up or down. He has not developed a record or a reputation for being a fighter for African Americans. African Americans aren't stupid. We know who is fighting for us and know this without having to have this "explained" to us by a bunch of white folks whom we don't know and who have never shown any interest in us or in our communities until they tried to bully us into vote for the guy THEY want to be elected.
The fact that African Americans rejected Sanders in such overwhelming numbers last night should tell you something. Among other things, it should tell you that black folks aren't buying the "Bernie's been fighting for civil rights his entire life" and since we're in a much better position to know than you are, you might want to listen to us and stop repeating that meme. It's not working for your guy.
senz
(11,945 posts)Because, compared to Bernie, she has done squat. You accuse him for not being at the forefront of all the Civil Rights protests, but you KNOW she has never been to ANY. So don't you be talking against him for it.
He marched, he got arrested, and he railed against congress repeatedly throughout his career in support of Civil Rights for ALL people.
Her anti-PoC behaviors are out there for all to see: her support of Welfare Reform, her support of the 1994 Crime Bill ("super predators" , her racist attacks on Barack Obama in 2008 ("hardworking white people", suggestions of Obama's Muslim status, using photos in Obama in African dress in her campaign), her highhanded dismissiveness of BLM protesters on more than one occasion. This is cold-hearted, arrogant behavior, and you know it.
No one who seriously cares about People of Color could support Hillary over Bernie. No way.
Their records are out there for all to see.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seems disenfranchised voters in Florida helped steal a presidential election. Oh well, must not be important. Hey squee! A fundraiser!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)An unfortunate consequence of heroism in unsung causes is being unsung.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)He doesn't care if there are cameras on him. I guess that makes him a lousy politician on the national stage since that consists primarily of people who only do something notable when a camera is on them. Take Hillary's first trip to Flint. I said I'd believe it was sincere if it didn't result in a commercial. Last week the commercial appears with Morgan Freeman touting the trip to Flint. It's all so bloody phony.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)and Recommended
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)know about Bernie's political activist history, hell, he cut his teeth on civil rights struggles, getting arrested for his viewpoints and positions in his first year of college, over half a century of fighting for peace and justice for the people.