The Intercept is not a right wing publication.

... enjoy it while you can.

He is a progressive journalist.

... and her true supporters are likely to cease the push-back against the loser of the Democratic primary.



You guys are something else.

my nurse.
I would worry they would put me under for a procedure and she would find out I am a die hard Bernie supporter.

Jurors - just having a little fun.

same thing about her.

and the presumptive nominee to reflect on past actions and policies and find a new approach.

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an adaptable and evolving individual who pays attention to public opinion.

One would hope for two outcomes:

1) The reflection on the recent past regards foreign interventions would evolve to where less aggressive and violent methods would be indicated in a general sense.

2) In the case of child soldiers, waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act would not be a tool used by Hillary Clinton as a Democratic POTUS.

Both these outcomes are on the agenda of anti-war liberals within the Democratic party.

If no one says anything, there is little reason for Hillary Clinton and other political leaders to stop waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act.

Child Soldier Protection Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Soldiers_Protection_Act

The Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 October 2008.[1][2] The law criminalizes leading a military force which recruits child soldiers. The law's definition of child soldiers includes "any person under 18 years of age who takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces."

The law was also intended to prevent arms trade by the United States with suspected countries, although the president may waive this rule in the national interest. President Barack Obama most recently waived the application of this rule on 28 September 2013 to Chad, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.[3]

-------------------------------------

Are you for continued waivers of the Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA)?

Where is a better place to voice this opinion than at DU?

How would you voice such an opinion?

Keep your eyes firmly closed and hope for the best?

But if the charges are true, or have any truth in them, do you suppose that the GOP will play by DU rules in the general election?

We already have our nominee, so that makes me question what your true motivation may be. I don't know, and it's difficult for me to know for sure what anyone is actually thinking. It just seems odd.

should the official DU response be to ignore the charges, or to respond to them?

Ignoring them might work in the sheltered confines of DU, but the GOP is not bound by the TOS that regulate DU discussions.

And if the charges are without foundation, HRC supporters should refute them.

You think you get away with posting attack article for 'discussion' . I don't think you will. It is clear what your motivation is...to attack the Democratic nominee which should not be allowed on a Democratic site.

If you wish to research what I have posted since becoming a member, you will see that I have never advocated voting for anyone but a Democrat for national office.

And your post also seems to totally miss the point I am making.

You make it pretty clear...posting attack articles will not be allowed.

or are you mind reading and responding to imagined attacks?

lurking here for their "Democratic Conspiracy Theories" ? Oh my, that's something. Guessing you didn't have a family full of Right Wingers. Trust me, they could care less what DU is or anyone's opinion herein.

Hint: It's called Underground for a reason. Only political hacks, at least used to be progressive, (myself included) read this or Freeper for the RWers, for that matter.

Freedom of discussion is not aiding and abetting the enemy. Really.

Plus anything raised here will be also raised by the GOP, but far more magnified, in the general election.

you were looking at the wrong article. The correct piece addresses child soldiers her State Department approved after a 2008 rule forbidding that. Read it before commenting.

right article to educate yourself on the Sudan rebel child soldiers that Hillary so desperately indicated her favor for by supplying arms. That's the mark of a real leader (sarcasm definitely intended).

She really cares about those children, doesn't she?!!

... After that ...

dealing with facts...

worse than reasoned debate. The higher they fly, the harder they fall. It's a law of physics and society.

It's just a move to sow doubt in the words of anyone who has questions and to create an echo chamber.

...the new rules make sense! Thanks Matt!

...and yet, we have people here doing the countdown to an echo chamber.

I can't even imagine what this site is going to be like on the 16ths. A "personal best" for alerts is my guess. Then 100 threads for every alert that doesn't result in a lock or tombstoning.

A getting rid of the right wing trolls and assholes who only bash and trash on a daily basis and provide no positive input at all. Not and echo chamber, but no longer a place where the majority of posters sound like fox news.

Sad. Denial is not a winning tactic.

has anything critical of Hillary is now a right wing site.

It's astounding cognitive dissonance, willful selective denial and a maddening dose of normalcy bias.

...they've all been burned at the stake on DU for not celebrating Clinton.

Its billionaire creator and funder is a hardcore free-market libertarian, and its editor, GG, came out of the libertarian blog world.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

A couple of them have outed themselves as homophobes, they despise "Gigi" as they like to call him.

a whistleblower like Greenwald?

We really have moved to the right, haven't we?

Perhaps their selective homophobia is conditioned by their political views.

The irony is rather palpable.

The joke seems to have gone over your head.

No more uncomfortable facts!

metaphorically "punched in the face".

Sweet.

The purpose of this site is to elect Democrats. It's in the Terms Of Service:





If somebody comes to this site and denigrates Democratic candidates for office in the hope of diminishing their fortunes at the ballot box it is fair to assume he or she is looking for a fight, albeit a verbal one, and should be treated accordingly... That is, well, axiomatic.

No reason to ever use that specific rhetoric. No excuse.

I am an independent mind and 99% of the political posts I have ever made on the internet are at DU under PP23 (DU2 on) or PP93 (old DU).

I have been a registered and voting Democratic voter since McGovern in 1972.

Some folks seem to think that talking policy internal to the party is going to be prohibited.

Nothing I have ever posted at DU is from a right wing source or my non-right wing mind; I see current Democratic leadership and the presumptive POTUS nominee Hillary Clinton as more right wing than my druthers for the future of the party and USA.

I will continue to suggest policy alternatives where I believe that the alternative is a better position than the status quo.

Note that I have made posts urging people to not leave the Democratic party and that I have no inclination to leave myself.

There is too much bullying at DU; hopefully the pending changes will diminish bullying.

The raison d'etre of this board is to elect Democrats to higher office:





There are myriad sites where one can trash the current presumptive Demotic nominee. In fact there are sites where it's encouraged. If one comes here to denigrate the current presumptive Democratic nominee for president and reduce her fortunes at the ballot box it is only logical to assume that person is looking for a fight, albeit a verbal one, and deserve no quarter.

I am in life for the long haul and see no reason to change.

As long as the USA is under a two-party system, I will remain a member of the Democratic party and within the system.

My worth and vote is at least equal to yours. You threatened more violence in one post at DU than I have in my entire life and I am a senior citizen. That dislike of violence (and bullying) forms the heart of my political philosophy.

Don't accuse me of being against electing Democrats or right wing as it is untrue.

To put it colloquially, if a person comes here to trash Hillary in the hope she loses the election that person is up to no good.

when I am POTUS would attract anti-war and moral votes in the general election and please antiwar liberal Democrats.

Is my post #55 "trashing "Hillary Clinton? If so, how?

I don't want the GOP or Trump to win the 2016 POTUS election. I have never voted for any pol but a Democrat in any final election and don't intend to change. I voted for John Anderson in the 1980 California GOP primary to weaken Reagan.

While I don't want Hillary Clinton to be POTUS, I also do not want Clinton to lose the election when there is no better option.

Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic party but rather a likely Democratic POTUS.

The Democratic party has pushed farther to the right than at any time in my life and it is not unreasonable to think that the party is at or near the point where the movement will tend back to the left.

and as such articles from there can be looked at through that lens.
For example, if something from "Correct the Record" is posted a bunch of people hop on the thread and shout... Hillary mouthpiece.
Even though everything in the article is true, it is still criticized by partisans.

The Intercept is anti-Hillary. In fact in many ways it is anti-USA.

---
As far as this article is concerned... it's bullshit. 1. It's total gossip and un-sourced. 2. LOL - this is the irony. The Victory fund that it is talking about gave $10,000 to Bernie Sanders for his Senate run. He gladly took it.

There's more to the USA than crony capitalism and corrupt politicians.

Seriously, there is.

Seriously

I saw links for it.

Will pom-poms be issued after the Loyalty Oath signings?

But I'm sure you know that.

Been spending too much time at the computer trying to save the world.

Need to get out and see it more often!

We actually own about about 2 acres of meadow and woods. I was joined by three deer last week watching me mow the meadow. I was entranced watching them watch me.

What you have sounds lovely. Wildlife encounters always feel like a narrow opening. I have birds and small critters nearby and deer, egret, occasionally coyotes, within what used to be walking distance, sometimes still is. On inside days, the changing light alone can do it.

but they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when the only support they have for their increasingly bizarre right wing claims consists of very questionable, melodramatic musings about events long ago written by a bitter burner.

I would have thought that people had learned some lessons after their misplaced reliance on the "blockbuster" WSJ story this week.

If people want to play for the other team, then they need to get out of our dugout.

The Ron Paul crowd loves them.

Sid

is as real as the complicity. Just another mind job.

.....but, I'm not the Easter Bunny, either.

I hope articles like this will be allowed here in the near future but I am thinking probably not.

We need to help elect our nominee and not attack her. June 16th can't come too quickly for me.

President Obama runs the foreign policy show...the SOS implements his policy. Also, why have you turned on fellow Democrats (Bernie worship?) when clearly, Bush destabilized the entire region when he invaded Afghanistan (which Bernie voted for) and Iraq. Why blame Democrats who are merely dealing with the fallout from a Republican administration? Time to stop attacking fellow Dems and help defeat the worst Republican nominee of my lifetime...Donald Trump. Bernie will not be the nominee thus we have a choice Clinton or Trump...Trump would pack the courts thus destroying all progressive achievement over the last 80 years. And with a GOP administration combined with Congress...if Trump wins more likely than not he gets Congress...we would lose health care, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Chip, Food stamps, LGBT right,abortion rights (after a right wing SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade),voting rights ET AL. Hillary had a 93% liberal voting record. Clearly, she is the best choice. So put on your big boy or girl panties and help save America.

I don't care who writes the crap that attacks our nominee. They should not be posted here.

but neither is Trump. I think you need to consider the fact that no candidate is perfect. And that includes Bernie. But it's a matter of degree to which we can trust the candidates will do as they say. Trump is deceitful and clueless. But Hillary's past decisions indicate what she will likely do in the future. And that does not please me. So I am not a big Clinton fan, of either Clintons.

On June 16, you will have your day. I am following the rules that apply today. Like it or not, either ignore me or read the informational links I post until then.

Have a nice election.

On the 16th, these sort of posts will not be allowed and shouldn't be. It is unbelievable to me that so many that consider themselves the 'real' progressives...want to help elect Trump...disgraceful if you ask me. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could believe that the disaster that is Trump is not a terrible danger to any progressive accomplishments...and our country.

My daughter is gay. How do you suppose she would fare under a government controlled completely by the GOP. Do any of you ever consider the people that would be hurt if Trump is elected? What about the millions he would deport...think it would not happen? He will pack the courts. It will happen. He is a dangerous man and a potential despot...we have never had a candidate as dangerous. It is terribly irresponsible to make posts like this that help him and hurt the Democratic nominee.

express my concerns with both presumptive nominees as you do. And once again you are wrong. I take these matters as seriously as you do. I am concerned about LBGT rights and minority rights. We just have different perspectives. I see both PNs as dangerous.

I am sick of those who post shite in order to soothe their sour grapes and supporting Trump in the process.

and they have such imaginative city planners:

[img][/img]

[font size = 1]http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/477-animal-vegetal-municipal-south-sudans-zoomorphic-cities[/font]

... will be considered right-wing. Now get in line and like it!

It is a libertarian publication...thus, it is right-wing.

passes as journalism. Eaten up with a huge spoon by many here at The DU.